Is there a method?

[leopold]

the scientific method has been around for a long time.
it isn't a method of proof, it's one of discovery, a way of gaining knowledge.
there are various ways we can gain knowledge but that in no way says there is more than one 'scientific method" or it is obsolete.
read some of the links below:
http://www.google.com/search?q=epis...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

[dumbest man on earth]

These are precisely the blinkers I was talking about.

Trippy, I have read and reread the Posts, and nowhere in the OP is there anything that should merit Posting :

It desirably weeds out those that for whatever reasons, see the need to introduce pseudo quackery and other rubbish to muddy the waters of science and every day life.

How about considering and addressing post 3 of this thread, made by Paddoboy, which you have so far seemingly ignored.

Trippy, when paddoboy posted his Post #2 (20 minutes after the OP) and Post #3 (2 minutes after that - and fully 22 minutes after the OP), I posted in my Post #4 :

I only ask that the linked pages be read and considered fully.

My thanks to all that took the time, or take the time to read the linked pages in my Original Post.

After Posting my Post #4, I did fully read paddoboy's Post #3, and the Linked page. I saw no reason, at that time to respond to it because most of it was covered in the Links that I Posted in the OP.

When paddoboy posted his Post #5 :

I would also say that the Scientific method could be said to be the basis of the logical refinement of everyday thinking, planning and working in general.

I then Posted #6 :

Again, my thanks to all that took the time, or take the time to read the linked pages in my Original Post.

As far as the quoted below:

I would also say that the Scientific method could be said to be the basis of the logical refinement of everyday thinking, planning and working in general.

In what way is the ^^above quoted^^ relevant to the OP?

So yes, Trippy, I read and fully considered what paddoboy Posted in his Post #3. After giving it it's due consideration, I asked paddoboy to explain it's relevance to the OP.

You should note though, Trippy, that paddoboy has recently stated in his Post #54 :

And to dmoe, No, I did not read the whole link, nor all your links, but the page I did read, in my opinion, supports fully my view of the scientific method.

So, Trippy, I did read and (concluding as padddoboy has since stated : "supports fully" his "view of the scientific method", I addressed it in my Post #6, by asking : "In what way is the ^^above quoted^^ relevant to the OP?[/QUOTE]

When you ask that I Read, Consider and Address any Posts - I assure you that I do just that, Prior to Posting any response to said Posts.

It would seem however that you would prefer to defend someone who, by his own stated and Posted admission, does not do any of that, Prior to Posting his Posts.

 

[paddoboy]

the scientific method has been around for a long time.
it isn't a method of proof, it's one of discovery, a way of gaining knowledge.
there are various ways we can gain knowledge but that in no way says there is more than one 'scientific method" or it is obsolete.
read some of the links below:
http://www.google.com/search?q=epis...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Spot on, and may I say, it will never go obsolete. If it did, we would be in real trouble and would need to bend over and kiss our arse goodbye!

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Paddoboy, Dumbest man on earth.

I don't give two shits about your personal histories with each other. That's not the reconciliation I was referring to. I was referring to the views expressed by the first three posts in this thread.

DMOE: In this thread you ignored the first three posts by Paddoboy that were relevant and on topic, thrn chose to emgage him for what you interpreted as a personal slight amd got nasy over it. In my book that is dangerously close to trolling. I would rather see you ignore personal insults and engage in on topic discussion.

Paddoboy: while I accept that occasionaly tempers fray, comversations get heated, and occasionly there is the need for a degree of thick skin, there's no need to get personal.

Trippy, evidently there were some servers down somewhere and I was not able access SciForums for a span of time earlier today.
At any rate, as I explained in an earlier Posting, I did not ignore any Posts. I am not sure what "got nasy over it" means, nor how it would be "dangerously close to trolling".

Trippy , I have no idea how, by simply Posting the OP, and then paddoboy Posting in his Post #2:

It desirably weeds out those that for whatever reasons, see the need to introduce pseudo quackery and other rubbish to muddy the waters of science and every day life.

I took the "high road" at that time and ignored his slight. after his first few Posts, wherein he was repeating himself (more or less), I then simply asked him, in my Post #6 :

In what way is the ^^above quoted^^ relevant to the OP?

.

I did try to ignore the "personal insults", and I do try to "engage in on topic discussion".

Heck, Trippy, I asked you about starting this Thread - Prior to Posting the OP.

Look , Posting on this Forum is not a big part of my life, when I am not in the hospital, I rarely even read Sciforums, let alone Post.

If any "tempers fray" or any "conversations get heated", it is not my temper that is getting frayed, nor am I the one to instigate or heat up the conversation with blatant name-calling and poor Netiquette.

If my conduct on this Forum actually warrants Moderator Action, is not for me to decide, and as you have shown previously, there is nothing that I can do about said Moderator Action - whether warranted or not.

I will take your recommendations under full consideration.

Thank you, and sorry to take up your time.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

from the first link:
"CORRECTION: "The Scientific Method" is often taught in science courses as a simple way to understand the basics of scientific testing. In fact, the Scientific Method represents how scientists usually write up the results of their studies (and how a few investigations are actually done), but it is a grossly oversimplified representation of how scientists generally build knowledge."
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b3

you will notice that the above passage in no way says there are more that one scientific method.
as a matter of fact it only mentions "scientific method" and that in regards to the overall simplicity of it.

where in the above links does it say what these "alternate scientific methods" are?

From the first Link : http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php

MISCONCEPTION: There is a single Scientific Method that all scientists follow.

CORRECTION: "The Scientific Method" is often taught in science courses as a simple way to understand the basics...

If you read the page(s) at that Link, there is a Link to the "interactive flowchart" : http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02

It seems to be explained quite well on those pages the various methods involved in the various sciences.

BTW, who said that the application and use of Scientific Methods was or should be obsolete?

 

[paddoboy]

A couple of quotes illustrating beautifully the scientific method in progress.....

“Scientists are human—they're as biased as any other group. But they do have one great advantage in that science is a self-correcting process.”
― Cyril Ponnamperuma

“Nevertheless, scientific method is not the same as the scientific spirit. The scientific spirit does not rest content with applying that which is already known, but is a restless spirit, ever pressing forward towards the regions of the unknown, and endeavouring to lay under contribution for the special purpose in hand the knowledge acquired in all portions of the wide field of exact science. Lastly, it acts as a check, as well as a stimulus, sifting the value of the evidence, and rejecting that which is worthless, and restraining too eager flights of the imagination and too hasty conclusions.”
― Archibald E. Garrod

 

[Trippy]

I may address things further when I get home from work and can post from my desktop rather than my phone. I'm not really inviting debate, however, I want to take the time to address something.

this:

I took the "high road" at that time and ignored his slight. after his first few Posts, wherein he was repeating himself (more or less), I then simply asked him, in my Post #6 :

Is what I mean about taking your blinkers off.

From whence the assumption he was referring to you as a pseudoscientific crackpot?

Homeopathy is pseudoquackery.
Antivax is pseudoquackery.
the beauty industry relies on pseudoquackery for advertising.
The scientific method allows us to weed out those who would use pseudoquackery to muddy the waters and convince us that the claims of homeopaths, antivaxers, and L'oreal have some kind of basis in reality regardless of whether they're doing it deliberately or not.

it's also perhaps the biggest problem in climate sciemce discussions, is people making claims that seem superficially to be based in science but are im reality based in mud.

 

[paddoboy]

Most will agree that The greatest advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced, and in being so, it sorts out the truth from lies and delusion.

 

[leopold]

It seems to be explained quite well on those pages the various methods involved in the various sciences.

yes they do.
purification by distillation is also a method.
so is getting a waveform from an oscilloscope.
getting the letter "A" from a CPU also requires a method.
adjusting the front wheels on your car also needs a method.
getting an artifact out of rock needs a method.
ALL of the above are methods used in the various sciences.
frankly i don't see your point.
you say there is more than one "scientific method" but you haven't stated precisely what it is.
on the other hand more than one poster has given you what the "scientific method" is AND have stated what it is.

no one said the method was obsolete.
i'm with paddoboy on this one, it will never go obsolete simply because it's an outgrowth of the way we as humans think.
as long as humanity is inquisitive the method will be in vogue.

 

[Ruiy]

Assuming everything mentioned until now in relation to the method of science: his logic, his prescribed rules, his checks and verifications, the empirical fact, preliminary hypothesis and his consequent theories, the formulation of a law, there is a fact that, I think, has not been mentioned yet and is there omnipresent throughout all phases that make up this method and goes hand in hand with the discovery: the absolutely fortuitous surrounding at all times this process, the chance, the luck, the immediate social context, the trial / error, the method outgoing. What I like to call "the illogical of scientific method and discovery".

amazon.com/Anatomy-Scientific-Discovery-Jeff-Goldberg/dp/0553346318

 

[dumbest man on earth]

yes they do.
purification by distillation is also a method.
so is getting a waveform from an oscilloscope.
getting the letter "A" from a CPU also requires a method.
adjusting the front wheels on your car also needs a method.
getting an artifact out of rock needs a method.
ALL of the above are methods used in the various sciences.
frankly i don't see your point.
you say there is more than one "scientific method" but you haven't stated precisely what it is.
on the other hand more than one poster has given you what the "scientific method" is AND have stated what it is.

no one said the method was obsolete.
i'm with paddoboy on this one, it will never go obsolete simply because it's an outgrowth of the way we as humans think.
as long as humanity is inquisitive the method will be in vogue.

leopold, the following is from the OP :

My intent in Posting this information is to hopefully assuage the adherence of some to the idea that all science must follow a rigid, dogmatic or "written in stone" single "Scientific Method".

There are, indeed, many different "methods" utilized by scientists, and they all demand rigorous testing and validation to be given any credence within the greater scientific community.

It is my firm belief that the plural form of the word "method" should be used when speaking of or referring to "The Scientific Methods"

I only ask that the linked pages be read and considered fully.

I made no other statements, the details are in the Links Posted.

Actually in your ^^above quoted^^ Post you mentioned a few different "methods" didn't you?

Are the "methods" that a Theoretical Physicist utilizes on a daily basis the exact same "methods" that a Biologist or an Archaeologist would use?

Sorry if I have caused you any confusion.

I myself, stand by Science and have employed many different "methods" in various Sciences over the past near 40 years. I neither want to see nor would care to see any of the true sciences abolished or go obsolete. The advancement of science is one of the great aspects of human civilization.

Again, sorry to have caused you any confusion.

 

[paddoboy]

i'm with paddoboy on this one, it will never go obsolete simply because it's an outgrowth of the way we as humans think.
as long as humanity is inquisitive the method will be in vogue.

That's exactly what I have been saying since the start of this.

 

[leopold]

leopold,
. . .
Sorry if I have caused you any confusion.
. . .
I myself, stand by Science and have employed many different "methods" in various Sciences over the past near 40 years.

no worries.
the saddest thing i can think of in regards to science is that a significant number of discoveries has been by accident.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

no worries.
the saddest thing i can think of in regards to science is that a significant number of discoveries has been by accident.

Grok'd!

So you don't know any scientists who have lost their funding/jobs/income simply because their research did not produce the results that were demanded by those providing the funding?

To me that is sad.

 

[paddoboy]

The scientific method is as much about any perceived failure as it is about success.
Any results, good or bad can be built upon.
Serendipity is of course as much about the scientific method as is the hard yakka.
As mentioned previously, if we didn't have it, as the foundation stone, we would have kissed our arse goodbye long ago.

 

[leopold]

As mentioned previously, if we didn't have it, as the foundation stone, we would have kissed our arse goodbye long ago.

like they say, "it ain't over until the fat lady sings".
science has brought us some really fantastic technology, biotechnology can ruin us if we aren't vigilant.
the perfected mind/ machine interface will completely change our society.
we already have the technology to "think things into existence" on a rudimentary scale.
light speed might be closer than we know.

 

[paddoboy]

like they say, "it ain't over until the fat lady sings".
science has brought us some really fantastic technology, biotechnology can ruin us if we aren't vigilant.
the perfected mind/ machine interface will completely change our society.
we already have the technology to "think things into existence" on a rudimentary scale.
light speed might be closer than we know.

I'm pretty optimistic and Imaginative leopold, and am of the opnion, given time, that which is allowed by the laws of physics, can eventually happen...If we are able to warp, curve space/time ala Star Trek, we could certainly achieve a perception of travelling at or faster then light.
We just need the time.

 

[Russ_Watters]

no worries.
the saddest thing i can think of in regards to science is that a significant number of discoveries has been by accident.

I don't think that's true. Can you name more than one from the past 100 years?

 

[leopold]

I don't think that's true. Can you name more than one from the past 100 years?

http://www.rdasia.com/10-inventions-discovered-by-accident
the above was taken from the following search results:
http://www.google.com/search?client...nt&btnG=Google+Search&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=

one very important "discovery by accident" was the transistor.
bardeen and others were looking for a solid state replacement for the vacuum tube, the FET.
what they discovered was the bipolar transistor instead.
the FET was discovered, or invented, some years later.

 

[paddoboy]

http://www.rdasia.com/10-inventions-discovered-by-accident
the above was taken from the following search results:
http://www.google.com/search?client...nt&btnG=Google+Search&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=

one very important "discovery by accident" was the transistor.
bardeen and others were looking for a solid state replacement for the vacuum tube, the FET.
what they discovered was the bipolar transistor instead.
the FET was discovered, or invented, some years later.

Serendipity is part of science and the scientific method.