The scientific method

Post Reply New Topic

Simple question does the Scientific Method require empirical validation from outside the current scientific paradigm?

As far as I see it the Scientific Method is simply a tool which helps us validate and verify hypotheses of the natural world, it is not a Law of nature, it is not a scientific theory, it is not even a hypothesis. As such its verification lies in its performance and usefulness.

There are some on this forum who believe this style of verification is circular, ie they think we are using the method to verify itself. They seem to be demanding either an infinite regression of verifications, or some form of uncaused first cause form of scientific validation, I find this approach not only false but essentially absurd.

What are your thoughts?

When people use the scientific method to come up with things as vague and as impossible as religion does (string theory, spaghettification theory) then it becomes circular. No one will ever be able to 'prove' string theory and the fact so many people cling to this theory as the answer to how matter and energy create themselves, is ludicrous.
Neither matter or energy create themselves, it is impossible. If it wasn't the earth would be growing in size every day.
And the fact you call religion ludicrous is hypocritical, as neither the supernatural or string theory will ever be proven in any sort.
There has to be an uncaused first cause, or the cause that created the caused cause would have to have an infinite number of other caused causes and that in itself is even more impossible.

Well, when you say that first bit in bold (which I agree with), it sort of suggests that second bit in bold... Because, we only realize the method's performance and usefulness by using it. So, it actually does verify itself via use, kinda.

That being said, I don't really grasp the necessity of an infinite regression, or any kind of uncaused nonsense.

But, I'm a childish moron, so I probably shouldn't be the last word on this subject.

String theory is very badly named, as it suggests it is a "scientific theory" which it most certainly is not. As it stands it is a mathematical model which is attempting to explain certain "unknowns" about the universe, in this sense it has nothing to do with the scientific method except to say the method at this stage cannot be used to verify or falsify etc. Later on if more is discovered and string theory is able to make predictions then the method can be used to help verify its voracity.

As for energy and matter coming into existence string theory is not required to show this is possible.

Goonsquad, how do you verify the usefulness of a hammer or for that matter any other tool? Also the infinite regression comes from the idea that something other than what is being used as a verification tool must be used to verify the verification tool which in turn needs to be verified and on and on it goes

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 15 Mar 2015, 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Then use your magic science dust to make me a girlfriend.

Well, I would verify the usefulness of a hammer by using it for something and judging the results. Just like with the SM.

As for the infinite regression thing, yes I understand now.

I'd say that realization of a tool's usefulness is a byproduct of it's use, not the purpose. We don't use tools JUST to see if they work, usually.

That is, I may use a banana to drive a nail. In this case the banana is the tool, and driving a nail is actual purpose. As I use the banana to drive the nail, a byproduct of this (likely failed process) would be a realization that a banana is not a good tool for nail driving.

However, when I use a hammer for the purpose of nail driving, a likely byproduct would be consistent success. This byproduct (consistent success) of nail driving (the actual purpose) would verify the usefulness of the hammer (even though this is not the actual purpose of the nail driving activity).

or something like that.

^Well said!^

The Scientific Method is a tool, which is effective only when used properly. It is not a theory, an hypothesis, or even an idea. It is just a series of steps that works best in separating practical physical principles from useless and utter bollocks.

The problem is that people will look at the unproven 'theories' (i.e., "String Theory' and the Graviton) or alleged 'theories' that have been disproven and discarded (i.e., "Electric Universe" and "Lumeniferous Aether") and claim that the Scientific Method is prone to failure. Such people simply don't understand Science.

No true Scotsman fallacy.
Pointing out failures in anything, including tools like the scientific method, is the easiest way to point out flaws, and fix them.
They wouldn't have moved from ironwood mallets to steel shock proof hammers if they thought ironwood mallets weren't flawed.

Goonsquad you are right on the money regarding the hammer. From what I understand you are implying that the SM is used to see if IT works, if so this is flawed, we use it to test hypotheses, the proof of the SM is the by product of testing hypotheses IE the rapid advancement of human knowledge.

You and your seeming devotion to "no true scotsman" This is not one of them. Someone who cannot see the method in action eg when it disproves an hypothesis such as the luminiferous aether, or when it modifies a previously held law eg Newtonian gravity, does not understand science.

And for the umteenth time, it is highly unlikely that anyone in the contemporary scientific world would state that the scientific method is perfect. It is simply the best tool we have yet developed to help us get to the nature of things.

Fnord said that people who point out the scientific method is prone to failure simply don't understand science,
he did not say people who haven't seen it in action don't understand science.
This makes it a "No true scotsman" fallacy.
Someone who is invested in science as much as you are can still attest to the fact that eventually the scientific method will fail, some may not.
That is not a no true scotsman fallacy.
Also, not many people who know something isn't perfect, will claim it isn't flawed, that is a contradiction.

Read it again. He did not say this

Now we have a good example of the 'quoting out of context' fallacy.

Indeed.

If that were even remotely true, then all string theory scientists must be complete and utter idiots, CERN in Switzerland is so expensively stupid that their stupidity is off the charts, and millions of people around the world who understand the science have their heads up their arses.