From My WP Blog: "The Scientific Method"

Post Reply New Topic

(A copy of this post can be found in my blog by clicking on this sentence.)

***

The Scientific Method for Investigating Reality

1) Develop a new hypothesis. A hypothesis is merely an idea that is usually based on passive observations of natural events. An idea does not have to be supported, but if it does not, then it remains only an idea.

2) Search for related data, which may be found in the results of previous research, whether or not the results of the previous research actually support the previous research.

3) If existing data does not support the hypothesis, then return to step 1.

4) Create a new supporting theory. A theory attempts to explain the hypothesis in a cause-and-effect manner. Never propose a theory that is not supported by available evidence.

5) Perform experiments to test the theory. Experiments must be appropriate to the proposed theory, and must be both repeatable and verifiable.

6) If the experimental results do not support the theory, then return to step 4.

7) Record findings and submit to peer-review process. A peer group is composed of professional researchers in the field of study that the theory addresses. The peer group will first examine the initial data for factual errors, then the theory for errors of reasoning, and then perform the same experiments under the same conditions to validate or invalidate the theory.

8) If the peer-review process produces conflicting evidence, then return to step 4.

9) At this point, the theory becomes a scientific principle.

10) Publish the results.

***

The Fantasy Method for Promoting Delusion and Ignorance

1) Form an opinion. This opinion does not have to be founded on anything other than dreams, fantasies, fears, hallucinations, ignorance, imagination, legends, myths, prejudices, speculation, superstitions, suspicions, or wishful thinking.

2) Search for supporting data. If any data conflicts with the original opinion then discredit, distort, or ignore the conflicting data. If the conflicting facts or opinions can not be adequately discredited, then the person(s) presenting the conflicting facts or opinions (the “critic” or “skeptic”) must be discredited.

3) Publish the opinion.

4) If any critic or skeptic comes forward with facts or opinions that conflict with the original opinion then discredit, distort, or ignore the conflicting facts, while simultaneously discrediting the person(s) presenting the conflicting facts or opinions.

5) Expand the original opinion into unrelated fields of interest.

6) Repeat from Step 2.

***

Note that while the Scientific Method is self-correcting and tends to discard and ignore invalid ideas, the Fantasy method does not allow for correction, and thus actually promotes ideas that have no validity in the real world. The Scientific Method is used by those who would seek to determine The Truth about life, the universe, and everything, while those who use the Fantasy Method seek only to gain notoriety through the dissemination and repetition of urban myths, conspiracy theories, and superstitious nonsense.

Try reading "What is this thing called Science ?" by Alan Chalmers, it might open your eyes a little.

It sounds like you like the ideas of Karl Popper.

From my school's newspaper:


I voted "other", since I use both the Scientific Method and the Engineering Method (as is briefly described in the comic).

If existing data does not support the new idea, then there is also the possibility of generating new data using new experiments.

Werd to panel 3. The fact that every experiment I ever participated in throughout my school career resulted in ridiculous data kinda undermines one's confidence in the method.

I work on the principle that the universe should have a beautiful underlying mathematical structure, and results be damned!

I went for 'other'. I do try to follow scientific method, but I am a mere mortal. It is idealism to expect people to be able to follow - absolutely - the scientific method and, I think, a delusion for one to believe that they can divorce themselves entirely of the fantasy method.

If you do any serious thinking on the philosophy of science, you know there is no "method". I agree with Paul Feyerabend, science moves forward not from any one particular discpline of thinking. The whole "scientific method" is a misnomer anyway, the scientific method was the culmination of different systems of thinking combining philosophy, logic, mathematics, experimentation, etc.

You need to be careful there. If the existing data is valid then it cannot simply be ignored by looking for other new data that might support the idea. The idea must explain both the existing data and any new data from new experiments. You can't just cherry pick data that supports your idea.

That's why Scientists peer review. I think this is the best view of the Scientific Method I've seen, and its certainly non-linear
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/images/us101 ... active.gif

^ Excellent! It even makes sense. Now, how would a similar one be constructed for Pseudo-Science (the "Fantasy Method")?

I know what I was responding to when I say that. I was responding to the general pomposity of the scientific establishment. There are a lot of people who will say that existing data does not support an idea when what they mean is that they have decided to ignore data that supports that idea specifically. A scientist has to question the process of validation.

There ae issues which are not empirically testable. For example, morality. Which I why I chose Other.

For empirically testable questions the scientific method is the all time champion.

ruveyn

I'm hung up on the thing about looking at other people's data. Why would I ever repeat someone else's experiment? It may be that the published "data" or its interpretation contradicts something that I've seen or read about and it makes sense. It's not scientific to defer to established authority just because it's "authority."