/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2517720]

there is no scientific method

only various research programs

[Anonymous No.2517727]

Yeah, the world isn't as simple as you were taught in elementary school.

But the principle of verification by experiment is crucial.

[Anonymous No.2517730]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Who are you to overcome 3000 years of the Scientific Method? No one? Yeah, thought so.

[Anonymous No.2517726]

You're an idiot

[Anonymous No.2517843]

>>2517730

not sure what linking that implies...nothing actually


there is no algorithm or method for coming up with a hypothesis, it starts with pure imagination/questioning, very random process

how you come up with a test for a hypothesis depends on past research and the hypothesis itself, how we test quantum physics is much different than how we test effects of drugs or bird migration patterns, etc.

what confirms or denies a hypothesis is again unique to the hypothesis itself

interpreting the data is again very dependent on the circumstances and techniques used

there is no way to make a method of inquiry, its usually just people being clever and finding ways to support their ideas in ways that convince their peers


no scientific method exists yet. if we had one, our questions would get answered very quickly, very systematically, and robots could be programmed to ask questions and come up with theories

[Anonymous No.2517872]

Thomas Samuel Kuhn examined the history of science in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and found that the actual method used by scientists differed dramatically from the then-espoused method. His observations of science practice are essentially sociological and do not speak to how science is or can be practiced in other times and other cultures.

[Anonymous No.2517889]

>>2517843
Coming up with a hypothesis is not completely random. Hypotheses tend to have some basis on previous (perceived) knowledge.

Yes, of course different hypotheses and different fields are going to require different experimental procedures. Do you have an actual point to make?

What confirms or denies the hypothesis is the empirical data collected from the experiment.

I don't think you actually know what the Scientific Method actually is...

[Anonymous No.2517908]

>>2517889

>Do you have an actual point to make?

yea

>there is no scientific method

deal with it bro

how u gather and interpret data is usually different in each case, so you can't say thats a "method" anymore than you can call historians gathering historical data science

method implies some systematic criteria that is rigorous always applicable, if it always changes and varies it isn't any method at all

[Anonymous No.2517927]

>>2517889


u mad cuz my philosophy is stylin on you?

[Anonymous No.2517928]

Since the scientific method is a method invented by scientists as a way to prove the most accurately Nature. I would hardly believe it not to exist.

If you're thinking the scientific method is supposed to be 100% accurate, you are just misleaded.

[Anonymous No.2517932]

Every action does not have to be the same. There are basic stages that applies to all science, such as peer review and so on.

Pic somewhat related

[Anonymous No.2517942]

>>2517872
So your saying, or is OP saying, that there is no "one" agreed definition for the scientific method?

[Anonymous No.2517944]

>>2517908
>how u gather and interpret data is usually different in each case, so you can't say thats a "method" anymore than you can call historians gathering historical data science
>implying the scientific method should describe how to gather and interpret data.

Dude, learn2basics.

[Anonymous No.2517946]

>>2517928

no hes saying that there isn't one actual method that science can apply when approaching a problem

it gets the job done, but "scientific method" is just some shit they peddle in middle-school

if heisenberg gets stuck during an experiment he won't say, hmm what does the scientific method say I should do? he just has to come up with clever ways to get data and interpret it

but the tools you use to gather data and the process you use to analyze data, and what even COUNTS as good data is really arbitrary and depends on your hypothesis and our technology

etc

no method to speak of, just various clever scientists

[Anonymous No.2517950]

>>2517944

>>implying the scientific method should describe how to gather and interpret data.

what else would the method be for? lol

DREP YA JUST GET DATA, then its science

sorry no. go learn2advanced

[Anonymous No.2517953]

>>2517946
please, look up what the scientific method is actually meant to be.

[Anonymous No.2517956]

>>2517950
You either a troll or the dumbest human being I've ever met. Choose your path.

[Anonymous No.2517960]

Read Feyerabend, Read Lakatos, Read Kuhn.... hell even read Popper. After that we can start this thread over without the stupid.

[Anonymous No.2517976]

>>2517946

I agree that every researcher has his own way of conducting its experiment, but you can say that he follows a scientific method based on the general structure of his experiment.

Presence of hypothesis, indicators, empirical evidences, rigour in the way of collecting data,...

Scientific method is only an umbrella term. Denying its existence is like saying there you can not use a logical reasoning because every one has a different way of reasoning.

[Anonymous No.2517988]

>>2517946
Hmm... well I'm an undergraduate student in college and I get the feeling that research experiment made by graduate students and scientists, dont really follow the scientific method in full - kind of like how we assume the sun will rise tommorrow, they assume that certain variables (from previous experiments) exist and act a certain way etc.

That being said "true science" is seldom followed because of a push to gain knowledge, or make progress etc. from higher institutions.

But true science is:

1) Observation
2) Forming a "testable hypothesis" where everything is constant except for a independent and dependent variable
3) Performing an experiment from 2) where the independent variable is manipulated and the dependent variable is measured (also observation).
4) Making a conclusion (or not)

But like I said, science has become pragmatic in our culture to the point where we all mostly concerned with "whatever works", and if it is to our benefit.

[Anonymous No.2518010]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem-Quine

[Anonymous No.2518014]

there is no addition method

only various sums

[Anonymous No.2519009]

>>2517976

>Denying its existence is like saying there you can not use a logical reasoning because every one has a different way of reasoning.

there is an underlying method to reasoning that they all end up using, deduction, A=A, non-contradiction

science doesn't have such a method, it uses induction and clever guess work...induction isn't a strict process