Talk:Scientific method

The

(Please don't archive this section: it is a resurrecting issue, and a permanent pointer to discussion is useful)

Shouldn't this article begin with a The? Has this debate already been had? Isn't it, "The Scientific method is a body of techniques..." Mathiastck 06:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, right at the top of Archive 11, there is debate on the definite article The. --Ancheta Wis 08:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok well I vote to include "The" next time :) Mathiastck 18:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There is/are "Scientific Method(s)/Process(es)", and then there is "The Scientific Method" - a more general, abstract model: Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment (repeat): this is "The Scientific Method"...it is more of a philosophical model than a process, as the body to which "Scientific Method" can/does refer(s). Am I right in thinking lack of "the" grammatically puts this method in way similar to the term "kung-fu" which is used without "the". For example, one does not say, "he used the kung fu on me!" I think journal citations showing use of "scientific method" minus the definite article "the" will be shown to be typos. One might see if there is a correlation in typo articles and authors of native asian (especially Japanese) toungue. It is known that the definte article is not used similarly in these asian languages as it is in english, and that new or late-comers to English may publish with this typo. Living and working in Berkeley, I have much experience with non-native English speakers of all types and feel the lack of definite article may in fact stem from native asian speaking individuals both authors and editors...unless of course the spirit of english wishes to refer to the scientific method as we do the kung fu. That does sound cool. 76.102.47.125 (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Observation, Hypothesis and Experiment are the three primary and fundamental concepts in all methods of science. Experiment: Search the internet for "observation hypothesis experiment". Observation: the majority of results are for "the Scientific Method". Hypothesis: I have just used the scientific method. 71.156.103.213 (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

At the outset of the discussion about this issue, User:Wjbeaty pointed out some of the published current discussion in the field per WP:VER and WP:RS. He said: "Many scientists object to ... the very concept The Scientific Method, and they fight to get it removed from grade-school textbooks. Examples:

• D. Simanek, physicist
• J. Denker, physicist
• P. Bridgman, physicist
• R. Feynman, physicist
• W. McComas
• H. Baur, chemist

Experience has taught that scientific method should be viewed as a cluster of techniques or body of techniques. When diagrammed it might look something like a sunflower with an identifiable core with a bunch of petals representing various fields of science. Add or remove a few petals, and it still looks like a sunflower. Kenosis 19:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[Is this the same P. Bridgman who suggested we might see revolutions such as Einstein's relativity earlier if we changed our scientific method: if we payed closer attention to the operations used in measuring (or observing) a phenomenon: if we add operational to the objective and natural requirements of a definition? Bridgman is referring, in the article above, to philosophies of science (IMO), not methodology - on which he has written books and many papers. Geologist (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)]

My modest opinion: I disagree on "The". A laboratory experiment, a computer simulation, a theoretical model: all may be scientific but are far from using a unique and univocal method. One thing is to single out a body of criteria in order to define if a method of inquiry is scientific, and another is to say that there is only one such method. Also (but I might be wrong), I think there is an implicit usage in Wikipedia so as to use "The..." in reference to a book or a specific theory (e.g. "interpretation of dreams" and "The Interpretation of Dreams"). -- Typewritten 08:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Experience has taught that scientific method should be viewed as a cluster of techniques"

If this article is about a collection of methods, then the title should be Scientific methods. indil (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A redirect already exists. I personally oppose a page move. This article is referenced by thousands of other articles already, under its current title, and is well-known under its current name. A google search shows that the current title is referenced over 4 times more frequently than the plural. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd. The rhythm method isn't specific either: some people use calendars, some people count days, others guess. We still follow correct English grammar. I am WP:BRDing. MilesAgain (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have done the R so D rather more than you did. This is not an issue of grammar as either is OK from that respect. It is a fundamental question and the balance is on not have the "The" there. --Bduke (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Scientific method refers to the body of techniques..."; perhaps this is a satisfactory solution? Andareed (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes; good. MilesAgain (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at the Richard Feynman link given above. He does not use the phrase Scientific Mathod", and far from arguing that it should be removed from grade school textbooks, he seems to be arguing strongly that it should be taught. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm confused. None of those pages seem to insinuate that the problem is the article "the". They seem to contest the idea of the scientific method itself. Then again, I'm very tired, and not at all that attentive to begin with.  Aar  ►  09:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

  The best discussion on 'the' that I have seen comes from Mark Twain. One could argue this is all a fine point for those who think in English. There are languages that get along without a 'the', after all. But there is a part of English, the subjunctive mood, which is a good basis for the hypothesis and prediction steps of scientific method, and without which I believe it is hard to explain scientific method. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• It is an issue of grammar. In titles, the article is commonly and correctly used to refer to a body or cluster of similar things: The Elements of Style; The Working Dog; The Racing Motorcycle; The Successful Investor. "Elements of Style" could be okay because "elements" is plural, but neither "Working Dog" nor "Racing Motorcycle" are suitable titles. Likewise, "Scientific Methods" would be fine. But both "Scientific Method" and "Successful Investor" are awkward and off-putting to native English speakers.````KellyArt 11:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a native English-speaker and it doesn't put me off. "Scientific method" in singular form sans expected article seems like a mass noun. The Tetrast (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC).

But the point is that neither method nor scientific method is a mass noun. Therefore the absence of the article sounds wrong (to many or most speakers). Where is the linguistic argument that native speaker intuition (here, that's a real mass noun, therefore no article is needed) is wrong here? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not referring to the title. Scientific method is fine as an article title, but the way scientific method is used in the introduction without an article is plainly ungrammatical. The body of the article uses "the scientific method", showing how ridiculous this insistence on the absence of the article is. See also wikt:scientific method. As pointed out by MilesAgain, the scientific method is a general term and may be used to cover more than one technique, or variant (or part/substructure) of a basic methodical paradigm, compare also methodology, which is often essentially used synonymously with method. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I have realised that method can indeed be used as a mass noun, but the scientific method is equally possible (and more common, not only according to my own observation but also Wiktionary) and does not imply that there is only a single way of doing scientific research. Also, the article is internally inconsistent in its use of the with scientific method. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There has been a historical shift in the use of 'definite article'+"scientific method". It was popularized as 'the' in the nineteenth c., but 'the' was eventually shot down in the 20th century. That is the reason that "a scientific method" is attempted usage in the article. I personally shrink from being the bad cop enforcing 'indefinite article'+"scientific method" in this article; you are welcome to enforce this. Note that according to Richard Popkin, when Francisco Sanches (16th c.) innovated use of the idea of a "method of knowing" (modus sciendi in Latin), he apparently published a book in Spanish Metodo universal de las ciencias(the book is now lost) which has no definite article in the title. For citations, see note 49 in history of scientific method, which cites a 1703 reference to the Spanish title. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record, back in 2005, User:Adraeus came up with the idea of finessing the controversy over 'the' by simply using indefinite article 'a'. It seems a simple solution. At that time, there were passionate arguments even denying the existence of "the scientific method", which I am afraid will be re-ignited by reverting to the common "the". I admit it is common usage, which simply ignores the arguments from past (or future) editors. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 04:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW the absence of "the" sounds extremely wrong to me, and I have never heard it used without "the" in regular discourse. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As per my edit summary, I edited the lead sentence to include both versions. I placed "the" first as the more commonly used. For example, it's the name generally used in educational materials available to the broader public - a couple of educational resources I found quickly are 1 2 3 - there are more as well. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

(response to Ancheta) Both versions are still there. It seemed a relatively minor issue to me, which is why I didn't edit it before (plus I didn't think of the compromise of just including both), but then I realized that the perceived awkwardness would reduce ease of reading. There shouldn't be any compromise with accuracy in an encyclopedia, and my impression is that Wikipedia is much better "defended" than it used to be. For example, the Science article seems to have done fine. :-) I've added back the hidden text though, asking for talk page discussion before making changes to the lead sentence. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ancheta, I do not think that the 16th century Spanish title is of any relevance for 20th century English use. According to my observation at least, in Spanish, especially in headlines and titles, similar to Anglophone Headlinese, you can actually drop articles often, anyway, and in fact, the Spanish Wikipedia article uses the article: el método científico. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ancheta's attempt at resolution is a good one, but when I saw this page in Google results it actually drew my attention to a debate which should be pretty insignificant. I respectfully suggest that an alternative way would be to use the formatting to imply both, as in, "The scientific method . . ." This makes the sentence sound correct to those readers who feel it requires it, but bolds only the actual topic of the article. I'm generally reluctant to engage in or follow this type of debate, so if consensus favors my suggestion, please don't wait for me to make the change.--~TPW 17:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to re-open this can of worms, but much of what is written on this page under the banner of "The Scientific Method" reads like Baconian positivist-inductivist dogma. This model of scientific activity might have been correct in the 16th or 17th centuries - but it is far from correct in the 21st. Modern scientific activity simply does not start with "Observation" (that is the leading fallacy of inductivist dogma). According to Alan Chalmers (a philosopher of science) in "What Is This Thing Called Science?", "inductivism" is defined as the view that "scientific knowledge is to be derived from the observable facts by some kind of inductive inference" - and inductivism has so many problems that it cannot be a valid basis for scientific methdology - let alone _the_ scientific method. So wikipedia looks like promoting a view of science that is fundamentally incorrect. Chalmers argues that inductive generalisations from obervable facts are incapable of yielding scientific knowledge about unobservable entities such as protons and genes. I would suggest that the whole agenda of trying distinguish science from non-science by evaluation of the methods used in the activity is fundamentally flawed. There is no single "the method of science" of "the scientific method". I'd suggest much of this page is moved to a new page entitled "Inductive theories of science", perhaps in a section called "the Baconian theory of science" and that this page is renamed to a much more general topic like "Scientific Methods". Popper argues for a more 'naturalistic' theory of science - based on observation of what scientists do - in "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" - and famously comes to the conclusion that scientific activity is not distinguished by any particular method but by the testability (falsifiability) of the theories it produces. 14:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Glossop (talk • contribs)

@Ian Glossop, Perhaps you might address your concerns with @Whatiguana, who has contributed a graphic attributed to Theodore Garland, Jr. (2015) 'The scientific method as an ongoing process'. It appears that Whatiguana's views are very close to those of Professor Garland, because the upload claim is 'own work'. But we have an implied CC-by-SA here, and I hope we might keep or modify this graphic image, with proper license and attribution, for use in the article. The graphic is addressed to naturalists, who would naturally start with observation, as you point out.

But if you re-examine the article (without the first impression produced from the Garland graphic) you will see that the methodology in the article begins with 'Ask a question', rather than 'Observe'.

Deeper in the article, the 3-step methodology of Charles Sanders Pierce, "A Neglected Argument", begins with 1) 'Muse' (that is, think), in a process of 2) clarification of vague thought, which naturally leads to 3) pragmatic action, in an unending cycle of categorization.

@Sunrise , would you object if the article were to fall back to an article which drops the 'The'? In other words use phrase 'a scientific method' rather than 'the scientific method' in the article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! Yes, I would still object. :-) (And I assume that others who have commented on this issue still would as well!) That said, if any of the above comments can be established as significant (as determined by secondary sources, per WP:WEIGHT) then I certainly wouldn't oppose consideration of new content for the article. Sunrise (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Aristotle

The article cites Galileo's sloppy scholarship to support the myth that Aristotle did not follow the scientific method. This myth has been debunked since at least 1914, when J. F. Hardcastle published a letter pointing out that Aristotle was discussing the terminal velocity of bodies falling in viscous media, not in a vacuum. Still, the slander continues to be repeated in respectable, but ill-informed, sources. The same point was made again in 1947 by Alvarro-Alberto, and in a Nature news item .Dfpolis (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See Two New Sciences, Crew & de Salvio's translation, 'Salviati speaks:'

I greatly doubt that Aristotle ever tested by experiment whether it be true that two stones, one weighing ten times as much as the other, if allowed to fall, at the same instant, from a height of, say, 100 cubits, would so differ in speed that when the heavier had reached the ground, the other would not have fallen more than 10 cubits.

Simp: His language would seem to indicate that he had tried the experiment, because he says: We see the heavier; now the word see shows that he had made the experiment.

Sagr.: But I, Simplicio, who have made the test can assure[107] you that a cannon ball weighing one or two hundred pounds, or even more, will not reach the ground by as much as a span ahead of a musket ball weighing only half a pound, provided both are dropped from a height of 200 cubits.

Salv.: But, even without further experiment, it is possible to prove clearly, by means of a short and conclusive argument, that a heavier body does not move more rapidly than a lighter one provided both bodies are of the same material and in short such as those mentioned by Aristotle. But tell me, Simplicio, whether you admit that each falling body acquires a definite [63] speed fixed by nature, a velocity which cannot be increased or diminished except by the use of force [violenza] or resistance. etc.

Next follows a thought experiment showing a contradiction in Aristotle's mooted law. So Aristotle's mooted hypothetical fails both experiment and logic. The alternative explanation is that Aristotle never did the experiment. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Muslim scholar

There's 3 boxes on the right referring to 3 important characters in history. In none of them the religious beliefs of the characters is stated except in the case of one of "Ibn al-Haytham ... The Muslim scholar who ...".

It should be removed because it is irrelevant and inconsistent with the rest of the article or the religion of the remaining characters must be added.

As it is now, it looks like mostly all of the science characters are of another religion (christianity?), so much so that any character of another religion needs to be noted especially; or it looks like his religion deserves special mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.227.23.87 (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

An hypothesis

I reverted an edit that turned "an hypothesis" into "a hypothesis". This was done on the basis that "("An" is used for words which are pronounced with an initial vowel, thus "a history" vs. "an honor", "A hypothesis" is correct, not "An...")". Although this rule is generally true, for some h words, including hypothesis and hotel, the an variant is often used. See these Google searches [1]; [2]. This search shows how often it is used in Wikipedia [3] Myrvin (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted another change to 'a' that had the comment: "Correct based on a minority use, about 25% in British English, but both the rules of std North Am. Eng and 94% of users prefer "an"." I wonder where these 'rules' and stats are stated. Also, the comment seems to argue for 'an', because 94% of users prefer it. Myrvin (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have opened a request for comments on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. Myrvin (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I posted at the thread above but I'll put the short version here. "an hypothesis" is at best tolerated, while "a hypothesis" is far more common. The 'h' is always pronounced, I cannot find a single dictionary where an h-less pronunciation is even listed as an alternate. Why fight for this? Just use the form that is most common, normal, and expected. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Additional evidence that 'a hypothesis' should be the preferred form on WP: "an hypothesis" occurs in 45k academic papers published 2000-2015 (google scholar [4]), while "a hypothesis" occurs in 749k articles [5]. So this much is clear: In modern academic publishing, "a hypothesis" is preferred to "an hypothesis" by a factor of about 16 to 1. Why go against the standards that the academic publishing world uses? Just use "a hypothesis", it's the most correct thing to do. I will probably eventually (giving some time to the ref desk thread) change the article to "a hypothesis on these grounds. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I just did this Google NGRAM search to trace the historical development of this usage in both British and American English. It shows that since 1934 "a hypothesis" has surpassed "an hypothesis" in both dialects. There seems to be no contest here.

As a side note, "a hypothesis" took the lead in British English in 1907 but didn't take the lead in American English until 1934. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Grosseteste paragraph

While addressing some citation error messages for Dales and for Clegg, in the Grosseteste paragraph I noticed that the (A.C. Crombie 1962, p.15) reference is to a 1962 printing of the 1953 edition. There is a 1971 printing as well. It appears that the Crombie reference could just as well cite (Crombie 1953, 15) in the Harvard citation style. But I don't want to change the Grosseteste paragraph from Harvard style to Wikipedia citation style until one of us can verify that a Crombie 1953 p.15 would be accurate, assuming that the thesis is correct.

A more pertinent question is the thesis: A.C Crombie claimed that Grosseteste had discovered the principle of experiment; this is manifestly untrue, as Aristotle, before him, was a superb naturalist, while Ptolemy described a visual perception experiment, 900 years before Alhacen's vast expansion of the uses for Ptolemy's experiment. (Grosseteste lived two centuries after Alhacen.) A.Mark Smith counts Grosseteste, not as an experimentalist, but as a theoretician who heavily influenced the Perspectivists Roger Bacon, Witelo, and John Peckham. From our perspective, Grosseteste brought the heavens down to earth, by secularizing astronomy. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I read Crombie on Grosseteste but I found this underlined passage on the first page of my copy: "Modern science owes most of its success to the use of these inductive and experimental procedures, constituting what is often called 'the experimental method'. The thesis of this book is tnat the modern, systematic understanding of at least the qualitative aspects of this method was created by the philosophers of the West in the thirteenth century. It was they who transformed the Greek geometrical method into the experimental science of the modern world." (p. 1).

Personally, I think Crombie overstates the case for the influence of Grosseteste and his contemporaries on the development of experimental science, but he does make the claim. Crombie's focus draws extensively on Grosseteste's commentaries on Aristotle's logical works, implying that formal analyses of inductive logic were a prerequisite for the practice of experimental science. As to Grosseteste's sources, his discussions of Aristotle drew, on the writings of Boethius, Galen, Avicenna, Alkindi, and numerous later commentators on them. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Turning to your specific question about the p. 15 passage, it also appears in my copy of the 1971 edition; judging from the introductions' descriptions of the minor changes between editions, I imagine it also appeared in the 1953 edition.

Incidentally, Crombie himself noted in the introduction to the 1963 reprinting that his earlier discussion gave too much credit to Grosseteste's commentaries on the Posterior Analytics on the development of science and "some of the expressions I used about the extent of the medieval contributions to the structure and methods of research of modern experimental science now seem to me exaggerated." (p. v). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@SteveMcCluskey, thank you for verifying the Crombie citation. It's all one citation style now. We can revisit the style after the Crombie thesis is reexamined. To recap, it is possible to scale down Crombie's claim: the Grosseteste commentary, (review via JSTOR) p.835 shows how Grosseteste gave theoretical guidance about the nature of light: the light beyond the moon has to be the same as the light here on earth (my paraphrase of the sentence in Alexander Murray's review, p.835, of James McEvoy (1982) The Philosophy of Robert Grosseteste, which is "If it were to be 'the first form of corporeity', light had to be the same both above and below the moon." ).

This guidance is concrete enough for his followers to start doing physics. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Relationship with statistics

I propose to add the above heading below the "Relationship with mathematics" section, together with the following text. Please feel free to amend and improve.AppliedStatistics (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The scientific method has been extremely successful in bringing the world out of medieval times, especially once it was combined with industrial processes. However, when the scientific method employs statistics as part of its arsenal, there are a number of both mathematical and practical issues that can have a deleterious effect on the reliability of the output of the scientific methods. This is outlined in detail in the most downloaded 2005 scientific paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" ever by John Ioannidis. The particular points raised are statistical:

"* The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.

• The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true."

and economical:

"* The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.

• The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true."

Hence: "Most research findings are False for most research designs and for most fields"

and "As shown, the majority of modern biomedical research is operating in areas with very low pre- and poststudy probability for true findings." AppliedStatistics (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Quoting from the last paragraph of Ioannidis: "Nevertheless, most new discoveries will continue to stem from hypothesis-generating research with low or very low pre-study odds." --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This is an excellent point. How about adding the following at the bottom of this section:

However: "Nevertheless, most new discoveries will continue to stem from hypothesis-generating research with low or very low pre-study odds." which means that *new* discoveries will come from research that, when that research started, had low or very low odds (a low or very low chance) of succeeding. Hence, if the scientific method is used to expand the frontiers of knowledge, research into areas that are outside the mainstream will yield most new discoveries. AppliedStatistics (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Merging Process (science)

Merging could well be a good idea as the 'Process (science)' article is only a stub and there is no series of WP articles on processes, therefore there is no context. Merge but have an open mind. AppliedStatistics (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)