Talk:Scientific method

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 63.251.123.2 (talk) at 18:32, 6 January 2014 (→‎Is peer review scientific method?: update on the situation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Template:Vital article


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)[reply]

Yes, right at the top of Archive 11, there is debate on the definite article The. --Ancheta Wis 08:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well I vote to include "The" next time :) Mathiastck 18:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

[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)][reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Definition

In the introduction section it is stated that "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." I find it difficult to put into words, but isn't the following part of the sentence rather strange: "a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence"? Can a method of inquiry be based on this? And isn't there also a tautology hidden in this sentence, because I find that "a method of inquiry" is very similar to "specific principles of reasoning". Isn't it more correct to say "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on specific principles of reasoning concerning themselves with assessing empirical and measurable evidence." or "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must concern itself with the assessment of empirical and measurable evidence." --Tomvasseur (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source for that definition? . . dave souza, talk 20:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. I actually assumed that we could use the same source as before as I thought it is more a change in phrasing instead of the actual substance and as such probably wouldn't be big enough a difference to necessitate a new source. However, I will go look for that on the long term.--Tomvasseur (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent changes ( 13:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC) ) to the article may shed some light on this question. The recent changes are an expansion of the history section to include the role of belief (& religion) on scientific method. From our current perspective, the most useful result of a belief is that a belief will motivate a consistent behavior, such as observing a sunrise. The consistent applications of a method likely were motivated by a desire to propitiate the gods (for fear of being struck down by lightning, starvation, return of spring, fertility, etc.). But I don't have a source except for general knowledge, such as the ancient practice of animism, such as the worshipping of giant insect mounds, and the existence of ritual and display behavior. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WickerGuy, thank you for your work; one of the threads which I am hoping for is the integration of hellenistic Judaism into the narrative. I just took it as a given that Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) was influenced by neoplatonism, exactly how that occurred was not one of my questions. So I look forward to more of your contributions. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is peer review scientific method?

I searched the words "peer review" on this page, you guys did a great job indicating that peer review is an activity among community. However, it is not immediately obvious that whether peer review is part of scientific method or not. The same goes for scientific consensus but we do have a line there on that page.

It also manipulates worthless debates, reverts and edits elsewhere since it remains unclear what scientific method is not.

I for one thinks that peer review is not part of scientific method, a line "peer review is not part of scientific method" should be added. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps peer review might be considered part of the rhetoric of science. __Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why should such a line be added though? Is there a common 'misconception' that it is part of the scientific method? If not then I don't really see the need to further specify the scientific method in terms of what it is not. --Tomvasseur (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, how can I overlook that? So I performed some google searches, the problem seems to be science.
"peer review is not scientific method" and "scientific method is not peer review" return NO result.
"peer review is not science" and "science is not peer review" returns about 178,000 results and 245,000 results respectively. I think it is what we mean by notable.
If there is misconception, then the misconception on scientific method should not be notable. For science though, should it be controversy or misconception, I don't know and I do not really agree with most of the content on science anyway. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Misconception.. Looks like we have one, someone just tells him that "peer review is not part of scientific method" or "peer review is not scientific method's defining characteristic", I have done my part, I am not interested in edit warring but it looks like he can't be satisfied except "consensus". --14.198.220.253 (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the lack of opposition, with the agreement on peer review as a rhetoric of science suggested by Ancheta Wis and the rather implicit agreement by Tomvasseur ("I don't really see the need to further specify the scientific method in terms of what it is not"), I can only assume that peer review is not a defining characteristic of scientific method, I will proceed and fix the overcategorization of Category: Peer review. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution to the encyclopedia. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...Sorry for the trouble, I recognize the unwelcoming nature of edit-warring, so thank you for thanking me :)) Now the page is semi-protected can you help fix it? Thanks. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ancheta Wis -- could you confirm that you agree with 14.198.*'s view on the categorization of Category:Peer review? In my view, the rule on defining characteristic applies to including articles in categories, not making parent categories. Instead, I would suggest that since Category:Scientific method (or Category:Science, either of which is fine with me) are topic categories, and "peer review" is certainly related to both of them, per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Special_conventions: "topic category (containing all articles relating to the topic)", it should be included as a child of one of them. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
63, It is fairly clear that peer review is not part of the scientific method. At best, peer review is a technique for stemming the flow of articles into the print queues of journals, and is a way for the journal editors to handle the stacks of candidate articles in a timely way. The best example is Albert Einstein's 1905 articles for Annalen der Physik, which were not peer reviewed. (Note: Einstein was peer reviewed when he attempted to publish in the 1936 Physical Review, a US journal, which kept him from submitting to Phys. Rev. ever again. It is the science that makes an article worthy, and not the opinion of a peer (Robertson, in this case, who actually saved Einstein some embarassment). But a successful prediction (for example Einstein, Rosen, Podolsky (May 1935) Phys. Rev. which is Einstein's most popular recently cited paper) trumps opinion.)
Thus the categorization of peer review as a scientific method is not necessary for the success of the scientific method. I personally find it jarring to read Category:Peer review's categories, and to see the inclusion of scientific method as a containing category.
It may be helpful to read John Ziman's characterization of 'consensibility' (that is, the ability of a topic to be understandable/ reachable enough attain consensus) as the criterion for a scientific article (Ziman 1978 Reliable Knowledge 6, 27, 99, 104-5,145 etc. ISBN 0521220874).
14, unfortunately the talk page of Category:Peer review is non-existent right now. Perhaps the conversation which currently exists on the comment lines of the article histories might be fruitfully re-deployed to the red-linked venue, instead.
--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that does help clarify things further. Looking more broadly, as you mentioned, at all the current parent categories of Category:Peer review -- argh, those are strange and mistaken. Taking as a guideline "X is a form of Y" (which is suggested by my reading of Wikipedia:Categories#Subcategorization) the only parent categories that should be there are Category:Peer-to-peer (which should probably be renamed to Category:Peer-to-peer communication) and Category:Scholarly communication. It is probably worth adding Category:Peer review to the {{CatRel}} on Category:Scientific works, but that can probably be done separately. Apologies to you and 14.198.* for having taken this long to notice this. (Feel free to copy this to Category_talk:Peer review once someone creates that page.) 63.251.123.2 (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After further examination, it looks like Category:Peer-to-peer is intended to cover all sorts of peer-to-peer processes, so there's no need to change the name. I've now applied the other two parts of my suggestion, based on the lack of objection stated here, and 14.198.* having once again reverted back to their preferred version of Category:Peer review, thereby (hopefully) showing an acceptance of my suggestion. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Section

In the summer of this year, some new material was added to the history section that stated unequivocally that Christian theology was a major shaper of the scientific method. This has been both maintained by some scholars but disputed by others. The material slightly interrupted the smoothness of the flow of the history, and employed sources that were OK but somewhat biased including one book from a conservative Christian publishing company. I have removed that material from the history section and created a new section on Scientific Method and Religion which incorporates some but not all of the material removed from the history section, which hopefully gives a more balanced treatment of the matter.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere between 5 to 10% of the new material is cribbed from other Wikipedia articles but with the citations from those articles intact.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WickerGuy, I noticed the Gerald J. Toomer 1964 is one citation, but it's not displaying the bibliographic information when I click on the Toomer 1964 link? Thank you for your work. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Found the Toomer citation in Alhazen --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple hypotheses

Strong inference is required for the proper application of the scientific method [1]--5.15.49.211 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5.15, Thank you for the link.
To all editors: John R. Platt's (1964) Science strong inference article,linked above, is a clear statement which dovetails with the article. It deserves discussion as a way to improve the article. Comments? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Arc here. I think Platt is an excellent source - perhaps some commentary under "Models of scientific inquiry" might be useful. For other parts of the article, I think it would be a good resource on the importance of crucial experiments and the identification of plausible hypotheses before planning experiments. (I find the tree metaphor to be especially useful.) Platt also quotes Chamberlin 1897 at length, which is another source I think would be useful. Sunrise (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

opening section

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

'experiment' should be changed to 'experimentation'. That is all. Sylentnyte (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is a quote from the OED, which says "experiment", not "experimentation". --Stfg (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Method and Religion

Does the Scientific Method and Religion section really belong in this article? It seems to be more about religion and its relation to science in general and not specific to scientific method. pgr94 (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the topic belongs on a subpage? 13:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
As the article states, Charles Sanders Peirce has identified doubt as the primary initiator for scientific method; 900 years before him, Alhazen harbored doubts about Claudius Ptolemy's work, in part from his knowledge that mankind was not free from error. This instigated Alhazen's amazing range of investigations, from geometry and brain dissections, to optics and scientific method. Alhazen, at least, disclosed his religious motivation for his enormous range of investigation. One could argue that Ijtihad was the motivator. But I think it is fairly clear that the details of the individual's religions/ cultures had little effect on the methods or the results of the respective individual investigations. Imre Lakatos stated clearly that "In short: ideological interference leads to bad science" (p.7 Brendan Larvor (1998) Lakatos: an introduction ISBN 4-415-14276-8) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Question

Hello, I have a hot question: do the scientific activities that are known as qualitative inorganic analysis und qualitative organic analysis comply with the given description of scientific method?Nikolas Tales (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is couched in already existent terms: observation, experiment, experimental data, analysis, hypothesis, prediction, measurement. So the answer to your question requires that you cast the terms of your domain into the above terms.
When Enrico Fermi was young, he was expected to describe his experimental procedures for determining the (unknown) composition of material substances; instead of the liquid solutions he was expected to prepare, he simply looked at the substances under a microscope to determine what they were. Then he and his friends wrote down the elaborate back story as if they had performed the inorganic analysis by the expected methods.
In general, scientific method is needed when you don't already know the answer. __Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientific_method&oldid=589475133"