![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Here's a major problem. I don't see a clear solution. Many scientists object to the the numbered steps, they object to the very concept The Scientific Method, and they fight to get it removed from grade-school textbooks. Examples:
In the main entry I find the phrase: "These activities do not describe all that scientists do but apply mostly to experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry)." But the entry is about Science, not about experimental science.
If scientists state that the description of Science is controversial, that a numbered list called "THE Scientific Method" doesn't exist, and that the list is an invention of grade-school textbook authors... then why does it appear in Wikipedia? If "THE scientific method" is only a description of experimental science, why pretend that it applies to science itself? Or put another way: if "what is science?" is genuinely open to question and is debated by the experts... then the title of this page in Wikipedia has POV problems: it is a distortion, it describes a myth about science and tries to give a snappy reliable simple clear answer which unfortunately is in conflict with reality. First suggestion: remove wording that suggests that a single method exists. Replace "THE Scientific Method" with another less biased term such as "Methods of Science." In addition, perhaps the "No Scientific Method" controversy deserves an entire separate entry? -- Wjbeaty 09:36, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
{{portal}}Scientific method
By what other methods do professional scientists explore and model reality? The Scientific Method® apparently refers to a dynamic cyclical process which professional scientists use to research and validate such research. Clearly, some professional scientists and some amateur scientists do not execute the Scientific Method® completely; however, that's usually because such execution is unneeded. Scientific thought concerns practicality and reason. Is it reasonable to suggest that the Scientific Method® is the process that every scientist uses? No. That's not what the article is suggesting. Simple pedantry seems to be the source of this discussion's initial complaint. Everything scientific is evolutionary. Readers should understand that. And so should the plaintiffs in this case. Adraeus 12:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the linked texts disagree much with how "Scientific method" currently describes what is done in science. They all agree that experiments, in broad sense, are essential to science. Not every scientist does experiments, but all depend on them. They also mention the provisional character of scientific theories and the constant reevaluation.
But they don't agree that this constitutes a method. A method often is used for an algorithm, people can follow without thinking. This is certainly not the case for the "scientific method".
Using "a scientific method" is also misleading, as it suggests the content of this page does not apply to all sciences. But with the broad definition of an experiment, it does apply to anything I would consider science (as Ancheta Wis pointed out in #Proposed change.)
I therefore suggest changing the title of this page to "(The) Scientific Methodology". Markus Schmaus 02:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I hope I'm not speaking out of turn if I say that this article is absolutely crucial to a number of pages in Wikipedia. It needs to be snappy, understandable, and reliable - in sympathy with Carl Sagan I believe that making this page accessible to the general public will allow a greater understanding of what science is and what scientists do. Please remember the NPOV Tutorial if you're new to Wikipedia (like me)... and keep up the good work everybody. Nof20 05:27, 29 Jan 05 (UTC)
Scientific Method in Religious Practice
Many years ago Yogananda sayd: "My Yoga is Science".
Yoga — Sanskrit equivalent of the Latin word “relig-ion”, which means “link with God”, “methods of ad-vancement to Him”, “Mergence” of a person with God. One may speak of yoga: a) as of the Path and the methods of religious advancement and b) as of the state of Union with God (in the latter case the first letter of this word is capitalized).
This method can be developed as science. Religion and science have contradictions only in human mind. I have restored this link in article.
see also: http://www.swami-center.org
Thank you, Ancheta Wis. Science in religion is very delicate subject. This article is my lection... I have 10 years experience in practice of yoga (religion) and some years as instructor. I verifyed used method and observed repeatable results. I'm ready for answer you questions.
Predictions do not refer exclusively to future experiments, but are often "postdictions" or explanations of surprising results from earlier experiments. For example, one of the first successes of General Relativity was its explanation of the precession of Mercury, an anomaly that had been known for over fifty years.
Based on this position, I recommend reversion of the latest addition. Now
were known. Thus, his characterization, based on at least 2 pieces of experimental evidence, served to bolster his confidence in making a prediction:
How's this? Ancheta Wis 21:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Teachers using inquiry as a teaching method sometimes teach a slightly modified version of the scientific method in which "Question" is substituted for Observation.
It's not clear what this sentence is trying to say, since neither "Question" nor "Observation" are in the preceding description of the scientific method.
Keep going, Ancheta Wis—you are moving in the right direction.
You started from the implication of ignorance or blatant disregard of some God-given truth in
Then, after deleting my clarification, you went from the fat to the fire in claiming
I guess you meant to make it not sound so deliberate, more like you were offering an excuse that there is really no reason for us to care about this supposed "difference." Of course, you had to throw in a little jab, pointing out the moral superiority of students in particular fields of activity, who are naturally so much smarter than the average Joe.
At that point, I was starting to think that what we needed was an addition along these lines:
But then you took out any reference to that second class of people who are either ignorant, obstinate, or indifferent in saying:
Then you even took out the "master race" stuff:
So now all we are left with is the logically flawed jump from the meaning of "weightless" to the God-given meaning of "weight".
Actually, if a discussion uses both weight and weightless, the use of the word weightless is quite helpful in identifying which of the several meanings of the ambiguous word weight is being used. It distinguishes not only the meaning which is the same as mass in its physics jargon meaning, but it also distinguishes a couple of quite different meanings of weight as a particular kind of force within physics jargon.
If I don't have any bananas, I don't make that point by saying "All my bananas are weightless." Yet that is the only way that bananas could be weightless, in any of the applications in which their weight is normally discussed. That meaning of weight in commerce, and in cooking, is quite proper and legitimate, well justified in history, in linguistics, and in the law. Weightless is useless in connection with this meaning of the word weight, so the use of this word weightless is a remarkably effective indicator that the weight in that particular discussion is not the weight which is not different from physics-jargon mass (yet quite different from other meanings of the ambiguous word mass, which is one of the reasons we aren't real quick to incorporate that physics jargon into our everyday lives). [Got a little carried away with double negatives, I'll let the readers get a little mental exercise figuring it out.)
Furthermore, the use of the word weightless also helps to identify which of a couple of quite different physics-jargon meanings is being used. If you don't know it already, if you consider only the force due to gravity from the F = G·m·M/r² formula, for a person or object on the Space Station, the Earth is pulling 90% as hard as it does when they are on its surface.
See, for example, Sears and Zemansky, University Physics, 1970, p. 61:
Their "definition above":
This corresponds to the usage in Wikipedia apparent weight as well.
Contrast that with the definition given by NIST in SP 811, which corresponds to the "apparent weight" of Sears and Zemansky: [1]
When the term "weightless" is used, it is almost always in connection with the latter of the specific physics-jargon force meanings, not the Sears and Zemansky meaning.
It isn't so simple after all.
Just a little more from the experts in this field, in the same section of NIST's SP811, Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI) quoted above: [2]
Then this section concludes with the excellent advice:
Gene Nygaard 12:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2005 marks one century since the publication of Einstein's five seminal papers and has been declared WYP 2005 - the World Year of Physics in commemoration. Along that theme, I invite your energetic contributions to the definition article, where the above distinctions between mass and weight may very well enliven that article. There are a host of issues beyond mass and weight in physics, such as simultaneity, the question of inertia and inertial coordinates, their manifestation on the Earth as the trade winds acting under the Coriolis force, time, space, etc. What do you say to illustrating the concept of definition with the above discussion, but transferred to the definition article. (In my opinion, inertia is an even weightier topic, whose article may very well be improved by a disambiguation along these lines.) Ancheta Wis 16:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Categorical statements that use the words always or never are welcome additions to our knowledge, but should be used with care. A test or an experiment is a comparison of an expectation with an observation. Thus it is possible to have an astronomical experiment. All that is required is that something be unknown first. When we think we know enough to be able to predict something, that is an expectation. If we then make an observation for that something, that combination of expectation and observation qualifies as an experiment.
The list of unsolved problems in the sciences is long; It often takes researchers considerable time to characterize some aspect of their chosen problem. Here is an example, from astronomy, our first science: the cause of the rotation rate of some galaxies is currently unknown, with the best guess being a putative concept, dark matter. But if dark matter can then explain the rotation rate of the galaxies, then a brave-enough researcher can make a prediction. An experiment can then be designed and then performed.
In other words, I disagree with the categorical statement
The Hubble Space Telescope is an observatory which has had many experimental projects, for example, even providing the venue for experimental corroboration for the hypothesis of dark matter. We should probably re-phrase some of the latest edits to the article. Ancheta Wis 14:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The newest addition under reevaluation has a nice link to the Exchange particles of Gravitation x The Standard Model. If it is alright with everyone, I propose moving the link to the Standard Model and appending it there, with an attendant link to that article on this page. Is that alright? That means the hypothesized Graviton and the well-founded Photon, Gluon, and the W's and Z will sit together as they are thought to sit. My reason is that this item under Reevaluation is simply an iteration and recursion of the Scientific Method, where the hypothetical items are the relationship of the Graviton, Photon, W's and Z, and the Gluons. It's physics, alright, but it belongs on a physics page rather than the General Interest page for the Scientific Method, what with the Gluons and Gravitons and all. The link is actually a nice summary of the Standard Model + Gravitation. Ancheta Wis 00:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the scientific method is not revolutionary today, and can even be viewed as conservative. But 400 years ago, it turned the world on its ear. Thus the addition above is a relative statement, and can be viewed as an editorial comment. So where does this relative statement lead? How about discussing the direction you want the article to go? Ancheta Wis 01:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Current | Comment |
Science deals with assertions about the way the world is, in the form of theories, hypotheses or observations. | Theory, at least as used in physics, overlaps both hypothesis and observation. That confuses the usage. Hypothesis is a possible explanation about an unknown, before the experiment. Hypothesis is raw guess, unsupported until more evidence can be amassed, from any direction. Hypothesis is flimsier than theory, but its frailty is also a strength, because it easily can become theory with more evidence from observation, from mathematics, etc. My favorite example is the scientist who realized that Salmon might return from the ocean to their streams using their sense of smell, as he smelled the environment near a waterfall. It took him years to prove that realization. If you were to strike the word theory, I would agree with the sentence. If you were to replace hypothesis with guess I would not disagree, but probably the sentence would not survive in Wikipedia. |
Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If the prediction is found to be correct - then the theory remains. | Agree, if the word theories is replaced by hypotheses, or guesses. There are several parts: 1)If a problem is understood well enough to posit a prediction, that is a major advance. 2)That is different from actually testing the prediction with an experiment. For example, there are not any currently known ways to currently test string theory because we don't operate at the huge energies, high temperatures or tiny time scales needed for our current understanding of string theory. Or maybe we don't know enough mathematics. If the hypothesis survives, then it is theory, so I don't disagree with the second occurrence. Thus I might have phrased it Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by experiment. If the prediction is found to be correct - then the theory survives. |
If the prediction is shown to be wrong, then the theory must be wrong. | Actually, the defect might be anywhere along the chain: in theory, in observation, in experiment design, in experiment process, in basic definition, etc. |
Any theory which makes predictions can be tested scientifically in this way. | Agree |
The idea is that these methods underlie the practice of science, enabling it to determine which theories, hypotheses and observations are true. | Agree |
For short, use POHDECC ( Problem, Observation, Hypothesis, Deduction, Experiment, Conclusion, and Communicate). | this is a summary mnemonic |
This method is essentially an extremely conservative approach towards building a supportable, evidenced understanding of the various aspects of the world around us. | Perhaps replace the word conservative with the word cautious |
end of Current Comment Ancheta Wis 11:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
By attempting to summarise too much, the intro now says nothing intelligible. Banno
From the first para: "Science manages new assertions about our world with theories — hypotheses and observations". Science manages? What does that mean? Banno
The assertion "if a prediction fails the theory fails" is simply wrong. Banno
"Any theory which is strong enough to make verifiable predictions can then be tested scientifically in this way." So if a theory makes predictions that are not verified, it is not a scientific theory? Come again? Did the author mean potently verifiable? if so, what about falsifiability? Banno
"With them scientists determine which theories, hypotheses and observations are true." Do you really want to assert that science is determinate? Then you had better re-write the section reevaluation. Also implicit in this sentence is the idea that only scientific facts are true, which is cobblers. Banno 11:27, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Current | Proposed |
Science manages new assertions about our world with theories — hypotheses and observations. | Scientists propose new assertions about our world with theories: observations, hypotheses, deductions and tests. |
Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out correct, the theory survives, but if a prediction fails the theory fails. | Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by experiment. If the prediction is found to be correct - then the theory survives. |
Any theory which is strong enough to make verifiable predictions can then be tested scientifically in this way. | Any theory which is cogent enough to make falsifiable predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. |
These are the underlying methods of scientific practice. With them scientists determine which theories, hypotheses and observations are true. | |
The scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidenced understanding of our world. |
Note: Please improve or comment as you see fit.
Ancheta Wis 14:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The appearance of falsifiability already in the introduction bothers me for two reasons. First of all, it is not part of the scientific method in its canonical form. A number of eminent scientists and philosophers think falsification has no place in science (I'm thinking chiefly of David Stove and Martin Gardner ( see http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gardner_popper.html ). The other reason is that Popper himself, despite having the title 'Professor of Logic and Scientific Method' at LSE, wasn't much for scientific method ( see http://www.univie.ac.at/karlpopper2002/abstracts/ContributedPapers/worall.pdf ). Chris 08:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Acrotatus, the article on scientific method is not an article about the content of the laws of science. It is commentary about the methods of science; how some logical predicate relates to some other logical predicate. Multiple contributors have added content to the initial paragraphs of this article, which are taken, expanded into articles of their own, and which live in peace there. I personally like your comments about a certain characteristic of the laws of mechanics, which were first observed by Galileo. The current mathematical statements in the articles about invariants under transformation would be improved for general consumption if you were to put your statements there. I have to state, that the invariants have a long history dating back to at least the Ancient Greeks, and that physicists are attached to them. However, the mathematicians, who have a claim to the invariants themselves, are finding that some pet ideas, such as conservation of energy, do not necessarily hold in a gravitational field. This finding, by David Hilbert, 1915 has not set well with others, who have found some expressions (involving pseudotensors) that can still be called invariants. If you like, we could transfer your work to a section of the physics articles. We could work together on this. For example, we could put your statements in the variational principle article. Other possibilities: Galileo's principle, physical law ... But the invariants, as a concept, may not be well-founded, even though they have a long tradition in science. And if that were to be the case (if some experiment were to prove that energy is not conserved in a strong gravitational field, for example), then even the invariants would be history, according to the principles of the scientific method. One of the ways that this could be accomplished might be to insert your comments into a /Invariants subpage. We could work on them there and discuss exactly where to put them in an appropriate article.
To the contributor of the final sentence of the lead paragraph:
If a researcher seeks to confirm a hypothesis H, one way to do it is by assuming some opposite hypothesis (or null hypothesis) Ň, and then seeking to disprove Ň. If the Ň was disproven, then H survives, but only as another possibility. There are errors ( Type I error and Type II error, as examples) for which the researcher must be vigilant.
The previous ending sentence for the lead paragraph was stronger, because all this sentence does is leave the door open for H, Ň, or other possible hypotheses. Thus the need for evidence; the sentence does not state the role for some consequent prediction (some logical consequence of H) which would bolster the case for H, or disprove Ň etc.
Can you reply here, or better, rework the sentence? Ancheta Wis 10:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph that was revently added. It is badly written, and more important, simply not true. First, the word "proved" has no business in science. Second, while it is true that many individual scientists may think along those lines, and this assumption may be made for certain specific experiments, it is not at all fundamental to the method. Indeed, determining exactly what proerties of the universe vary and which do not over various changes (including space and time) is part and parcel of the goal of science. LDC 09:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The answer to your question, "Dear scientists, could you tell us whether scientific 'laws' are dependant to spacetime or not?" is simple: some are, some aren't. Science is the method by which we discover which are which. The initial paragraph of this article is beautifully worded, pithy, informative, and complete. Please stop messing with it. LDC 10:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Scientific "laws" (yeah right, we wish!) are basically just a summary of a large number of empirical observations. If the bunch of observations (think experiments, or just hanging out with a pair of binoculars) seem to work out the same whether you are here or there, or whether you are standing on your head, then the law you come up with will be space-time independant. On the other hand, if things come out different depending on where you're standing, then the law you are using to summarise your set of observations should contain space-time as a variable. Space and time are just two of many many many variables that you might use in a law by the way. See SI for a comprehensive list of the base quantities and their measures. That's by far not the end of it though, since you can make up an endless list of derived measures and quantities: km/h (speed of a car), ms-2 (acceleration of same car), l/km (fuel efficiency of said car).
Kim Bruning 10:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Agasicles: Your argument and your definition are ridiculous. See: scientific law. "Scientific law", "law of nature", and "physical law" are defined as a "generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature". Until you can change the definition at scientific law, in the Oxford English Dictionary, and in the scientific community, go away. Adraeus 02:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I can't see any benefit in the new intro - it is ungrammatical; presumptive in treating maths as a non-empirical science and insulting to biology. A chance for comments before I revert... Banno 21:58, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Vsmith. Banno
So as not to enable this type of Trolling behavior. Please insert the related materials on the referenced sub page. We don't need it as part of the Talk page for the article. Thank you Ancheta Wis 14:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Moved the following from article for discussion:
Posted by User:203.164.197.187
Modified format a bit when I moved to talk. - Vsmith 02:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I will revert the last edit that reads:
"Scientists use observations, hypotheses ... to propose adequate explanations for natural phenomena ..."
and
"The scientific method is [a] means of continually building a supportable evidenced understanding of our natural world."
The highlighted words were added, the first of which I disagree with. The text now seems to say that scientists are satisfied with adequate explanations. I suspect that this is not what was meant. If there is an alternative reading, I suggest we make it clearer.
The second word I will remove because it only adds length to the sentence and not much else. Chris 23:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Since the present article about a single "method" centers on the experimental sciences and does not apply generally, why don't we admit that no single "scientific method" exists... then change the ,aom title to "Scientific Methods," or "The Methods of Science," and break out the current article as the *single* method used in the physical sciences. Creating a new section to describe non-experimental sciences would require some work. Then, since the current article would have it's own section, confusing disclaimers like the following could be moved from it to the "methods" section: "Difficulties with this have led to the rejection of the very idea that there is a single method that is universally applicable to all the sciences, and that serves to distinguish science from non-science." "These activities do not describe all that scientists do (see below) but apply mostly to experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry)." "Yet an experiment is not an absolute requirement. In observation based fields of science actual experiments must be designed differently than for the classical laboratory based sciences."
{{portal}} In keeping with recent suggestions in this talk page, I have added 2 new wikiportals -- Science and History of science. Everyone is invited to participate in the corresponding Scientific method wikiportal (see icon and links above), which stub I have created for others to populate. All are invited to participate in its development, of course. Ancheta Wis 13:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
M.O.T.S, I removed the 'five principles' that you added because you had put it in the middle of section. After your edit the text read:
Please be careful when putting new matter into an old and well-established article like this one. The question "what is scientific method" is not a simple one - please talk to other editors here. DJ Clayworth 21:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
The description of Bacon's method I introduced neglects any discussion of induction. Here's the text I used in case anyone else feels like writing about it: http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm Chris 23:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
The article is getting long. I'm just going to cut out what I think is least interesting and we'll see how it goes from there. Chris 08:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
It would be good to get an image of picture 51, to illustrate the DNA/experiment portion of the article. Ancheta Wis 11:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
For the precession of Mercury's perihelion, I am seeking an image similar to this
, but larger, where the ellipse of Mercury's orbit is itself rotating around the Sun. The current image shows the precession of an axis of rotation which is not quite right for perihelion advance.
Ancheta Wis 09:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I found the DNA example that runs through part of the article to be confusing when I skimmed through the article. I think the problem is that it uses the same subhead level, whereas it needs something else to set it apart, though I'm not sure exactly what. If you're not reading carefully and you miss the first DNA bit, the rest of the bits look out of place. -- Lee Hunter 04:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
The literary and cinematic technique of cross-cutting has been utilized in the DNA example. I inserted little DNA icons, number the crosscut sections, and italized the crosscut items to help the bits stand out more, while maintaining the structure of the 4 steps of the scientific method. Ancheta Wis 11:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
To discuss BCE-CE vs. BC-AD vs. astronomical epoch J2000.0 with the Astronomical year numbering, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) .
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Here's a major problem. I don't see a clear solution. Many scientists object to the the numbered steps, they object to the very concept The Scientific Method, and they fight to get it removed from grade-school textbooks. Examples:
In the main entry I find the phrase: "These activities do not describe all that scientists do but apply mostly to experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry)." But the entry is about Science, not about experimental science.
If scientists state that the description of Science is controversial, that a numbered list called "THE Scientific Method" doesn't exist, and that the list is an invention of grade-school textbook authors... then why does it appear in Wikipedia? If "THE scientific method" is only a description of experimental science, why pretend that it applies to science itself? Or put another way: if "what is science?" is genuinely open to question and is debated by the experts... then the title of this page in Wikipedia has POV problems: it is a distortion, it describes a myth about science and tries to give a snappy reliable simple clear answer which unfortunately is in conflict with reality. First suggestion: remove wording that suggests that a single method exists. Replace "THE Scientific Method" with another less biased term such as "Methods of Science." In addition, perhaps the "No Scientific Method" controversy deserves an entire separate entry? -- Wjbeaty 09:36, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
{{portal}}Scientific method
By what other methods do professional scientists explore and model reality? The Scientific Method® apparently refers to a dynamic cyclical process which professional scientists use to research and validate such research. Clearly, some professional scientists and some amateur scientists do not execute the Scientific Method® completely; however, that's usually because such execution is unneeded. Scientific thought concerns practicality and reason. Is it reasonable to suggest that the Scientific Method® is the process that every scientist uses? No. That's not what the article is suggesting. Simple pedantry seems to be the source of this discussion's initial complaint. Everything scientific is evolutionary. Readers should understand that. And so should the plaintiffs in this case. Adraeus 12:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the linked texts disagree much with how "Scientific method" currently describes what is done in science. They all agree that experiments, in broad sense, are essential to science. Not every scientist does experiments, but all depend on them. They also mention the provisional character of scientific theories and the constant reevaluation.
But they don't agree that this constitutes a method. A method often is used for an algorithm, people can follow without thinking. This is certainly not the case for the "scientific method".
Using "a scientific method" is also misleading, as it suggests the content of this page does not apply to all sciences. But with the broad definition of an experiment, it does apply to anything I would consider science (as Ancheta Wis pointed out in #Proposed change.)
I therefore suggest changing the title of this page to "(The) Scientific Methodology". Markus Schmaus 02:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I hope I'm not speaking out of turn if I say that this article is absolutely crucial to a number of pages in Wikipedia. It needs to be snappy, understandable, and reliable - in sympathy with Carl Sagan I believe that making this page accessible to the general public will allow a greater understanding of what science is and what scientists do. Please remember the NPOV Tutorial if you're new to Wikipedia (like me)... and keep up the good work everybody. Nof20 05:27, 29 Jan 05 (UTC)
Scientific Method in Religious Practice
Many years ago Yogananda sayd: "My Yoga is Science".
Yoga — Sanskrit equivalent of the Latin word “relig-ion”, which means “link with God”, “methods of ad-vancement to Him”, “Mergence” of a person with God. One may speak of yoga: a) as of the Path and the methods of religious advancement and b) as of the state of Union with God (in the latter case the first letter of this word is capitalized).
This method can be developed as science. Religion and science have contradictions only in human mind. I have restored this link in article.
see also: http://www.swami-center.org
Thank you, Ancheta Wis. Science in religion is very delicate subject. This article is my lection... I have 10 years experience in practice of yoga (religion) and some years as instructor. I verifyed used method and observed repeatable results. I'm ready for answer you questions.
Predictions do not refer exclusively to future experiments, but are often "postdictions" or explanations of surprising results from earlier experiments. For example, one of the first successes of General Relativity was its explanation of the precession of Mercury, an anomaly that had been known for over fifty years.
Based on this position, I recommend reversion of the latest addition. Now
were known. Thus, his characterization, based on at least 2 pieces of experimental evidence, served to bolster his confidence in making a prediction:
How's this? Ancheta Wis 21:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Teachers using inquiry as a teaching method sometimes teach a slightly modified version of the scientific method in which "Question" is substituted for Observation.
It's not clear what this sentence is trying to say, since neither "Question" nor "Observation" are in the preceding description of the scientific method.
Keep going, Ancheta Wis—you are moving in the right direction.
You started from the implication of ignorance or blatant disregard of some God-given truth in
Then, after deleting my clarification, you went from the fat to the fire in claiming
I guess you meant to make it not sound so deliberate, more like you were offering an excuse that there is really no reason for us to care about this supposed "difference." Of course, you had to throw in a little jab, pointing out the moral superiority of students in particular fields of activity, who are naturally so much smarter than the average Joe.
At that point, I was starting to think that what we needed was an addition along these lines:
But then you took out any reference to that second class of people who are either ignorant, obstinate, or indifferent in saying:
Then you even took out the "master race" stuff:
So now all we are left with is the logically flawed jump from the meaning of "weightless" to the God-given meaning of "weight".
Actually, if a discussion uses both weight and weightless, the use of the word weightless is quite helpful in identifying which of the several meanings of the ambiguous word weight is being used. It distinguishes not only the meaning which is the same as mass in its physics jargon meaning, but it also distinguishes a couple of quite different meanings of weight as a particular kind of force within physics jargon.
If I don't have any bananas, I don't make that point by saying "All my bananas are weightless." Yet that is the only way that bananas could be weightless, in any of the applications in which their weight is normally discussed. That meaning of weight in commerce, and in cooking, is quite proper and legitimate, well justified in history, in linguistics, and in the law. Weightless is useless in connection with this meaning of the word weight, so the use of this word weightless is a remarkably effective indicator that the weight in that particular discussion is not the weight which is not different from physics-jargon mass (yet quite different from other meanings of the ambiguous word mass, which is one of the reasons we aren't real quick to incorporate that physics jargon into our everyday lives). [Got a little carried away with double negatives, I'll let the readers get a little mental exercise figuring it out.)
Furthermore, the use of the word weightless also helps to identify which of a couple of quite different physics-jargon meanings is being used. If you don't know it already, if you consider only the force due to gravity from the F = G·m·M/r² formula, for a person or object on the Space Station, the Earth is pulling 90% as hard as it does when they are on its surface.
See, for example, Sears and Zemansky, University Physics, 1970, p. 61:
Their "definition above":
This corresponds to the usage in Wikipedia apparent weight as well.
Contrast that with the definition given by NIST in SP 811, which corresponds to the "apparent weight" of Sears and Zemansky: [1]
When the term "weightless" is used, it is almost always in connection with the latter of the specific physics-jargon force meanings, not the Sears and Zemansky meaning.
It isn't so simple after all.
Just a little more from the experts in this field, in the same section of NIST's SP811, Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI) quoted above: [2]
Then this section concludes with the excellent advice:
Gene Nygaard 12:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2005 marks one century since the publication of Einstein's five seminal papers and has been declared WYP 2005 - the World Year of Physics in commemoration. Along that theme, I invite your energetic contributions to the definition article, where the above distinctions between mass and weight may very well enliven that article. There are a host of issues beyond mass and weight in physics, such as simultaneity, the question of inertia and inertial coordinates, their manifestation on the Earth as the trade winds acting under the Coriolis force, time, space, etc. What do you say to illustrating the concept of definition with the above discussion, but transferred to the definition article. (In my opinion, inertia is an even weightier topic, whose article may very well be improved by a disambiguation along these lines.) Ancheta Wis 16:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Categorical statements that use the words always or never are welcome additions to our knowledge, but should be used with care. A test or an experiment is a comparison of an expectation with an observation. Thus it is possible to have an astronomical experiment. All that is required is that something be unknown first. When we think we know enough to be able to predict something, that is an expectation. If we then make an observation for that something, that combination of expectation and observation qualifies as an experiment.
The list of unsolved problems in the sciences is long; It often takes researchers considerable time to characterize some aspect of their chosen problem. Here is an example, from astronomy, our first science: the cause of the rotation rate of some galaxies is currently unknown, with the best guess being a putative concept, dark matter. But if dark matter can then explain the rotation rate of the galaxies, then a brave-enough researcher can make a prediction. An experiment can then be designed and then performed.
In other words, I disagree with the categorical statement
The Hubble Space Telescope is an observatory which has had many experimental projects, for example, even providing the venue for experimental corroboration for the hypothesis of dark matter. We should probably re-phrase some of the latest edits to the article. Ancheta Wis 14:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The newest addition under reevaluation has a nice link to the Exchange particles of Gravitation x The Standard Model. If it is alright with everyone, I propose moving the link to the Standard Model and appending it there, with an attendant link to that article on this page. Is that alright? That means the hypothesized Graviton and the well-founded Photon, Gluon, and the W's and Z will sit together as they are thought to sit. My reason is that this item under Reevaluation is simply an iteration and recursion of the Scientific Method, where the hypothetical items are the relationship of the Graviton, Photon, W's and Z, and the Gluons. It's physics, alright, but it belongs on a physics page rather than the General Interest page for the Scientific Method, what with the Gluons and Gravitons and all. The link is actually a nice summary of the Standard Model + Gravitation. Ancheta Wis 00:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the scientific method is not revolutionary today, and can even be viewed as conservative. But 400 years ago, it turned the world on its ear. Thus the addition above is a relative statement, and can be viewed as an editorial comment. So where does this relative statement lead? How about discussing the direction you want the article to go? Ancheta Wis 01:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Current | Comment |
Science deals with assertions about the way the world is, in the form of theories, hypotheses or observations. | Theory, at least as used in physics, overlaps both hypothesis and observation. That confuses the usage. Hypothesis is a possible explanation about an unknown, before the experiment. Hypothesis is raw guess, unsupported until more evidence can be amassed, from any direction. Hypothesis is flimsier than theory, but its frailty is also a strength, because it easily can become theory with more evidence from observation, from mathematics, etc. My favorite example is the scientist who realized that Salmon might return from the ocean to their streams using their sense of smell, as he smelled the environment near a waterfall. It took him years to prove that realization. If you were to strike the word theory, I would agree with the sentence. If you were to replace hypothesis with guess I would not disagree, but probably the sentence would not survive in Wikipedia. |
Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If the prediction is found to be correct - then the theory remains. | Agree, if the word theories is replaced by hypotheses, or guesses. There are several parts: 1)If a problem is understood well enough to posit a prediction, that is a major advance. 2)That is different from actually testing the prediction with an experiment. For example, there are not any currently known ways to currently test string theory because we don't operate at the huge energies, high temperatures or tiny time scales needed for our current understanding of string theory. Or maybe we don't know enough mathematics. If the hypothesis survives, then it is theory, so I don't disagree with the second occurrence. Thus I might have phrased it Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by experiment. If the prediction is found to be correct - then the theory survives. |
If the prediction is shown to be wrong, then the theory must be wrong. | Actually, the defect might be anywhere along the chain: in theory, in observation, in experiment design, in experiment process, in basic definition, etc. |
Any theory which makes predictions can be tested scientifically in this way. | Agree |
The idea is that these methods underlie the practice of science, enabling it to determine which theories, hypotheses and observations are true. | Agree |
For short, use POHDECC ( Problem, Observation, Hypothesis, Deduction, Experiment, Conclusion, and Communicate). | this is a summary mnemonic |
This method is essentially an extremely conservative approach towards building a supportable, evidenced understanding of the various aspects of the world around us. | Perhaps replace the word conservative with the word cautious |
end of Current Comment Ancheta Wis 11:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
By attempting to summarise too much, the intro now says nothing intelligible. Banno
From the first para: "Science manages new assertions about our world with theories — hypotheses and observations". Science manages? What does that mean? Banno
The assertion "if a prediction fails the theory fails" is simply wrong. Banno
"Any theory which is strong enough to make verifiable predictions can then be tested scientifically in this way." So if a theory makes predictions that are not verified, it is not a scientific theory? Come again? Did the author mean potently verifiable? if so, what about falsifiability? Banno
"With them scientists determine which theories, hypotheses and observations are true." Do you really want to assert that science is determinate? Then you had better re-write the section reevaluation. Also implicit in this sentence is the idea that only scientific facts are true, which is cobblers. Banno 11:27, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Current | Proposed |
Science manages new assertions about our world with theories — hypotheses and observations. | Scientists propose new assertions about our world with theories: observations, hypotheses, deductions and tests. |
Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out correct, the theory survives, but if a prediction fails the theory fails. | Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by experiment. If the prediction is found to be correct - then the theory survives. |
Any theory which is strong enough to make verifiable predictions can then be tested scientifically in this way. | Any theory which is cogent enough to make falsifiable predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. |
These are the underlying methods of scientific practice. With them scientists determine which theories, hypotheses and observations are true. | |
The scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidenced understanding of our world. |
Note: Please improve or comment as you see fit.
Ancheta Wis 14:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The appearance of falsifiability already in the introduction bothers me for two reasons. First of all, it is not part of the scientific method in its canonical form. A number of eminent scientists and philosophers think falsification has no place in science (I'm thinking chiefly of David Stove and Martin Gardner ( see http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gardner_popper.html ). The other reason is that Popper himself, despite having the title 'Professor of Logic and Scientific Method' at LSE, wasn't much for scientific method ( see http://www.univie.ac.at/karlpopper2002/abstracts/ContributedPapers/worall.pdf ). Chris 08:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Acrotatus, the article on scientific method is not an article about the content of the laws of science. It is commentary about the methods of science; how some logical predicate relates to some other logical predicate. Multiple contributors have added content to the initial paragraphs of this article, which are taken, expanded into articles of their own, and which live in peace there. I personally like your comments about a certain characteristic of the laws of mechanics, which were first observed by Galileo. The current mathematical statements in the articles about invariants under transformation would be improved for general consumption if you were to put your statements there. I have to state, that the invariants have a long history dating back to at least the Ancient Greeks, and that physicists are attached to them. However, the mathematicians, who have a claim to the invariants themselves, are finding that some pet ideas, such as conservation of energy, do not necessarily hold in a gravitational field. This finding, by David Hilbert, 1915 has not set well with others, who have found some expressions (involving pseudotensors) that can still be called invariants. If you like, we could transfer your work to a section of the physics articles. We could work together on this. For example, we could put your statements in the variational principle article. Other possibilities: Galileo's principle, physical law ... But the invariants, as a concept, may not be well-founded, even though they have a long tradition in science. And if that were to be the case (if some experiment were to prove that energy is not conserved in a strong gravitational field, for example), then even the invariants would be history, according to the principles of the scientific method. One of the ways that this could be accomplished might be to insert your comments into a /Invariants subpage. We could work on them there and discuss exactly where to put them in an appropriate article.
To the contributor of the final sentence of the lead paragraph:
If a researcher seeks to confirm a hypothesis H, one way to do it is by assuming some opposite hypothesis (or null hypothesis) Ň, and then seeking to disprove Ň. If the Ň was disproven, then H survives, but only as another possibility. There are errors ( Type I error and Type II error, as examples) for which the researcher must be vigilant.
The previous ending sentence for the lead paragraph was stronger, because all this sentence does is leave the door open for H, Ň, or other possible hypotheses. Thus the need for evidence; the sentence does not state the role for some consequent prediction (some logical consequence of H) which would bolster the case for H, or disprove Ň etc.
Can you reply here, or better, rework the sentence? Ancheta Wis 10:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph that was revently added. It is badly written, and more important, simply not true. First, the word "proved" has no business in science. Second, while it is true that many individual scientists may think along those lines, and this assumption may be made for certain specific experiments, it is not at all fundamental to the method. Indeed, determining exactly what proerties of the universe vary and which do not over various changes (including space and time) is part and parcel of the goal of science. LDC 09:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The answer to your question, "Dear scientists, could you tell us whether scientific 'laws' are dependant to spacetime or not?" is simple: some are, some aren't. Science is the method by which we discover which are which. The initial paragraph of this article is beautifully worded, pithy, informative, and complete. Please stop messing with it. LDC 10:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Scientific "laws" (yeah right, we wish!) are basically just a summary of a large number of empirical observations. If the bunch of observations (think experiments, or just hanging out with a pair of binoculars) seem to work out the same whether you are here or there, or whether you are standing on your head, then the law you come up with will be space-time independant. On the other hand, if things come out different depending on where you're standing, then the law you are using to summarise your set of observations should contain space-time as a variable. Space and time are just two of many many many variables that you might use in a law by the way. See SI for a comprehensive list of the base quantities and their measures. That's by far not the end of it though, since you can make up an endless list of derived measures and quantities: km/h (speed of a car), ms-2 (acceleration of same car), l/km (fuel efficiency of said car).
Kim Bruning 10:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Agasicles: Your argument and your definition are ridiculous. See: scientific law. "Scientific law", "law of nature", and "physical law" are defined as a "generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature". Until you can change the definition at scientific law, in the Oxford English Dictionary, and in the scientific community, go away. Adraeus 02:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I can't see any benefit in the new intro - it is ungrammatical; presumptive in treating maths as a non-empirical science and insulting to biology. A chance for comments before I revert... Banno 21:58, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Vsmith. Banno
So as not to enable this type of Trolling behavior. Please insert the related materials on the referenced sub page. We don't need it as part of the Talk page for the article. Thank you Ancheta Wis 14:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Moved the following from article for discussion:
Posted by User:203.164.197.187
Modified format a bit when I moved to talk. - Vsmith 02:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I will revert the last edit that reads:
"Scientists use observations, hypotheses ... to propose adequate explanations for natural phenomena ..."
and
"The scientific method is [a] means of continually building a supportable evidenced understanding of our natural world."
The highlighted words were added, the first of which I disagree with. The text now seems to say that scientists are satisfied with adequate explanations. I suspect that this is not what was meant. If there is an alternative reading, I suggest we make it clearer.
The second word I will remove because it only adds length to the sentence and not much else. Chris 23:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Since the present article about a single "method" centers on the experimental sciences and does not apply generally, why don't we admit that no single "scientific method" exists... then change the ,aom title to "Scientific Methods," or "The Methods of Science," and break out the current article as the *single* method used in the physical sciences. Creating a new section to describe non-experimental sciences would require some work. Then, since the current article would have it's own section, confusing disclaimers like the following could be moved from it to the "methods" section: "Difficulties with this have led to the rejection of the very idea that there is a single method that is universally applicable to all the sciences, and that serves to distinguish science from non-science." "These activities do not describe all that scientists do (see below) but apply mostly to experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry)." "Yet an experiment is not an absolute requirement. In observation based fields of science actual experiments must be designed differently than for the classical laboratory based sciences."
{{portal}} In keeping with recent suggestions in this talk page, I have added 2 new wikiportals -- Science and History of science. Everyone is invited to participate in the corresponding Scientific method wikiportal (see icon and links above), which stub I have created for others to populate. All are invited to participate in its development, of course. Ancheta Wis 13:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
M.O.T.S, I removed the 'five principles' that you added because you had put it in the middle of section. After your edit the text read:
Please be careful when putting new matter into an old and well-established article like this one. The question "what is scientific method" is not a simple one - please talk to other editors here. DJ Clayworth 21:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
The description of Bacon's method I introduced neglects any discussion of induction. Here's the text I used in case anyone else feels like writing about it: http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm Chris 23:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
The article is getting long. I'm just going to cut out what I think is least interesting and we'll see how it goes from there. Chris 08:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
It would be good to get an image of picture 51, to illustrate the DNA/experiment portion of the article. Ancheta Wis 11:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
For the precession of Mercury's perihelion, I am seeking an image similar to this
, but larger, where the ellipse of Mercury's orbit is itself rotating around the Sun. The current image shows the precession of an axis of rotation which is not quite right for perihelion advance.
Ancheta Wis 09:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I found the DNA example that runs through part of the article to be confusing when I skimmed through the article. I think the problem is that it uses the same subhead level, whereas it needs something else to set it apart, though I'm not sure exactly what. If you're not reading carefully and you miss the first DNA bit, the rest of the bits look out of place. -- Lee Hunter 04:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
The literary and cinematic technique of cross-cutting has been utilized in the DNA example. I inserted little DNA icons, number the crosscut sections, and italized the crosscut items to help the bits stand out more, while maintaining the structure of the 4 steps of the scientific method. Ancheta Wis 11:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
To discuss BCE-CE vs. BC-AD vs. astronomical epoch J2000.0 with the Astronomical year numbering, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) .