Talk:Scientific method/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions about Scientific method. 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.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

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.

First off, peer review is used when publishing results of experiments, theories, and observations. It is a method that allows publishers to screen articles before publishing. Second, a peer review is a form of checking the results of the experiments to validate the predictions. A peer may have done a similar experiment checking a different prediction or hypothesis. The result of that similar experiment may show the prediction fails (at least in certain situations). The original author being reviewed may be unaware of the experiment, or may have chosen to ignore that work. The peer review is also used to analyze and validate methodologies used in observations, theories, predictions, and experiments. Peer review is ancillary to the scientific method, since it is not necessary or even critical to the method or to the science that uses that method. However, it is important in weeding out actual scientific endeavors from fraud, misdirection, misunderstandings, and ignorance of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid1138 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

Perhaps peer review might be considered part of the rhetoric of science. __Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 17:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you for your contribution to the encyclopedia. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 11:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

...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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you for your contribution to the encyclopedia. I recall that for my ten years watching this article, I have observed the cooperative nature of the edits, multiplied by the million, which are what I call the wiki action. We need more of this. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 18:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is apparently based on some very oddly constructed google queries, which are not terribly helpful at the best of times. I'm not aware of any serious assertion of identity between peer review and scientific method, for the rather obvious reason that the two terms refer to two quite distinct referents. Peer review is just a part of the academic publication process. While the modern practice of science institutionalizes the value in such publication of results, it is only one small (though valuable) part of the whole method. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

How to denote a translation date in the citations.

Newton's Principia was published in Latin over a 4 decade period 1687-1726. I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman produced a new translation into English in 1999 (published by the University of California), where they corrected some mistranslations which occurred over the past few centuries. The 'harvnb' citation template offers a way to concisely insert citations without duplication; I will ask Village Pump how to get the translation / republication date in a form that is acceptable to all. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 22:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Done per Village Pump. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Second paragraph uses 'theory' incorrectly

Second paragraph uses 'theory' interchangeably with what should be 'hypothesis' - the words should be changed to fit how they're used in the scientific method to avoid confusion between an idea that has been tested and one that is yet to be tested. 174.62.68.53 (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

174, it is easy enough for us to make the changes.

Arc (that's the name I think of right now), is this all right with you, as you were the primary editor for this paragraph?

Others? any objection?

--Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 05:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

For starters, I would like to see a reliable source that supports this wording change. Which part of the main body is this paragraph summarizing? -hugeTim ^(talk) 02:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we need to know just what is wrong with the wording. What is wrong with 'theory' here? What should it be? Myrvin (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

174 points out the word 'theory' is being used in multiple senses. Perhaps the second paragraph might be fixed up by inserting appropriate adjectives in front of 'theory'; these adjectives might be words such as "untested". "corroborated", "verified", "popularly accepted", "moot", "so-called", "statistical", "formal", "mathematical", etc. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 17:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that would solve 174's problem. I think this is the idea that hypothesis is very different from scientific theory. The idea is that a theory is generally accepted and/or has been tested, while a hypothesis hasn't been tested. I am very suspicious of such ideas, and suspect they are largely made up. The article on hypothesis, for instance, uses only a website to expound these ideas. It is difficult to find a real reference to do so - I've looked. Myrvin (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It is necessary for investigators to separate what is known (denote this as 'testable/ tested/ verified theory' for now) from what is not known (hypothesis). This idea dates back at least to Erasmus, who cites Aesop: Here is Rhodes, jump here! as the Romans would say. The idea is that a scientific theory is an interlocking set of claims, each opinion held by some person (the braggart in Aesop's story), and a set of consequences (the skeptics who test the braggart by challenging the braggart show me!). So at any given time, the set of tested ideas is known to the investigators, and the set of untested claims is also known to the investigators. Now insert the whole set of testable/ tested/ verified/ known knowledge at any given time into the picture, and step through the promising claims, one by one. (Throw out the bad ones -- Linus Pauling's idea)

What we then come up with is David Deutsch's picture of a set of experts, each with a domain of knowledge, who explain what is known, what is hypothetical, what remains to be tested, etc. to the laymen, who accept the expert opinion. Each layman reserves the right to believe in what matters in each of their respective lives. Deutsch points out that each expert is also a layman in those areas which lie outside their respective domains of expertise. If someone can come up with a counterexample to some claim, they can then contribute to the process of proving just what is true and what is unknown, what is still opinion, etc.

To address your suspicions, see Leibniz' formulation that the claims and opinions each have a probability that each is true or not. Then add in Pascal's idea that probability is the basis of gambling. We then come up with a picture of laymen, each with a set of resources (time, life, money), who bet on the opinions of experts. The laymen can then deploy their resources (time, life, money) as a gamble that they have bet profitably (I learned this from Feynman). In other words, to believe a hypothesis is a gamble. We saw a dramatic example of a payoff this week, in BICEP's detection of polarized light from cosmic inflation after the Big bang. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 21:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The question is what do the sources say about 'theory' and 'hypothesis'. Also, in practice, how do scientists and philosophers use the terms? Myrvin (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Myrvin, I just looked at the scientific theory article, and found an unsatisfactory sentence: "If a substantial amount of evidence is gathered that consistently suggests the validity of a hypothesis, the hypothesis can be converted into a theory. (cn)". The mathematicians have already solved this problem: Alfred Tarski#What are logical notions? (see especially point #6, which shows the weakness of axiomatic formulations of knowledge). The unsatisfactory sentence fails to include the idea of "crucial experiment". --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 07:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This is again someone's attempt to split the two terms. I note that the theories of relativity were called as such almost immediately. Was there ever a hypothesis of special relativity? The terms are used interchangeably in the literature. Myrvin (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

My PhD thesis quotes this:

Honderich (1995) in The Oxford companion to philosophy, has the following helpful definition: “Hypothesis A hunch, speculation, or conjecture proposed as a possible solution to a problem, and requiring further investigation of its acceptability by argument or observation and experiment. Hypothesis … from the basis of an influential account of scientific method (hypothetico-deductive method), which is closely associated with the claim, associated with Popper, that scientific theories are empirical hypotheses and remain so, however successful they are at withstanding repeated attempts to falsify them.”

Myrvin (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

These confusions also exist in Scientific theory and Hypothesis. I note that here [1] the US NAS have had a go too. They say that a theory contains tested hypotheses. Myrvin (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this [2] should be useful. I don't think it covers all the ways the terms have been used, but it may help to clarify things. Myrvin (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Not bad, but rather rambling. I rather prefer the OED's third definition for hypothesis: "A supposition or conjecture put forth to account for known facts; esp. in the sciences, a provisional supposition from which to draw conclusions that shall be in accordance with known facts, and which serves as a starting-point for further investigation by which it may be proved or disproved and the true theory arrived at." Similarly, the OED definition 4a for theory: "A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." Naturally, they also take note of other usages, particularly in mathematics and in loose general usage, but the above is the most relevant in the practice of physical sciences. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here's the problem I see. Theory can be untested at the start. Most books I have that at its bare bones, a theory is a systematic explanation of principles involved in a phenomenon. But they also mention that the scientific method will modify a theory based on evidence. It seems incorrect to say that a theory is only a tested theory. Here are some definitions I dug up from the books on my desk:

"Theory refers to a systematic statement of the principles involved in a phenomenon. These principles specifiy relationships among constructs in a hypothetical population." Aneshensel, Carol S. 2002. Theory-Based Data Analysis for the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA:Pine Forge Press.
"A systematic explanation for the observations that relate to a particular aspect of life..." Babbie, Earl. 2010. The Practice of Social Research. 12th ed. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

I've got other methods books at home if anyone finds these two unconvincing. But I think we are conflating theory with the scientific process. A good theory should be tested, but that is not a necessary condition for a set of hypotheses/statements to be a theory. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, thank you. It appears that a scientific theory describes a 'good theory', but that an untested tower of hypotheses (guesses) can lead to an 'untenable theory'. Thus that tower of opinion will fall of its own weight. As a rule of thumb, two or more unsubstantiated hypotheses in a theory ought to be a danger signal that a critical audience will flag; an investigator will seek to systematically confirm or discard hypotheses, until the investigator can finally focus on a crucial experiment which can determine the reliability of one theory or another.

Myrvin, I support the NAS citation you found. I like its usage of 'law' as a statement of high reliability, with 'theory' as a compact statement of scientific theory (an interconnected set of well-substantiated statements). I like its characterization that inferences be well-justified, facts be confirmed, that hypotheses be tested, and that laws are reliable statements about a domain (that therefore, in that domain, one's life can rely on that statement).

As a side note, that National Academy of Sciences pamphlet supports Imre Lakatos' view that 'ideological interference leads to bad science'. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 12:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

My 2¢ on this topic: there are two senses of "theory" relevant to the discussion. The first refers to a general body of knowledge or thought: this meaning is rare in science but can be found in e.g. ethical theory and chess theory. The second is the one described in scientific theory, which is the sense that the NAS source describes and in my experience it's the meaning typically used by scientists. On the question that started this section: I didn't write that sentence (IIRC I've never made major edits to the lead), but I've thought about it before and decided it was probably acceptable since it doesn't say that only theories may be treated in this manner. The sentence would also be correct if it referred only to hypotheses (or to theories and hypotheses collectively). Sunrise (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Arc, thanks for the clarification. User:Dpleibovitz posed a proposal below which triggered a search on my part: what I found was the states of four-valued logic widely used by electrical engineers

T True
F False
X Don't care (unknown)
Z High impedance (open, so the system operates without the specific influence of this part of the circuit)

Thus a complicated set of predicates (think theory) can actually be simplified by including Don't cares and Opens. So what I learned was that a complex, interlocking set of statements need not operate all the time. Some parts of a theory might actually not be used because those parts might never get exercised, kind of like a large computer program with incipient bugs. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 15:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Myrvin, I would guess you already knew this: Imre Lakatos, in his 'research programme' has said a scientific theory will produce new, verified, facts (which should then be published to mark their discovery, but the theory should continue its successes with additional new facts, presumably to avoid the degenerative label). That would mean that the theory would have to generate new, untested hypotheses to remain vital. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 13:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Categorize under Epistemology?

I propose that the scientific method be categorized as an epistemology (for organizing and acquiring knowledge), i.e., under Category:Epistemology. Nevertheless, I am placing it here for discussion as this may reflect my personal views and I want to reach consensus first. Ideally there would also be a citation from someone who stated exactly that.

Normally, epistemology is studied by philosophers and scientists might not realize that they engage in practices considered as epistemological. Just because philosophers study the Epistemology of science doesn't make the scientific method itself an epistemology (which I think it is).

Technically, Category:Methodology could also be similarly categorized. Dpleibovitz (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Dpleibovitz, I am happy to report there is a citation for the idea that scientific method is an epistemology: A secondary source is Research group in semiotic epistemology and mathematics education, Institut für Didaktik der Mathematik, University of Bielefeld and a primary source is Charles Sanders Peirce (1908) "A Neglected Argument". A full citation is in the Peirce article: Peirce (1908), "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God", Hibbert Journal v.7, pp. 90–112. Also found in Wikisource:"A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" with added notes. Reprinted with previously unpublished part, Collected Papers v. 6, paragraphs 452-85, The Essential Peirce v. 2, pp. 434–50, and elsewhere. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 20:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Responses before citation was found

Dpleibovitz, as an example what is it? I offer the current talk:double-slit experiment, as of 12:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC). It's a great example of is it an A, or is it a B? The experiment is particles versus waves?, but our respective theories are probably impeding us (we are probably seeking resolution of an open question too early; it might well take another century to sort things out properly; it's been over 200 years so far). That talk page is an illustration of sincere attempts to address our gaps in logic, our jumps in reasoning and explication, and a search for resources which can lead us to acceptable citations. Some history of the experiment. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 12:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your response. If scientific method is possibly an A and a B then it should be categorized under both? Perhaps my original proposal was not clear.

By analytic definition of what the Scientific method is and what Epistemology is, I suggest that the scientific method is an epistemology - a path for acquiring knowledge. Indeed, Empiricism (a philosophical label) is categorized under Category:Epistemological theories. Perhaps the problem is that the scientific method is not a philosophical label? Or is the problem that the scientific method is, in fact, many methods?
If methodology is about research methods, then it too is part of the study of epistemology (by analytic definition)
Perhaps the problem is with applying vs defining. If one is using the scientific method (or a methodology) than one is doing science, not epistemology. If one is defining, measuring or improving the effectiveness of the scientific method (or a methodology), then one is doing epistemology. These are two stances towards a concept, and by different groups. It is not clear any one group or stance should have a monopoly on categorization?

Dpleibovitz (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope we are not talking past each other.

In 1581, Francisco Sanches stated that the details about a topic are basic to a method of knowing (modus sciendi).

I hope that the other editors agree that clear statements about a topic, i.e., whether something is known or not is basic to scientific method. Or better, whether 'Statement A is true' is an open question or not.

At one time, the editors agreed that the article ought to refrain from using the definite article, as in 'the scientific method'. At one time, the definite article was studiously not used. The usage was 'a scientific method'. Now, things are different, and the definite article is used in the article, as in 'the scientific method', even though there are clearly multiple methods in use in science.

As for basic types, the 'A vs B' (e.g., wave vs particle) issue in the double slit experiment is well cited. How is analytic definition to be applied here, in a situation where the basic types are still ill-posed (or perhaps ill-conceived)? Most scientists have to worry about specific details about their topic, instead of the larger issues, which they leave for others. Thus, Francis Crick stated that worrying about definition, say for example, of the gene, would have been premature until the basic details about the gene had been worked out. Then, after the basics are worked out, larger statements can be composed from the basics, from the bottom up. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 06:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I have figured out a way to reach common ground: Apparently, for analytic definition, the predicates A,B under consideration already have an assigned truth value, and what matters after the definition is the category. However, for scientific method, the predicates lift beyond True / False. In other words, a least a 3-valued logic is involved; it might in fact be worse; there are hardware description languages with 9-valued logic. That resonates with me because as you would put it, some epistemological work has been done already:

IEEE 754 describes numerical operations that result in not a number.
In medicine, indeterminate is an allowed judgement, given the situation. In that case, additional work is necessary to get from the situation to an actionable state. See the truth tables in 3-valued logic for the output of truth functions AND or OR, with inputs that have values of 'unknown'. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 20:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

}}

Too long?

I am pushing back on the 'too long' tag at the top of the page. For example, the SD-card-sized Intel Edison has an Intel Quark SoC with a pdf data sheet that is 973 pages long. This data sheet did not even have the thermal design power level I was seeking. I propose removing the tag as unhelpful. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 11:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The difference here is that, with Wikipedia, additional detail can be provided in other articles that are linked to from the main article. I am restoring the tag. -Hugetim ^(talk) 18:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

To be more constructive, I would suggest:

condensing the History section, moving content to the dedicated History of scientific method article as needed.
Likewise for the Pragmatic Model subsection.
The Overview section should be considerable condensed, since the subsequent sections, especially the Elements of the Scientific Method section, are there to provide more detail.
The Scientific Method and Religion section should be developed into an independent article.
The Relationship with Mathematics section should be mostly removed to an article more focused on math.
Finally, as a secondary matter, the See Also section is unwieldy and the Further Reading section is ridiculously too long.

-Hugetim ^(talk) 21:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The article's readable prose size is currently 65 kB, which I would argue meets WP:LENGTH for a topic of this scope. That said, I would probably agree with some of the suggestions. Sunrise (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Some of the suggestions have now been implemented.

Suggestions for reading or navigating the article

In tandem with Arc/Sunrise's response, the Overview is offered as a summary, which has a further link to the DNA example, which uses the wikilinks as a method of navigating the article.

This provides multiple kinds of summaries of scientific method; thus it is possible to characterize the article in a few sentences according to your individual taste.

One way to read the article, on a keyboard-oriented device (my tablet's browser does not seem to behave in the same way) is to read in Cross-cutting style: select one screenful of text and just sit back and read it, as if you were watching TV, if you have a large display screen. Hover the cursor on top of a footnote, and Wikipedia will display the contents of the footnote in a little balloon caption right on top of the text, which you can then read as commentary. There is no need to plow through the article, sentence by sentence. It is probably just as productive to ruminate over the thoughts. As you have probably noticed, speed reading of this article will work only on the summaries, because some topics are multiple levels deep, and there are proposals afoot to push to even deeper levels, for even slower reading.

The footnotes and citations serve as a database for the balloon captions that are displayed when hovering the laptop mouse or touchpad cursor over a footnote. But a tablet has no need for a screen cursor so your experience may vary, depending on your device.

Note

There have been hundreds of editors, some of them notable scientists, some have even been banned, some are quite expert, like Jon Awbrey and Tetrast, on, for example, Charles Sanders Peirce. Other editors are visibly expert on their respective subpages, namely WickerGuy, for the page on scientific method and religion.

As for the article history, User:Manning Bartlett assures me that he was not the first editor .. he credits Lee Daniel Crocker as having started the article in 2001, before systematic backups were taken and revision history was evolved. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 17:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What Ancheta Wis said. Manning (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, only one of my suggestions, #4, has been implemented, correct? I'm struggling to see the relevance of the rest of your response (which would probably be better placed as an argument for changing the WP:SIZE guideline). But here are a couple follow-up questions. Is the prominence given to Pierce in this article really WP:DUE? Is there any third-party source that states Pierce as the most prominent theorist of scientific method? I'm also curious whether you know of any featured article (or even good article) that has an overview section (other than the lead which should suffice as a "concise overview")? I'm fairly new so I honestly don't know if this is considered a best practice for complex articles. Finally, it seems worth recalling that no one, no matter how expert or how experienced, is the WP:OWNER of this article. If you or others have addressed similar suggestions before, please direct me to the relevant portion of the talk archive. -hugeTim ^(talk) 00:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have learned this much from the other editors of this article: Charles Sanders Peirce was an American who lived at a time when the center of science was in Europe, certainly not globalized. He was on a trans-atlantic voyage to a scientific meeting in Europe on geodesic instruments, when he had the time and solitude to write "How to make our ideas clear". He then followed this up with "The fixation of belief". I know that you removed the Peirce category from this article, so I can understand that you might not believe he was so important for the article. But consider that Peirce wrote 100,000 pages which have still not yet been published; yet, he invented the logic gate, which is central to our current technology. One of his Ph.D. students, Christine Ladd, discovered Wittgenstein's proposition 5.101 40 years before he published Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Arthur Burks, co-author of the seminal paper on digital computers (1947), was editor of two volumes of the Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Yet Peirce was not a computer guy; he was a scientist, foremost. He conceived of a way to define the standard of length independent of human artifact. This method inspired Michelson and Morley to improve on his method, and directly influenced the Michelson-Morley experiment, which paved the way to Special Relativity. ... You get the drift. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 13:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Peirce's contribution to logic was pretty derivative in the larger scheme. William Stanley Jevons predated him by decades. Peirce's real input was in effect to say "Hey, we can do that with electricity". Not a stupendous insight for the era. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, his 'logic piano'. There is a citation for his version of scientific method in the article. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 17:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

So the answer is no, you cannot produce the one thing necessary to justify Pierce's odd prominence in this article. A broader concern of mine is the dissonance between this article and philosophy of science. It is simply absurd to give Pierce unrivaled primacy of place - above Aristotle, Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Hume, Mill, Einstein, Carnap, Popper, Lakatos, and Kuhn. -hugeTim ^(talk) 16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I will have to defer to Tetrast on this. I hope he is reading this. But he is pretty busy, so it may be awhile before he responds. But here is a proxy from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I'm pretty sure Tetrast will respond with a worthy citation. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 17:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

See the section on history of scientific method for the Aristotle, etc. Francisco Sanches was part of the reaction to the Aristotelians, it was not only Francis Bacon's revulsion to them.

I hope to add more about Lakatos, and also Antonio Damasio, who cites William James, which leads back to Peirce. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 16:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Before you go too far on the philosophy of science item, you should know that User:Looie496 is a practicing neuroscientist who edited the relevant section on science which you have tagged. He too is pretty busy. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 16:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you please explain how that matters? I'm fairly new at editing, but it seems to me that being a practicing neuroscientist does not make one an expert on philosophy of science. And even if Looie were such an expert, it's not clear how that would affect whether I should "go too far" (whatever that means). And even if he is busy, does that mean waiting more than two months to follow up on a tag is not enough? Look, I really appreciate your and your friends' decades-long dedication to improving Wikipedia, but I am becoming frustrated at your repeated appeals to authority in place of engaging the substance of the issues in question. For your convenience, I've bolded the suggestions and questions in this section which no one has yet responded to. -hugeTim ^(talk) 00:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

hugetim, may I suggest you just go ahead and make small changes until you get the hang of things. Expect to get reverted now and again. Good edits tend to stick. But no point stamping your feet so to speak. pgr94 (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

hugeTim, at your suggestion, I looked at the first few archive pages; what immediately struck me was that many, if not most of these editors have gone, for example Cunctator. I met him at Wikimania in 2006. Banno is gone, etc. I wish they were back. Maybe they now edit anonymously, or have new names. On the other hand, some of them edit today, just not on this article. It's not so bad to read the archive pages, there are a lot of ideas which could be further developed. I understand this might be counter to your proposed agenda, but who knows?. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 15:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

My proposals are not at all opposed to adding worthy new content. Indeed, one of the benefits of having a trim article without undue length devoted to peripheral topics is that it is easier to identify gaps and focus on fresh writing. -hugeTim ^(talk) 16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Each of the recent, current editors likely have useful comments for you as well, as well as the names listed below:

'The Overview section should be considerable condensed': I would appreciate it if you & Arc/Sunrise could work this out between you, since he worked on this. Arc is not unreasonable; what do you think?
'condensing the History section': I believe you would benefit from the reactions of Chris Steinbach, ww, SteveMcCluskey ...
'the Pragmatic Model': you would benefit from Tetrast's reactions.
'the Relationship with Mathematics section' will be getting more Lakatos, hopefully, with an update on his 'research programme' for scientific method, which is closely related. I have spent over a year on Proofs and Refutations preparing for this, which was requested several years ago. It's the best new source we have found so far. Lakatos is highly philosophical; he has a strong POV against formalism, but he has a new take on the demarcation problem; perhaps you might enjoy working on this as well? It means not cutting, but expanding. The mathematicians tend to be formalists and Lakatos would be edited out of the subpages, so this page is where he has a chance at surviving. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 01:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tim! Thanks for your comments, and I'm happy to discuss. If you ever feel like I'm not properly engaging the substance of your comments, please let me know; if it happens, it's not intentional. :-) Also, if I stop responding, feel free to ping me - I avoid using my watchlist to reduce the time I spend on Wikipedia, so typically I only make infrequent checks at any particular page.

My comments on the numbered points that you raised:

1. I typically check Evolution for an example of an FA that has been stable for a long time. The history section there is (quickly estimating) about 2/3 the size of this one. So perhaps there might be room for some reduction in size (do you have any proposals?) but I don't feel strongly either way on this one.

2, 4, and 6 I generally agree with. 4 has already been implemented, as discussed.

5. I will withhold commenting on this section since I haven't looked at it in detail. However, I'm not clear on what your reasoning is - is it a WP:DUE concern as you mention for point 2?

Okay, for number 3 (the Overview section). You make a good point that articles typically aren't structured this way, or if they are I can't find any; this is your main concern, correct? My first thought is that the section could be renamed to "Scientific process" (or something similar) and this would still be a good title for most of the current content. The two paragraphs on history are a relatively recent addition and I would argue that they should be moved to the history section - in fact, I've gone ahead and boldly made that change. What do you think? There are a couple of other thoughts that come to me at this point, but I'd first like to make sure that I'm not missing anything from what you've said so far. Sunrise (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead sentence

"The scientific method is the process by which science is carried out."

I find this sentence particularly elegant and succinct; has it been considered before as the opening sentence to the article?

The scientific method is the process by which science is carried out.^[1] It consists of a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.^[2]

^ " The thesis of this book, as set forth in Chapter One, is that there are general principles applicable to all the sciences." __ Gauch 2003, p. xv
^ Goldhaber & Nieto 2010, p. 940

pgr94 (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I support this idea. Perhaps the second sentence might also note that this method is also appropriate when confronting the unknown. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 06:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you have in mind? I understood the word "phenomenon" to be synonymous with "unexplained observation". This makes "confronting the unknown" implicit in the second sentence. I'm not sure my interpretation of the word is widespread though. :-) pgr94 (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see phenomenon. LeadSongDog come howl! 12:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I don't think my interpretation is wrong, just a narrow interpretation. Phenomenon: A fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.[3]. Anyway, I'm getting a bit sidetracked. pgr94 (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree as well. :-) Sunrise (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. pgr94 (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the change. Can anyone explain what information is added by the clause "the process by which science is carried out" that is not already present in the words "scientific method"? -hugeTim ^(talk) 00:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I might share the mental picture that arose for me when I read the words in that sentence:
1. 'Science', at this stage of world civilization, is a global enterprise, oceanic in scope, one of the few enterprises which exist worldwide, with a known mission, and shared values, with every nation contributing as best it can.
2. Upon this ocean ride researchers, whose vessels are the theories, into which the respective nations have contributed resources (institutions, time, money, equipment, and people with expertise). Note that there is no implication of equality of resources. I am using Francis Bacon's image here (Novum Organum, with ships venturing in the Atlantic past the pillars of Hercules -- the portal to the unknown, fraught with difficulties).
3. 'The process' is a globally-subscribed-to protocol of roles, whose actors play their part, to the best of their respective abilities in a division of function, like the crewmen on a vessel. Note that there is no implication that the actors on their vessels are of equal ability or talent, nor that they necessarily act in concert for the same goals; just that they know their respective parts/functions (theory, experiment, observation, data analysis, publication, etc.). (Lakatos (1976) Proofs and Refutations p.116: Teacher speaks to pupil Beta: "Beta, do not constantly heckle Epsilon! Fix your attention on what he is doing and not on how he interprets what he is doing. Go on, Epsilon." )
4. 'Carry out': Due to its open nature, at any time, it is possible to state/know where the vessels are on this ocean, as they can advertise their progress (communicate their results, for good or ill).
I got a distinct mental picture of the wake, or ripples from the vessel, caused by the process.

By contrast, the phrase 'scientific method' alone suggests a garden implement, which gains meaning only from the skilled hand that holds it. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 05:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

My main interpretation of Ancheta's metaphor (let me know if I'm wrong) is that its significance to science may not be clear for a reader unfamiliar with the scientific method, even though it might be inferred from the term. For myself, I usually think of a student in middle or high school, which IIRC is when it is introduced in class.

Another point, which pgr's comment made me realize, is that it seems odd that the definition doesn't refer to science in some way - in fact, the word "science" is entirely absent from the lead, except in "natural science" from the OED quote. This doesn't directly argue for this specific change, but I think it would be a good way of addressing it. Sunrise (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Two versions of scientifically testing hypotheses

The article does not describe two versions of the scientific method that are currently accepted, but rather blurs the two methods into one. The two methods can be illustrated by an example.

Suppose a researcher sets out to toss a coin 100 times. The first 50 tosses are heads. The researcher then formulates the hypothesis that this coin is biased towards heads against the null hypothesis that the coin is unbiased. The researcher then continues tossing the coin for 50 more times and those last fifty tosses result in 25 heads and 25 tails. Here the two version of hypothesis testing diverge. The two methods don’t even see the same experimental outcome. The first method sees the experimental outcome as 75 heads, 25 tails and calculates the probability of this many heads or more under the null hypothesis as less that 0.05 and rejects the null hypothesis at the 5% level of statistical significance. The second method sees the outcome as 25 heads, 25 tails and calculates the probability of 25 or more heads, under the null hypothesis, to be greater than 0.05 and accepts the null hypothesis at the 5% level.

Each of the methods has been endorsed by reputable authorities as a way of scientifically testing hypotheses. These two distinct understandings of the phrase “scientific method” are not presented to the reader of the article on the scientific method although there are hints of each in the article as is illustrated by two quotations from the article: For the first method, “Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (or to the same degree), and are not always in the same order.” ; For the second method, “It is essential that the outcome of testing such a prediction be currently unknown.”

The two methods use the same terminology, but they are not the same idea. An article on the scientific method shouldn’t fail to describe them both and cite their authoritative endorsements.Gjsis (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

See the top section of this talk page for the argument that there are multiple methods.

There was a shift in logic between the two camps you described: the 1st camp altered the population after the first experiment, the 2nd camp defined the second population as a new series. I suppose the writeup would have to admit this. Can you give citations on the respective reputable authorities? I can't believe they wouldn't state their standards of accounting. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

First to the authoritative endorsements. The first method, including old data, is a partially retrospective statistical analysis, and most meta-analyses employ data known before the hypotheses were specified. The most famous such analysis was published by the USEPA in 1992 on environmental tobacco smoke and it has been accepted as sound. Also, prestigious journals such as New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of the American Medical Association have published such partially retrospective studies as a Google search will show. The second method is recommended by Francis Bacon in Aphorism 106 in the Novum Organum where he says that hypotheses must be tested by new data after the specification of the hypotheses.

Besides endorsements there are also negative views of the first method. Already mentioned is Bacon’s requirement that the test be based on new data. George Boole takes the position that probabilities, except for zero and one, require uncertainty. As the first 50 tosses were in the known past when the hypotheses were specified, the probability of those 50 heads is 1.0 and not the fiftieth power of 1/2. With Boole's correction the calculation in the first method gives the same result as was found in the second method. The Boole reference is from the Laws of Thought, chapter XVI.Gjsis (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

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 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum) --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I wholly agree that the section about religion has no place within this article. The discussion primarily evolves about A priori knowledge as a means of Acquiring knowledge, which is an epistemic question. I would vote to move this section to Relationship between religion and science. Timelezz (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not knowledgeable about this area so perhaps someone else should trim this section. I will probably be quite heavy-handed to redress the undue weight. pgr94 (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say to go ahead. :-) Probably what remains afterwards should be merged into the history section. Sunrise (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I propose we put a link to a subpage, scientific method and religion in a footnote to 'the method of tenacity' in the Charles Sanders Peirce section, and that we move the section in its entirety to the target subpage. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Nicely done! pgr94 (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Latecomer to this discussion. I originally added the material tocorrect some biased pro-Christian material recently added to the article. The move is fine, but hopefully the old stuff doesn't creep back in. I think the new material IS relevant to scientific METHOD insofar as the actual ORIGINS of scientific method are being discussed. Thanks all.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Burden of Evidence

The "Scientific burden of evidence" search term redirects here, but the terms themselves cannot be found anywhere in the article. Since it redirects to here, it would be good if those words could appear in context in this article so that the user isn't lost having to read the entire article. 126.65.228.104 (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Or simply remove the redirect. --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. It now redirects to another, hopefully happier home. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 18:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hypothesis and theory

@Florian Blaschke, as editors, we are painfully aware of how little we know, and this is reflected in the current article. Even the most 'advanced' sciences are held hostage by our human needs. True, we seek understanding, as part of the mission of the encyclopedia. Even the tiniest details of a situation still affect our understanding and acceptance of the most basic needs, such as for peace and order. These needs become the province of psychology, art, history, and beyond. Items which transcend physics, as you so passionately describe above.

And yet, there is a science which we are beginning to apply to this. I refer you to the insula, an obscure part of our brains, which appears to control the passions, and even the presence or abscence of consciousness, via the claustrum, which was the last topic studied by Francis Crick, up to his dying day. He was not alone in this search; Antonio Damasio was one of the scientists he consulted.

As User:Myrvin points out, hypothesis and theory are intertwined, so the stages of the formulation you describe above, involve the sorting out of what we know and don't know. Stating what we know and don't know is the province of this article. At the very least, a good method will allow us to state hypothesis and theory, to compare what we think we know to what should (in both senses, both prescriptive and descriptive) happen. After we compare what did happen to what should happen, we can make progress in our understanding of a situation. (I deliberately echo Damasio, The Feeling of What Happenspp35-81, pp335-344.) @SteveMcCluskey, I propose we use this approach to solving the problem of the definite article in the scientific method, for what it's worth. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 19:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point. With "(accepted) facts", I really meant "theories", theories being the actual "facts" of science, not unfiltered empirical data. Massimo Pigliucci makes an important point here with the Duhem–Quine thesis. Hypotheses are all interwoven; the more tests a hypothesis has already survived, the more reluctant scientists are to throw it out when apparent counterevidence appears – compare the OPERA neutrino anomaly. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Modelling method

The Illustris project demonstrates that reliance on models alone is one-sided. Data is also necessary; the "Properties of galaxies reproduced by a hydrodynamic simulation" (May 8, 2013) Nature shows this. I propose altering the article to improve the current statement on computational modeling, which currently relies only on a utility function. Currently the largest supercomputers of the world were needed to run the simulation, for months, in order to produce a 6 minute video.

Would it be useful to enumerate the current errors of the simulation model to illustrate this one-sidedness? --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 18:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Experimental method not universal

There is not just one single method that could be called the scientific method. The method presented here is the experimental method, which is not only not generally followed by the social sciences and the humanities, which tend to use the comparative method instead (and are mostly not math-heavy), but not even all of the natural sciences! Purely observational and historical sciences clearly cannot design experiments (in the conventional sense at least) in most cases (although sometimes there are experimental offshoots, such as experimental archaeology). Experiments are not the only way to test hypotheses. Computer simulations are now increasingly possible, but these are still not really experiments and in any case were not possible earlier. Still, nobody would deny the scientificness of astronomy, geology, paleontology, paleoclimatology and various other paleosciences, or would they?

When a newly proposed hypothesis happens to be consistent with everything known and possibly even evidence and knowledge found and established only afterwards (which would serve as confirmation), the hypothesis may be considered as having passed all tests and may be accepted as preliminary explanation. (After all, all hypotheses have implications that serve as touchstones.) The more relevant evidence and knowledge available, the more secure the hypothesis.

I think this is the real heart of the method of science: devising explanations that are consistent with everything we know about the world, i. e., explanations that are possible and plausible. For example, a scientist could hypothesise about the properties of a distant extrasolar planet tens of light-years ago in order to explain puzzling observations relating to this planet. There is currently no way to test the hypothesis, but there may be in the future ways to learn more about the planet through more precise observations. Therefore at the present time the hypothesis can only be considered possible as long as it does not contradict anything we know about the universe, but otherwise quite uncertain.

To sum up, a better characterisation of scientific method is probably:

Observe and collect data
Determine facts in need of explanation (not necessary if already determined)
Propose an explanation (not necessary if there is already one); if you can't think of one, go back to step 1
Compare the explanation against the known (accepted/established) facts (i. e., test it)
If there is a contradiction, go back to step 3, else to step 1. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

A couple of immediate thoughts/queries:
(i) Should steps 1 to 3 have a fixed order?

(ii) Step 4 starts to sound experimental... ("test it"...)

Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke, @Sardanaphalus,

as you note, our resident geologist makes this same point about geology; in his view, geology is based on thermodynamics, and the geological analog of experimental discovery is observation of a posited, but currently not-yet-known, geological formation. Thus there is a step 0 in Florian Blaschke's formulation which corresponds to the characterization of geology as thermodynamic. The article does state clearly that steps 1 to 3 do not have a fixed order.

I personally happen to agree with the statement that there is no single method; 'the scientific method' was a perennial topic which is saved as the first section of this talk page. If there were now a consensus to revert the occurences of the, I would support it personally. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 17:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sardanaphalus,

(i) Not necessarily. As is well-known, in practice, science does not proceed in a neat, orderly manner and neither purely inductively nor purely deductively.

(ii) I've already explained that in the running text above. Experiments are not the only way to test hypotheses. Testing hypotheses, in a more general sense, means checking them against all available knowledge.

In principle, I can simply propose a hypothetical explanation for a phenomenon in need of explanation and leave the task of checking it against the known facts about reality to the scientific/academic community at large; it's just not very wise to be so lazy, and usually you will want to ascertain the plausibility of your explanation to a reasonable degree yourself to spare yourself embarrassment. After all, most ideas are easy to shoot down. Also, of course, publishing a paper in a high-impact magazine requires you to do at least some preliminary testing of your hypothesis (and the editorial and peer review process will eliminate weak, easily shot down ideas, so these won't make it into the journal in the first place – so that such ideas must find other outlets such as the Internet or non-specialist publications, if the proposer is not willing to abandon them, although this is the road to crankdom and pseudoscience). Any responsible, self-respecting and prudent scientist won't waste their colleagues' and their own time by raising any raw, spontaneous idea or hunch publicly, at least not formally (chatting and brainstorming with colleagues is already a filtering process). After all, the most noble thing to do for a scientist is to disprove their own hypotheses instead of leaving it to others.

Perhaps a better expression is vetting, not testing. Examination in general. Filtering. The "selection" part of the Darwinist process of scientific discovery.

Moreover, of course, by far most ideas (i. e., virtually all ideas) you will come up with are not even original. It is already implicit that scientists ensure that hypotheses they propose are innovative (although resurrecting abandoned, neglected or forgotten hypotheses is also completely permissible, and the attempt to identify precursors is strongly encouraged), because non-original hypotheses tend to be already disproven – the less original, the more discussed they tend to be, and hence the more counterarguments and counterevidence tends to exist (although there may be problems with these). So when a hypothesis is being proposed, it is expected that the hypothesis is reasonably innovative and certainly not some old hat. But ultimately that is only a consequence of the selection process, as explained. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I generally concur with Ancheta Wis that there is no single scientific method and we should avoid using the definite article "the" in discussing scientific methods. Looked at historically, there have been many scientific methods, so claiming there is a single scientific method not only ignores the differences among scientific specialties but also the different methods employed in different times and cultures. Claims for a single scientific method tend to arise in philosophical or pedagogical discussions that tend to emphasize how science should be practiced more than how it actually is practiced.

Perhaps it would be useful to place a discussion of the problematic nature of such claims for a single scientific method somewhere near the beginning of this article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That's probably due to the heavy physics-bias of this article. It is really incredibly insular and provincial. Even other pure natural sciences like the geo- and paleosciences are neglected and astronomy is barely represented. Even planetary science and planetary geology are poorly served by the orthodox concept presented here. Physics, chemistry, biology – excluding biological paleosciences – and medicine are far from forming the entirely of science. I can understand that, for example, studies of human culture, especially literature and the arts, or to some extent religions, etc. (although, for example, musicology ranges from highly subjectively coloured approaches to very natural-science-centred, experimental fields, much like linguistics), will necessarily be of marginal relevance to this article at best, relying as they do on a strongly hermeneutical approach, which is also true of historical-cultural-ethnological-sociological sciences and even archaeology to an extent, and which is far less compatible with the ethos of natural science (after all, the definition given does acknowledge that the method is only really concerned with natural science), but the myopic focus on a narrow subset of natural sciences is inexcusable.

At the very least, it should be acknowledged in the text that the orthodox model of experimental science must be modified in many other fields, and terms such as "prediction" or "experiment" must be interpreted in a looser sense rather than in the literal form usual in synchronic natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology and medicine. The introduction is still compatible with a more general reading, although only by virtue of a lack of explicitness, not by directly addressing the issue of the variety of sciences, but the remainder of the article is in full orthodox physics-centric mode. This myopia may be to some extent due to a feature of the literature, but it is still jarring. It should be possible to expand the perspective of the article, correcting the flaw of the literature to equate scientific method with the experimental method and to define it as applying only to natural sciences, despite the fact that the term is scientific method and not natural scientific method, which would be more honest, although still not quite correct – alas, you cannot move continents or breed Velociraptors in the lab, let alone complete alien star systems, planets and ecosystems.

Wikipedia should not help propagating the prejudiced idea that, despite the undeniable fact that prototypical science takes place in a lab and involves lots of complicated technology and math, only natural science is science and fields of study such as ethnomusicology, paleography and library science are but idle speculation and little more than eccentric hobbies of ivory-tower pointy-heads bent on wasting taxpayers' hard-earned money. After all, Wikipedia covers the results of this kind of research as well, often to the delight and remarkably keen interest of the same people who sneer at the "mushy liberal arts", probably because they fail to realise that they involve rigour and a lot of work too. Good that at least the mathematicians are absolved of this kind of insinuation, given that they can always go "Hey, you don't know what it might be good for one day!" --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, in time, "the scientific method" will be replaced by "a scientific approach" or something similar. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Science vs Wissenschaft (tangent)

@Florian Blaschke wrote: "Wikipedia should not help propagating the prejudiced idea that … only natural science is science and fields of study such as ethnomusicology, paleography and library science are but idle speculation…" I was surprised by this comment, until I saw on your user page that you are from Munich. It's important to distinguish the English word science from its equivalent in most other European languages. According to the OED, since the mid 19th century the principal meaning of the English word "science" has concerned the physical universe and its laws. The equivalents in other languages, e.g., the German Wissenschaft or the French science, are broad enough to include all forms of systematic knowledge.

This English usage doesn't mean that ethnomusicology, paleography and library science are idle speculation, it just means that they aren't sciences in the common English sense of the word. (Let's ignore the possibility that ethnomusicology could be considered a social science akin to ethnography). When discussing science in the English Wikipedia, it seems appropriate to use the English meaning. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Testing section

The testing section could use more clarity. One of the big thrusts of the anti-science moment is to attempt to claim that anything beyond a controlled-laboratory-experiment is not legitimate science. The current section does include an example that an astronomical observation is an example of "testing" a theory. However I think the section as a whole needs to be more clear that natural-observations are a standard form of scientific testing. Geology, cosmology, paleontology, even physics is often based on observations that cannot be replicated in a laboratory experiment. They are all observational experiments testing the predictions of theories. Alsee (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Alhazen on Galen Question

optic chiasm X-shape outlined in red, as displayed by Vesalius, 1543

This is a question for @User:SteveMcCluskey: in (A. Mark Smith (2001), Alhacen's Theory of Visual Perception: A Critical Edition, with English Translation and Commentary, of the First Three Books of Alhacen's De Aspectibus, the Medieval Latin Version of Ibn Al-Haytham's Kitab Al-Manazir , Volumes 1-2 Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 91 part 5, ISBN 0-87169-914-1 ISSN 0065-9746) click on 'notes to book one' to get to page 410 (notes for footnote 99), it appears that Mark Smith's commentary satisfies the Wikipedia criterion of 'secondary source' for the following hypothesis: 'in the visual system for man, image fusion takes place in the optic chiasm'. This hypothesis was voiced by Galen (129-216 CE), who follows Claudius Ptolemy (90-268 CE). Alhazen (965-1040) also follows and criticizes Ptolemy. That makes Alhazen a secondary source for Galen's hypothesis, as cited by Mark Smith, irrespective of the status of Kitab al manazir. True?

Now in Book of Optics Alhazen dissects a brain and shows the optic chiasm (picture showing the X-shape from a Turkish manuscript), about 800 years after Galen, who lived 1800 years ago. Thus Galen's hypothesis was in play 1000 years ago. It goes without saying that we know much more about the visual system now and Galen's hypothesis is incomplete.

Alhacen (c.1020), section 6.69, De Aspectibus pp.376-7 of the critical edition (A.Mark Smith, ed. 2001 Alhacen's Theory of Visual Perception ISBN 0-87169-914-1) is the text for the commentary on p.410 by A. Mark Smith (2001) footnote 99. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 12:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ancheta Wis: Looking through the texts you cited, I can find no evidence that Alhacen himself attributed image fusion at the optic chiasm to Galen. Smith in his footnote 21 at p. 397 and footnote 99 at p. 410 clearly attributes this idea to Galen, and infers that Alhacen may have got it from Galen (or perhaps indirectly from Ptolemy). However, I don't see Alhacen explicitly citing Galen as a source at either of the texts (p. 348 and pp. 376-7) corresponding to footnotes 21 and 99. That's not too surprising; citations of authorities were not that common among early writers. As close Alhacen comes to saying the idea is derived from someone else is with the "it is said" on p. 348 (see also Smith's note 21 at p. 397).

The bottom line is that we could cite Smith as a secondary source on the views of Galen, Ptolemy, or even Alhacen, but Alhacen isn't a secondary source for either Galen or Ptolemy. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your historiography. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by Batsgasps

Extended content

Islamic golden age

~~Can I add this sentence to the lead.~~

During the Islamic Golden Age, the foundation for the scientific method was laid, which emphasized experimental data and reproducibility of its results.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] Batsgasps (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't seem important enough to me. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

~~Please explain it further. Batsgasps (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)~~

Per MOS:LEAD, the lead section is intended to be a summary of important points, and that fact doesn't seem important enough to belong there. Why don't you add it to the History section instead? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

In the lead it says that systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses was developed in the 17th century but that work was done in the 11th century or 600 years before what is stated. Batsgasps (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The controversial claim that Alhazen was the first scientist has a long history on Wikipedia and cannot be supported on the evidence provided — A BBC news report and a quotation from a brief historical chapter in a book on Education. These do not seem to be reliable sources for claims of evidence of Alhazen's status. This is especially so in the latter case, which was published in 2010 and whose citation of Bradley Steffens that Alhazen was the first scientist bears striking similarities with this earlier edit to the Wikipedia article on Alhazen which is an example of the misuse of sources by Jagged 85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Scientific Method is directly related to the education topic. As it is taught in the science classroom across the world in elementary, high school, colleges and universities before a student can do any science. Batsgasps (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it's nice that Steffans wrote a biography on Alhazen, but he is an American author, poet, playwright, and lyricist- none of which makes him a source for history that meets WP:RS - neither a scientist nor a historian - what we really need here is academics who specialise in the history of science. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Rayan is is a "Lecturer in the Department of Education. His current research includes the concept of multiculturalism in Islam and educating students within the realm of human values. He also has an interest in the benefits of dialogue and how people of different religious beliefs can find common ground, addressing conflict through peace building rather than violence." Again, not the sort of source we need on the history of science. Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The source you've cited in BJHS doesn't support your edits. As I read Smith's review in the BJHS, he criticizes Sabra's attempt to make Alhazen look like a modern experimental scientist; a salient passage is:

"I would have found Sabra's analysis virtually unexceptionable were it not for what strikes me as a somewhat presentist bias in his evaluation of both the scientific implications and historical context of Ibn al-Haytham's work.... It is equally true that he has recourse to numerous experiments, some quite elaborate. But by modern standards these experiments are negligible in terms both of theoretical scope and of demonstrated effects."

Smith goes on to discuss how much Alhazen's experimentalism replicates the earlier work of Ptolemy and Aristotle. In sum, the controversial claim that the scientific method is a product of Alhazen and the Islamic Golden Age does not belong anywhere in the article without a discussion of its controversial nature, and certainly has no place in the lead section. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@User talk:Batsgasps, I encourage you to read the 2nd ed., Lindberg 2007: David C. Lindberg (2007), The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context, Second ed. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7 .
Lindberg, like our own SteveMcCluskey, is a historian.
You can click on the cited ISBN to find a copy near you. I use Worldcat, which cites a 2008 edition for The beginnings of Western science. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 19:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
@Batsgasps, some of the links you have provided are duplicates of existing sources from the article. One proven process for editors like us, is to summarize a statement and to cite its source. If the source exists already, a named ref is the way to lessen the duplication. (I used Durham2013 as my sample named ref.) --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 23:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
@Batsgasps, thank you for cleaning up the list of citations below. One of them, <ref>El-Bizri 2005a</ref> is better as a named ref with complete publication information, for example <ref name="ElBizri2005a">[[Nader El-Bizri]], "A Philosophical Perspective on Alhazen's Optics", ''[[Arabic Sciences and Philosophy]]'' '''15''' (2005), 189–218 </ref>
If one simply copies this markup and clicks preview, one gets a formatted citation that meets the expectations of the encyclopedia.
Now since you cited El-Bizri 2005a twice, you can cite the second occurrence using only the simplified ref: <ref name="ElBizri2005a" /> But you need to include the complete citation first, for the benefit of the other readers who don't have time to search for the complete ref.
There is an additional step, which puts the citation in a template. You can do this later.
I see that the Sabra and Lindberg citations should also be cast into named refs, with the simplified ref used for later duplicate citations. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 04:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

References

^ A. I. Sabra, The Optics of Ibn al-Haytham. Books I, II, III: On Direct Vision by Ibn al-Haytham

^ Nader El-Bizri, "A Philosophical Perspective on Alhazen's Optics", Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 15 (2005), 189–218

^ http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/pathfinders-the-golden-age-of-arabic-science-by-jim-alkhalili-2112945.html

^ http://www.cis-ca.org/jol/vol7-no2/Haq-f.pdf

^ D. C. Lindberg, Theories of Vision from al-Kindi to Kepler, (Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Pr., 1976), pp. 60–7.

Struck sockpuppet edits

Batsgasps was a sock of Teaksmitty, I've struck his/her edits and removed one where there was no response - standard policy for sock edits. In article space they can be reverted. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Teaksmitty/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit by User:Historian7

The recent edit by @Historian7 appears to be at least partially cut and pasted from other sources. I suggest that Historian7 revert this recent edit. Looking after things, Grandma (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

~~See discussion at User talk:I'm your Grandma. Grandma (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)~~

At User talk:I'm your Grandma. I am informed that World Heritage Encyclopedia actually copies articles from Wikipedia. My seeing similarities between WHE and W caused me to make inferences that were not true, and I have apologized to Historian7. Grandma (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2014

This edit request to Scientific method has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change 3rd paragraph first sentence from: "The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from an hypothesis." To: "The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis." Because: The article AN is used before singular, countable nouns which begin with vowel sounds. Nikzilla3 (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Done thanks for the eye Cannolis (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Experiment Locations

The “Experiments can be conducted in a college lab, on a kitchen table, at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars, and so on…” section is lengthy (rather than funny, from my view) and may better be shortened to “Experiments can be conducted anywhere,” if it is at all relevant to mention. Proposing instead of simply editing for it’s _so_ lengthy, it seems someone might have fallen in love with this wording. ;) – j9t (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@j9t, Be bold. You can use the talk page or wait further, if you are more comfortable with that. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 20:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It occurs to me that prudent investigators marshal their resources during a scientific experiment, or otherwise envision the consequences of their experiments, in a thought experiment, before starting a chain of unfortunate events. But a wikipedia edit is almost free of consequence, so my first reply is still apropos. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 20:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The pertinent point of an experiment is to distinguish 'What is known?' from 'What is not known?'. Thus during the Surveyor program in the 'sixties, 'What is not known?' was 'How deep is the dust on the Moon?'. Thus the robotic expeditions, as part of the serious science to get a man on the Moon in the 'sixties. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 22:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Non-Provability of Theories

A point usually omitted regarding the scientific method is that it is not possible to "prove" a theory. The best that can be said is that a theory has not yet been shown to be false! Observers continue to build a body of experiments which fail to disprove the theory so that with many such experiments, workers come to believe in its correctness. Paul Carver (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The article says: "That is, no theory can ever be considered final, since new problematic evidence might be discovered." Myrvin (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Daniel?

Currently the History section states: "In the 7th century BCE, Daniel, a Jewish captive of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, conducted a scientific experiment complete with a hypothesis, a control group, a treatment group, and a conclusion. The control group partook of the king's delicacies and wine, whereas Daniel's test group limited themselves to vegetables and water. At the end of the test, Daniel's hypothesis was proven true."

The Reference is the Bible. If the Bible is a valid reference for the Scientific Method, then... (need I reference the Inquisition's decision regarding Galileo?). To the point, scholarly consensus considers the Book of Daniel pseudonymous, the stories of the first half legendary in origin, and the visions of the second the product of anonymous authors in the Maccabean period (2nd century BCE). Reference: Collins, John J. (2002). "Current Issues in the Study of Daniel". In Collins, John J.; Flint, Peter W.; VanEpps, Cameron. The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. BRILL. p.2

Further, I've never heard of either a scientist or christian group claiming this was a scientific experiment proving that vegetarianism will make people ten times better than other people (from the Biblical tale). This OR needs to go. Entrepic (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

wp:5p (read the whole page first!) has proven to be a reliable guide for us, the editors of this page. I find inline tags e.g.^{[anachronism]} to be the most precise mechanism. Use this talk page, and be patient. My personal approach has been wp:agf, but the encyclopedia is huge, and may surprise you. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 11:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's already been tagged for a while, so I've gone ahead and taken it out. Thanks for pointing that out. :-) Sunrise (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

1) Explain the process of the scientific method?

1) Explain the process of the scientific method? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.36.67 (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you know that you don't know yet is the first step. Being honest with yourself is real progress.

Take your time; guess; say it in words; write down your guess (what you think should happen next); try things out. Did what you expect to happen, in fact happen? Did you see it happen? Write down what you did, and what happened next.

See scientific method#Overview for a short description of what you just did. Take little notes on a little card; ask a friend to help you, if you need to know more about your notes. Ask yourself what you know now. Help each other by telling each other what you know already.

Read the article again. Repeat these steps.--Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 22:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

[1] " The thesis of this book, as set forth in Chapter One, is that there are general principles applicable to all the sciences." __ Gauch 2003, p. xv

[Goldhaber_2010_page=940-2] Goldhaber & Nieto 2010, p. 940

[Sabra-3] A. I. Sabra, The Optics of Ibn al-Haytham. Books I, II, III: On Direct Vision by Ibn al-Haytham

[ElBizri2005a-4] Nader El-Bizri, "A Philosophical Perspective on Alhazen's Optics", Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 15 (2005), 189–218

[Malik-5] ttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/pathfinders-the-golden-age-of-arabic-science-by-jim-alkhalili-2112945.html

[Haq-6] ttp://www.cis-ca.org/jol/vol7-no2/Haq-f.pdf

[Lindberg-7] D. C. Lindberg, Theories of Vision from al-Kindi to Kepler, (Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Pr., 1976), pp. 60–7.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]