Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: scientific method



There are a few problems with the idea of 'THE scientific method'.
1. Suppose I start a systematic observation of the umbrellas found on
the Island of Manhattan (I owe this example to the editors of
'Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science'). I hypothesize
that all umbrellas are of a certain shape, or color or .... (a
falsafiable hypothesis). I think if you were careful you could study
umbrellas following a procedure along the lines of what is generally
referred to as the scientific method. But is it science? My point is,
nothing in the scientific method tells us what it can be applied to
that makes it science. Astrology is vaguely falsifiable and testable
but we don't think it is scientific.
2. Does 'the scientific method' give us 'truth'? I think not. Surely
we don't think Galileo is still right. Newton either anymore. But
surely they were scientists and doing science. One thing missing in
'the scientific method' is any idea that science replaces (not just
falsefies) old theories with BETTER theories. The difference between
religion and science has to do with progress not method.
3. If you look carefully at the history of science you will notice
that scientist do NOT discard theories which are falsified. Read
Feynman's lectures vol 2 very carefully as he explains that Maxwell's
theory is wrong at small r. Does that mean we should strike it from
the books? Do we strike Newton from the books the instant Einstein
notices it is incompatible with Maxwell? Historically scientists
almost never discard a theory until something better is there to take
its place. So we really DON'T use falsification as a criteria. And
this is perfectly rational: we use the best we've got until something
better comes along. But that is definitely NOT what the 'scientific
method' says to do.
4. I agree with a previous comment that the distinction between
observation and hypothesis is hopelessly muddled. Galileo observed
first and then hypothesized, not the other way round. It wasn't
induction either (which in theory requires an infinite number of
observations to work). It was a hunch, a guess. The 'scientific
method' doesn't tell us where to get these hunches or guesses or
hypothesis if you like. Yet surely they HAVE to be part of the
scientific process. And any old guess or hunch won't do, it has to be
an informed hunch. But were is THAT in the 'scientific method'?

kyle

--YYMIDAEMNBRKJWcNdDeBdLOSHHPNJS
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 23:14:25 -0600
From: "Glenn A. Carlson" <gcarlson@MAIL.WIN.ORG>
Subject: Re: scientific method
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

What Galileo, Onnes, Mendeleev, and Penzias and Wilson did is called
observation -- which is a necessary part of the scientific method.
But observation alone is not sufficient to be called the scientific
method.

Induction certainly has a legitimate role in the scientific method.
Induction often assists in developing a falsifiable hypothesis to
explain a set of observations, but induction is not a necessary part
of the scientific method.

Individual scientists need not perform every step of the scientific
method (we frequently speak of theorists and experimentalists). Nor
must the steps be performed in a strictly linear fashion. Nor must
the scientific method be performed to the exclusion of other
nonscientific activities. Recall the story of how Kekule discovered
(actually hypothesized) the structure of the benzene ring through a
dream about a snake biting its own tail.

But, all scientists contribute to the body of knowledge about the
universe by taking part in the scientific method.

As for how we learn what's going on in (i.e., the truth of) the
universe, I can only think of two ways: the scientific method and
divine revelation. Contrary to the views of creationists, the latter
is not science.

Glenn A. Carlson, P.E.
gcarlson@mail.win.org
==============
-----------------------------------------------------
kyle forinash 812-941-2390
kforinas@ius.edu
Natural Science Division
Indiana University Southeast
New Albany, IN 47150
http://Physics.ius.edu/
-----------------------------------------------------