Celestia Forums

I've banged on about the 'Scientific Method for some posts now. There's a funny thing about it: many people don't know what this is, even 'scientists'. If y'all wanna know what the Truth is, the Scientific Method can't tell ya, but if you want to know what the truth ain't, the scietific method's what ya want.

What I'm more intrigued by is the lack of any response to me mentioning it, hence the poll. I expect zero replies by the end of the week.

Spiff.

Sir Francis Bacon...

I've been reading your posts though.

Hmmm...I'm not the only one who likes to eat cows

I don't know those people (or I do but can't remember at the moment) but I do know what the Scientific Method is.

Well, In Ohio (I think) schools are require to teach the Scientific Method. Been learning this subject for the past 5 years, Same thing over and over .

You start with a the question...then form a hyposytheis... then gather supplies... then experiment...then write down the Data... then finally form your Conclusion.

Well I don't know the answer to the poll, Only person I remember is Bacon, which didn't he lead a rebellion or something? (I never understood this part of history, don't know why.)



RM.

Rocket Man wrote:Well, In Ohio (I think) schools are require to teach the Scientific Method. Been learning this subject for the past 5 years, Same thing over and over .

You start with a the question...then form a hyposytheis... then gather supplies... then experiment...then write down the Data... then finally form your Conclusion.

Well I don't know the answer to the poll, Only person I remember is Bacon, which didn't he lead a rebellion or something? (I never understood this part of history, don't know why.)



RM.

Sorry being naive and entirely innocent

what is a scientific hyposytheis? Spiff?

Bye Fridger

Sir Francis Bacon (paraphrased a bit):
[quote]They are deceptive tendencies which are inherent in the mind of man as such and belong to the whole human race. The understanding is like a false mirror that distorts and discolours the nature of things. Thus, it supposes more order and regularity in the world than it finds, as when it assigns circular motion to the celestial bodies; it is more moved and excited by instances that agree with its preconceptions than by those that differ from them; it is unquiet, and cannot rest in a limit without seeking to press beyond it, or in an ultimate principle without asking for a cause; it ?€?is no dry light, but receives an infusion from the will and affections?€

All three approaches to the scientific method are extremely important and influential.

Bacon in a way started the scientific revolution with his ideas on experimental science; he advocated observation, the formulation of a hypothesis, experimentation to test that hypothesis, and the need for independent verification.

Popper pointed out that the possibility of falsification is a necessary requirement for a scientific theory; if a theory can be adapted to fit all possible facts (like intelligent design for example) (a little bit of controversy there as Ben Elton used to say) then it is not science, but pseudoscience.

Kuhn emphasised the existence of scientfic paradigms, which describe the currently accepted model of the world as accepted by the majority of scientific thought; every so often, according to Kuhn, the scientific world undergoes a paradigm shift and a new model becomes widely accepted. This is something akin to science by consensus, and it can mean that sometimes perfectly good theories are outside that consensus, waiting for the next paradigm shift to bring them into favour.

Unfortunately there is a lot of rubbish and pseudoscience also waiting in the wings. Kuhn's ideas are very important, but strike me as more particular to the human species than the other two; as we are social animals, humans are probably more subceptible to paradigm formation than (say) intelligent plantlike or spiderlike creatures.

eburacum45 wrote:Popper pointed out that the possibility of falsification is a necessary requirement for a scientific theory; if a theory can be adapted to fit all possible facts (like intelligent design for example) (a little bit of controversy there as Ben Elton used to say) then it is not science, but pseudoscience.

I don't Popper's contribution though. It's pretty obvious from Bacon's ideas that part of the test of the hypothesis is to see if it's wrong - not just to find something that conforms to the hypothesis.

It also seems implicit in Bacon's ideas that you can't just "adapt a hypothesis to fit all possible facts" either. You need to look at data, formulate a hypothesis, then test that hypothesis, and then alter it (if necessary) based on the results of the tests. Something like so-called "Intelligent Design" (*ptoooie*) doesn't do that at all - it looks at the data, and then declares that the data can only be explained in a particular way (which conveniently can't be tested one way or the other)- it doesn't even formulate a hypothesis to test.

Maybe I've just integrated Bacon and Popper's ideas so thoroughly with eachother that I can't tell them apart anymore .

Kuhn emphasised the existence of scientfic paradigms, which describe the currently accepted model of the world as accepted by the majority of scientific thought; every so often, according to Kuhn, the scientific world undergoes a paradigm shift and a new model becomes widely accepted. This is something akin to science by consensus, and it can mean that sometimes perfectly good theories are outside that consensus, waiting for the next paradigm shift to bring them into favour.

I think paradigm is very important. While science does work by a kind of consensus, that consensus is determined by physical evidence. That said, there may be some things that are beyond the current scientific paradigm that may still be valid - there are a number of unexplained phenomena that do seem to be observed in the world (eg ghosts, psychic powers, the afterlife etc) that science as yet has no explanation for and often just dismisses out of hand. These crop up too many times in too many places to be all figments of the imagination IMO. A Skeptic may pronounce some valid sounding scientific explanation for something, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct. That said, I do think that all these phenomena - if they do actually exist - will eventually come under the umbrella of science as the paradigm evolves to include them.

Some important aspects of the world might never be explorable by the scientific method, the afterlife for instance- there does not seem to be a testable hypothesis there.
Even such questions as 'what lies beyond the observable universe' and 'what was before the Big Bang' might seem like scientific questions, but they are unanswerable (in the first case unanswerable by definition).

Some things reallly are outside the realm of scientific enquiry- but that does not mean they can be dismissed.

eburacum45 wrote:Some important aspects of the world might never be explorable by the scientific method, the afterlife for instance- there does not seem to be a testable hypothesis there.
Even such questions as 'what lies beyond the observable universe' and 'what was before the Big Bang' might seem like scientific questions, but they are unanswerable (in the first case unanswerable by definition).

Some things reallly are outside the realm of scientific enquiry- but that does not mean they can be dismissed.

Some of those things can be dismissed. One could at least devise tests for psychic phenomena, or look for evidence of ghosts. But one can't prove the existence of a supernatural god (though it'd be amusing if we found convincing evidence of artificial genetic tinkering at some stage in our evolution by a more advanced, extraterrestrial civilisation that we mislabelled as "gods". That'd be an entirely rational explanation for a 'guiding hand"... but there is no evidence to support that and it may not have ever occurred anyway).

From school I learn that:

Hyposynthesis - A educated guess of what you think is going to be the results of the experiment.
This was from my science notes from last year.


For example:
My sister did the science fair last year.

Her question was 'Which will get cold faster, hot water or cold water?'

Her hyposynthesis was 'Cold water will cool the fastest.'

She did her experiment by placing water in two cups, one hot and one cold. she plced them in a freezer and waited for a half hour then check it. then half hour past then she check it. She did this until both cups were frozen.

Her data came to be:
>Cold Water the fastest.
(she doesn't remember the time for both.)

Then her conclusion was:
'The cold water cooled the fastest.'

Thats a example of scientific method, in schools at least.

..."hyposynthesis"...?!

I hope you and your sister do realize that that doesn't prove which cools faster, just which reaches the freezing point the soonest, which would obviously be cool water, because it started at a lower temperature.

Ahem...

The Mpemba Effect

Well, didn't know about that effect.

Still, that experiment isn't really that good for proving which cools faster.

Actually, I didn't participate in her experiment. I just used as an example.













RM.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

If y'all wanna know what the Truth is, the Scientific Method can't tell ya, but if you want to know what the truth ain't, the scietific method's what ya want.

Oh nooooo! Not again! Does this constitute pseudoscience too?!!!

What.