Discussion on the scientific method (moved from the Irish Celts thread)

[The Celtic Viking]

scientific theory is what hasn't been disproven yet, not higher truth...

Since no one else has commented on this, I think I have to step in here. I'm just really surprised that you would say something like this, Blitz, because it's a complete (but sadly, common) misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is.

Shortly said, a scientific theory is the best thing there is. Period. Whatever you may mean by "higher truth", rest assured that a scientific theory is the "highest" we will ever be able to get, because there is no other reliable way to find out about reality. Here's how the scientific method works:

1. Gather observations, facts, about a phenomena
2. Make a hypothesis to explain that phenomena. The hypothesis must be falsifiable (meaning, if it's false, it must be possible to prove that it is), and you must be able to make predictions based on it.
3. Try extensively to prove the hypothesis wrong. If you can, go back to step 1 or 2. If you can't, continue with step 4.
4. Send the hypothesis into a scientific journal for peer review. Other scientists will then try to disprove it, and improve on it if they can. If anyone manage to disprove it, you go back to step 1 or 2. If no one manage to disprove it, and the hypothesis is still unproven after a long while, and all new evidence that has been found is coherent with it, it will finally get to step 5.
5. Finally, after a very long time, it becomes a theory. Once a hypothesis has reached this stage, it's so firmly supported by evidence that the burden of proof has practically shifted to the one saying it's not true.

By that point, it's not about belief: it's about whether you accept it or not. Prove one wrong, and you've got yourself a Nobel Prize.

As for the actual topic of this thread, I have nothing to add.

[cmacq]

Here's how the scientific method works:

1. Gather observations, facts, about a phenomena
2. Make a hypothesis to explain that phenomena. The hypothesis must be falsifiable (meaning, if it's false, it must be possible to prove that it is), and you must be able to make predictions based on it.
3. Try extensively to prove the hypothesis wrong. If you can, go back to step 1 or 2. If you can't, continue with step 4.
4. Send the hypothesis into a scientific journal for peer review. Other scientists will then try to disprove it, and improve on it if they can. If anyone manage to disprove it, you go back to step 1 or 2. If no one manage to disprove it, and the hypothesis is still unproven after a long while, and all new evidence that has been found is coherent with it, it will finally get to step 5.
5. Finally, after a very long time, it becomes a theory. Once a hypothesis has reached this stage, it's so firmly supported by evidence that the burden of proof has practically shifted to the one saying it's not true.

By that point, it's not about belief: it's about whether you accept it or not. Prove one wrong, and you've got yourself a Nobel Prize.

Actually in practice this is how modern science is taught in the academic setting, and it is all too common that this is how modern science is applied in the real world.


1. Create a theory base on inductive reasoning about an ill-defined topic.

2. Seek governmental or private funding for the project, either directly or indirectly, which will impose their additional agendas and goals into the mix.

3. Gather data in such a way that it will prove your premise, while discarding or obscuring data that does otherwise. Analyze the data in such a way that it proves your assumption. Using the analysis, structure an air-tight argument that appears to explain the data and supports your hypothesis. The hypothesis need not be in the least reliable, it only needs to be well devised and somewhat convincing.

4. If need be, devise a series of tests of the analyzed data that will support your conclusions.

5. Build a peer group that will support your theory. As a give researcher and their pet theories typically co-occur within rather localized settings, due to self-preservation and often misguided loyalty, this peer group consists of individuals, influential or not, within a given department or company. Of the individual that proposed the theory, their extended relationships and the resources they control, will dictate the size, diversity, and loyalty of the supporting peer group.

6. Write a series of papers proposing the theory and present it in a number of public and scientific forums to include journals. Unless there is a competing theory negative peer review on the substance will typically be minimal at best.

7. The researcher that becomes indentified with the theory uses it to promote the positive progression of their career.





CmacQ

[Mediolanicus]

Actually in practice this is how modern science is taught in the academic setting, and it is all too common that this is how modern science is applied in the real world.
1. Create a theory base on inductive reasoning about an ill-defined topic.
2. Seek governmental or private funding for the project, either directly or indirectly, which will impose their additional agendas and goals into the mix.
3. Gather data in such a way that it will prove your premise, while discarding or obscuring data that does otherwise. Analyze the data is such a way that it proves your assumption. Using the analysis, structure an air-tight argument that appears to explain the data and supports your hypothesis. The hypothesis need not be in the least reliable, it only needs to be well devised and somewhat convincing.
4. Build a peer group that will support your theory. As a give researcher and their pet theories typically co-occur within rather localized settings, due to self-preservation and often misguided loyalty, this peer group consists of individuals, influential or not, within a given department or company. Of the individual that proposed the theory, their extended relationships and the resources they control, will dictate the size, diversity, and loyalty of the supporting peer group.
5. Write a series of papers proposing the theory and present it in a number of public and scientific forums to include journals. Unless there is a competing theory negative peer review on the substance will typically be minimal at best.
6. The researcher that becomes indentified with the theory uses it to promote their the positive progression of their career.


CmacQ

How sadly true that is...

[bovi]

1. Gather observations, facts, about a phenomena
2. Make a hypothesis to explain that phenomena. The hypothesis must be falsifiable (meaning, if it's false, it must be possible to prove that it is), and you must be able to make predictions based on it.
3. Try extensively to prove the hypothesis wrong. If you can, go back to step 1 or 2. If you can't, continue with step 4.
4. Send the hypothesis into a scientific journal for peer review. Other scientists will then try to disprove it, and improve on it if they can. If anyone manage to disprove it, you go back to step 1 or 2. If no one manage to disprove it, and the hypothesis is still unproven after a long while, and all new evidence that has been found is coherent with it, it will finally get to step 5.
5. Finally, after a very long time, it becomes a theory. Once a hypothesis has reached this stage, it's so firmly supported by evidence that the burden of proof has practically shifted to the one saying it's not true.

By that point, it's not about belief: it's about whether you accept it or not. Prove one wrong, and you've got yourself a Nobel Prize.

So at what point does this not mean that a theory is the hypothesis that is yet to be disproven? I think you said the same thing in a lot more words. If a scientific theory is never questioned beyond the initial review, the earth would still be flat.

[blitzkrieg80]

Bohr atom, anyone

Bovi nicely posted, replacing my need to respond (thanks!)... better phrased than i would have too

it's not like i disbelieve scientific theory as a good thing, but new science is far from certain was my point.

[The Celtic Viking]

So at what point does this not mean that a theory is the hypothesis that is yet to be disproven?

At the very second it is disproven.

Seriously though, once a hypothesis becomes a theory it's so strongly backed by evidence that the burden of proof practically switches.

I think you said the same thing in a lot more words. If a scientific theory is never questioned beyond the initial review, the earth would still be flat.

Not quite. For one thing it was never a scientific theory that the world is flat. I believe what you should rather say is "if a hypothesis is never questioned...". That's not the same thing, because a theory has been so thoroughly tested and proved already you can safely rely on them. If not, you can test it yourself if you want to, but its really not necessary. Scientists are already doing that, and have been doing that for a very long time.

it's not like i disbelieve scientific theory as a good thing, but new science is far from certain was my point.

But that's false. If there is anything that you can be certain of, it would be a scientific fact.

Actually in practice this is how modern science is taught in the academic setting, and it is all too common that this is how modern science is applied in the real world.


1. Create a theory base on inductive reasoning about an ill-defined topic.

2. Seek governmental or private funding for the project, either directly or indirectly, which will impose their additional agendas and goals into the mix.

3. Gather data in such a way that it will prove your premise, while discarding or obscuring data that does otherwise. Analyze the data in such a way that it proves your assumption. Using the analysis, structure an air-tight argument that appears to explain the data and supports your hypothesis. The hypothesis need not be in the least reliable, it only needs to be well devised and somewhat convincing.

4. If need be, devise a series of tests of the analyzed data that will support your conclusions.

5. Build a peer group that will support your theory. As a give researcher and their pet theories typically co-occur within rather localized settings, due to self-preservation and often misguided loyalty, this peer group consists of individuals, influential or not, within a given department or company. Of the individual that proposed the theory, their extended relationships and the resources they control, will dictate the size, diversity, and loyalty of the supporting peer group.

6. Write a series of papers proposing the theory and present it in a number of public and scientific forums to include journals. Unless there is a competing theory negative peer review on the substance will typically be minimal at best.

7. The researcher that becomes indentified with the theory uses it to promote the positive progression of their career.





CmacQ

Do you have any evidence to support this? I'm kind of sceptical, seeing as disproving something that is considered a scientific theory will pretty much guarantee you a million dollars and the Nobel Prize, and that will give your career all the boost you could wish for.

[cmacq]

At the very second it is disproven.
Do you have any evidence to support this? I'm kind of sceptical, seeing as disproving something that is considered a scientific theory will pretty much guarantee you a million dollars and the Nobel Prize, and that will give your career all the boost you could wish for.

Some may have only a peripheral association with applied science, as I on the other hand, do not. By all means, not to make this personal, yet if one works in a profession that is considered a science, and wants a long and fruitful career, one may do well to heed my words. Disproving a fellow’s theory only earns you enemies. Evidence, you need not go far to find evidence, actually you should provide evidence otherwise, of course with the exception of doctors associated with drug manufacture, most medical science is exempted.





CmacQ

[bovi]

So you believe that there is no theory in the history of science that has not been proven wrong? A scientific theory is not absolute truth, although it carries an amount of truthiness which makes it seem right until someone comes up with the right experiment to prove it wrong. How about the atomicity of the atom, for instance? Wasn't that a scientific theory, until it was, well, amply proven wrong? Note: Some Nobel prizes were gained through this, of course. If you think that somehow that should make your statement that theories are facts correct.

You seem to say that the second that a theory is disproven, it never was a scientific theory in the first place? That's a weird definition. No, we cannot take theories as facts. If everyone were to do so, we'd never get any new knowledge.

[theoldbelgian]

ah finally something I as a novice scientist can talk about
the scientific method is indeed the best way to look at something sadly since the privation of science it is very bad for scientist to say they are wrong
it used to be hard but now it is impossible to say about a popular theory that they are wrong
for example the big-bang theory
many respected and renowned scientists have openly said that the big-bang theory is an absolute truth(rule number 1 in science: NOTHING is ever considered true truth until proving otherwise(which is until you have seen and tested everything!) there is only a high possibility of something being truth) there is a dutch profesor who has tried to post articles and pictures of clusters of stars in science magazines that contradict the big bang
he has never been published and everyone says that he is wrong and that the pictures are a result of fault equipment,
just because there is so much money in it, scientist who make mistakes lose heaps of money and that can't happen nowadays anymore
now I don't say he is wrong or right but is just say prove it
prove he is wrong, if they are so sure of it THAT is scientific method
I may be zealous about this, butt goddammit scientific method is one of the factors that made science big and fast
if we lose this we come back to a halt
and I am sure that the EB team agrees with me seeing their huge need for unmistakable evidence and thats a good thing so we now that at least that is true

[The Celtic Viking]

Gah! First of all, yes, this should have been a different thread. It was wrong of me to derail the other, and for that, I am sorry. I only meant it to be a sidenote. In any case, there was no need to create a new thread about this, really, so for my part this can just be closed and forgotten. I'll answer what has already been said as best as I can though, trying not to incite further discussion.

Some may have only a peripheral association with applied science, as I on the other hand, do not. By all means, not to make this personal, yet if one works in a profession that is considered a science, and wants a long and fruitful career, one may do well to heed my words. Disproving a fellow’s theory only earns you enemies. Evidence, you need not go far to find evidence, actually you should provide evidence otherwise, of course with the exception of doctors associated with drug manufacture, most medical science is exempted.

I don't take it personal as long as you don't make it so. You haven't, so no worries about that. I freely admit that I, myself, am not a scientist. I haven't worked too much with science itself, which I don't doubt you have.

However, I have spoken real scientists, and it is on what they have said that I've base everything I've said here.

So you believe that there is no theory in the history of science that has not been proven wrong?

Of course not, that's not what I've been saying. All I've been saying is that it's still the best we have.

A scientific theory is not absolute truth, although it carries an amount of truthiness which makes it seem right until someone comes up with the right experiment to prove it wrong. How about the atomicity of the atom, for instance? Wasn't that a scientific theory, until it was, well, amply proven wrong? Note: Some Nobel prizes were gained through this, of course. If you think that somehow that should make your statement that theories are facts correct.

I haven't said theories are facts, au contraire. They're better than facts, because facts are just observations.

But I get what you mean, though you're misunderstanding me. What I've been saying is that theories are so good because they've got so much evidence backing them up and none against them.

[cmacq]

Well then, I shall invite you to Arizona so that you may work first hand in Archaeology for five days. We do two public archaeology projects every year; one in March and the other in October, both cool weather times here. That is, relatively cool weather times. The project initially slated for last October was postponed until the first week in February of next year, this due to my colleague, friend, and field partners unfortunately fall from his roof while wearing his hippie sandals. Partially, he landed on the ladder and broke his right caleaneus into one big and about 29 smaller pieces. Or was it his left? Not to worry he'll be up and about soon. Any way, after being immersed for a week I’m sure you’ll have a greater appreciation of the way the scientific method actually works. Right, as this PIT project will be in what we call the Thumb (east central uplands) and it will be early February, day time temps may be very cool and the nights below freezing. Wear something warm, but not too warm.




CmacQ

[bovi]

I guess there is a tiny difference between "you can safely rely on" and "you can be certain of". It's pretty close though, and you said one about theory and the other about fact. I took a tiny jump to think you equated them.

In the end, I think we end up with that scientific theory is the hypothesis that is yet to be disproven, with the addendum that it has stayed that way for a long time.

Edit: Oh, and there's no need for a lock. I moved this discussion out so it wouldn't interfere with the other in that thread.

[V.T. Marvin]

Very interesting discussion is going on here and I would ask the moderators NOT to stop it by a premature lock.

I would just comment that in my opinion BOTH The Celtic Viking and cmacq are in some sense right.

In his original post The Celtic Viking briefly described the major points of the "critical rationalist" theory developed by Karl Popper. This is very much how things in science SHOULD be. While cmacq in his first post is very close to the decription of how the scientific "establishment" (sorry for my lack of a better word) works by T.S.Kuhn/P.K.Feyerabend, i.e. how things in science actually ARE.
Both narratives are legitimate and very powerful, and any buddying scientist will be well advised to familiarize with both of these major philosophies of the scientific process, preferaby in the major works of those authors themselves rather than by some epigones of theirs. But be aware, that both Popper on one side and Feyerabend and Kunh on the other are predominantly oriented towards the methodology of natural sciences or "the hard science" as physics. Even in this seemingly straightforward world of hypothesis-experiment-corroboration-falsification-etc. it is clear that neither of these big narratives is completely satisfactory. Rather both are to be used to provoke further thoght and make one to critically assess and refine his own methodology.
For instance we all know that world is NOT flat, but an brick-layer building a house coud safely rely on his builder´s level as if it was flat. We could still safely use old and disproven (falsified) newtonian physics to great benefit even after Einstein, and so on...

Now, as we on this forum have close to history and archeology, we are no longer on the completely same plane as the physicists are. In social sciences (Geistwissenschaften) it all becomes even more complicated. Here I would recommend as an introduction into thinging on what constitutes a historical fact and how historical narrative is construed to use E.H.Carr (What is history") or J. Le Goff (History and Memory) rather than "critical rationalism" of Popper or "revolutionary/anarchist" philosophy of science of Kuhn and Feyerabend.

I hope that this discussion will go on for a while, and I would welcome different views. The reason why I have posted this was just to illustrate my personal feeling that all of the diverging view that were posted before by other participants in this topic are - in my opinion - in some way an important part of modern scholarship and maybe actually not so diverging after all.

During my studies of history (Charles University, Prague) I was very disappointed by the extremely limited space which philosophy of science and historical methodology occupied in our curriculum.
I am now far away from being a historian, but I still find discussion on these issues refreshing and an great enrichment for me. I am looking forward for your further thoughts!

[We shall fwee...Wodewick]

I'm really liking this thread guys, I'm doing a degree in Engineering atm, but most of my work is currently learning the scientific and mathematical principles(which can be considered a science itself) so I miss out on all this good stuff, although I know quite a few physicists.

What I disapprove of sometimes, is the way in which people discard "scientific theories" stipulating that it's a theory and therefore not fact without presenting an alternative, because unfortunately in common usage away from Science, theories are thought of as "without evidence or observation". This is a pet hate in debates with people who no little about the things they disagree or the scientifically illiterate and simply refuse to accept any theory is true until it is proven fact, which is in most cases if not all impossible.

[Intranetusa]

So you believe that there is no theory in the history of science that has not been proven wrong? A scientific theory is not absolute truth, although it carries an amount of truthiness which makes it seem right until someone comes up with the right experiment to prove it wrong. How about the atomicity of the atom, for instance? Wasn't that a scientific theory, until it was, well, amply proven wrong? Note: Some Nobel prizes were gained through this, of course. If you think that somehow that should make your statement that theories are facts correct.

You seem to say that the second that a theory is disproven, it never was a scientific theory in the first place? That's a weird definition. No, we cannot take theories as facts. If everyone were to do so, we'd never get any new knowledge.

Technically, the concept of the scientific theory was invented after the scientific method was invented. Scientific theories are terms used for modern science that has undergone the scientific method.

There are no facts in science. Even the scientific laws are not "facts." Laws are generalized statements based on the theories. Everything could be proven wrong tomorrow...but it's probability. It is highly unlikely that the theory of relativity or theory of universal gravitation or theory of natural selection is wrong - mainly because evidence has been continuous mounting in its support.

[cmacq]

The above is all very well stated, indeed. And, if no one minds I could provide a number of interesting examples, in part from personal experience, of how the application of the scientific method can work well and how it can go so very wrong. At the very least, some may find these revelations entertaining. As this forum offers a certain degree of anonymity, and the case-studies are rather obscure topics, for the most part, there is little chance of repercussion. Actually, I rehashed one-such case earlier today.



CmacQ

[bovi]

Technically, the concept of the scientific theory was invented after the scientific method was invented. Scientific theories are terms used for modern science that has undergone the scientific method.

There are no facts in science. Even the scientific laws are not "facts." Laws are generalized statements based on the theories. Everything could be proven wrong tomorrow...but it's probability. It is highly unlikely that the theory of relativity or theory of universal gravitation or theory of natural selection is wrong - mainly because evidence has been continuous mounting in its support.

Sorry, in what way was this a response to my post? I can't see where you say anything that both pertains to it and is not the same I said.