Philosophy of Science: Issues of the Scientific Method

[dream-scape]

Well since [nearly] everyone seems to be in a science talking mood lately, why don't we at least do something constructive with this? How about a discussion on the philosophical issues of the traditional Scientific Method, and the implications, limitations, and other problems these issues present to science. We can also discuss emerging methods that attempt to resolve these issues, and any new philosophical issues we might see in these emerging methods. [please, no book throwing. There's been more than enough of that lately from all angles.]

[bradybaker]

Are there any specific flaws in the scientific method that you'd like to point out?

[justme]

Originally posted by bradybaker Are there any specific flaws in the scientific method that you'd like to point out? heres one to solve a problem U DONT NEED TO USE IT that is if u have logic u can prossibly point out the answer and think for urself instead of a book telling u how to think

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by justme heres one to solve a problem U DONT NEED TO USE IT that is if u have logic u can prossibly point out the answer and think for urself instead of a book telling u how to think The scientific method isn't telling anybody how to think. It's simply a guide to obtain accurate, reproducible observations of phenomena in nature. Pure logic and thought experiments are not going to help you determine the speed of light. The scientific method will.

[s00p]

Some believe that there could be a different scientific method that we've overlooked, one that could be more efficient. And how about all scientific theory being based upon our observation?

[dream-scape]

Originally posted by bradybaker Are there any specific flaws in the scientific method that you'd like to point out? Well since I have not really studied the philosophy of science, I don't really have the knowledge to come up with any issues, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss issues brought up by well know scientific philosophers in an intelligent manner. We won't be able to get through this without bringing up from things from Thomas Kuhn, but let's start with something else for now. How about we start with the issues brought up by the Quine-Duhem thesis. This thesis states that any theory can be made compatible with any empirical observation by the addition of suitable hypotheses, which is to say theories cannot be tested in isolation, and one cannot use empirical observation to make a judgment between two competing theories. Since theories are only tested in groups, if there is unexpected data, one has to make a personal judgment as to which of the theories in the group is false, since empirical observation cannot be used to make such a determination. This also means it is possible for one to claim that tests which seem to refute popular and favored theories have not refuted them at all, but some other theory is false or not yet known. The fact that one cannot unambiguously determine which theory is refuted by unexpected data means that scientists must use judgments about which theories to accept and which to reject. Logic alone does not guide such decisions.[/b] That empirical evidence does not serve to determine between alternate theories does not imply that all theories are of equal value. Rather than pretending to use a universally applicable methodological principle, the scientist is making a personal choice when she chooses some particular theory over another. One result of this is that specialists in the philosophy of science stress the requirement that observations made for the purposes of science be restricted to intersubjective objects. That is, science is restricted to those areas where there is general agreement on the nature of the observations involved. It is comparatively easy to agree on observations of physical phenomena, harder for them to agree on observations of social or mental phenomena, and difficult in the extreme to reach agreement on matters of theology or ethics.[/b]

[AirRick101]

scientific method is only common sense, and is ridiculously easy to comprehend. As long as you know why you use it, there is perhaps no faster way. But logic can work, too, as long as you're having fun, even though it takes longer.

[Awaken4e1]

I hope this isn’t to far off…But what is the equation which explain multiple dimensions?

[kimpossible]

It's not one equation. Unless you've discovered GUT and are holding out. Spend a few years reading up on just type-I, type-II, and heterotic strings. Then you'll start to have an idea where to go for the equations you're looking for. This would be a good primer to make sure you can understand even the simplest of the math you'll be facing: http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/99...901/9901146.pdf

[dream-scape]

so no one has anything to discuss on the Quine-Duhem Thesis? ok... hrmmmmm... What about Karl Popper? Anybody want to discuss his [critical] views of scientific method? Briefly, Popper agreed with the Quine-Duhem Thesis and was particularly critical of inductive methods [as was Hume]. He gives an example of millions of white swans, which had been seen in Europe for thousands of years. Inductively one could theorize that all swans are white. However exploration of Australia introduced Europeans to black swans. It only took that one observation to refute an otherwise seemingly solid theory (millions of confirming observations make a pretty solid theory). What Popper was saying was that no matter how many times a theory is confirmed, there is always the possibility that a future observation may refute the theory (though according to Quine-Duhem, the scientist could argue that the theory was in fact not refuted). Popper also was critical of observation, because it is skewed by our understanding. That is, observations are made in the context of the current theories we hold (more on theory dependent observation later perhaps). Where does all this lead? Popper argued that it only takes one counter observation to refute a theory, regardless of how many confirming observations it is backed up by. He argued that scientific progress is only made when a theory is refuted, and a new theory that better explains the phenomena is introduced. Popper argued that scientists should be trying to disprove and refute theories rather than trying to continually confirm them. Any thoughts or points of discussion anyone would like to take on Popper's view of scientific method? *edit* I am neither expert nor scholar nor academic in the field of scientific philosophy, so if I've misrepresented Popper in any way or left anything important out, please let me know