The Scientific Method - Why Science is Truth

**O'nus** · 02-13-2009 11:29 PM

What is Science?

What would it take for you to believe someone? What does it take for you to accept something as true? Do you favour someones experiences? Do you favour someones hard work in showing empirical data? What exactly is empirical data? How do you make sure subjective experiences are trustworthy?

Science is something that we all have a natural inclining to. When someone claims to know something, you naturally ask how? Why? You then properly assess whether or not their reasons are trustworthy and valid. The process in which to do this relies on very powerful paradigms. There are those that will favour that subjective experiences are the most trustworthy whereas are those that proclaim that objective truths are experience by individuals. So, how can you decide which way is best to assess the truth?

The premise of Science is something that you already do when trying to discover the truth of a matter. When you want to believe something, you look for a means in which to experience that same conclusion result. You try and learn the steps and reasons that the other person took to discover that conclusion themself. You try and see how much of the conclusion is fabricated compared to how much is valid.

Also, you must come up with facts yourself. You must ask yourself how you can elucidate your conclusions in a way that others can accept. You will try to find a means in which removes your possible fabrication or simple deceit. There are people out there that simply want to feel good about themself and the beliefs that they have come to and they will stand firmly by it. Some of these beliefs have gotten them very far and successful in life. Some beliefs have gotten people committed in a way that they are past the point of no return and so feel inclined to consume that belief as their best option.

It is important for science to also look at the confusion of your emotional inclining towards truth. When seeking the truth, you want to be able to ensure that your feelings and others feelings are not interrupting the ideal. If someone points a gun to your head and says, "The earth is flat" you will agree
with them for the sake of your safety. However, this is obviously far from the truth and by no means justifies or rationalizes the claim. This is the most extreme example of a very common method of argument that science combats with.

Science strives to remove the gun from the head. The more you are deterred, the more the gap grows between you and the gun bearer. In an discussion and scientific debate, the gun is far gone. You discuss and talk. Exchange of ideas and counter-arguments. Civil disputes that lead to eventual truths.

Humbly admitting when you have defended a wrong theory, but never becoming zealous over something you are not sure of.

100% Fact?

Science and facts are always proclaimed to be 100% fact. However, it is completely wrong for any scientist to assume that all knowledge has been attained.

There is always room for improvement, development, and learning. While Hippocrates studied in great depths human anatomy, he presumed that health was maintined by humours and their balance. Humours were liquids and phlegm that he thought balanced health in your body.

However, this is not the case, as new evidence and science shows, and is no more utilized. Although, this does not mean that his work on anatomy is wrong or falsified. His study of anatomy was systematic and still truthful and that the rest of his understanding has been modified to the true picture of human natomy.

No matter what, science will never claim to know anything for certain. Facts are never used as 100% fool proof evidence. The best that science can ever
hope for is a 98% certainty. The graph above shows a statisical normal distribution. This is a very basic and common picture seen in statistics. In sampling and statistical studying, you will come to this distribution. Let's use an example to help understand: most common example is to show that there are two types of errors we can make in statistical scientific study. This is similar to the court room and making your judgment. It is easily possible to say that someone is guilty when, in fact, they are innocent. It is also possible to say that someone is innocent when, in fact, they are guilty. These are referred to as the Type I and II errors. This is where the graph gives room for error (ie. 5% vs .3%).

There is always room to be given for errors, even in statistics. Any good scientist will ensure that is room for development and never claim to have completely and thoroughly explained every possibility as any scientist can never know the extent into which their subject of study can be studied.

The Scientific Method

Here is the commonly held guide for the scientific method:

1 - Define the question
2 - Gather information and resources (observe)
3 - Form hypothesis
4 - Perform experiment and collect data
5 - Analyze data
6 - Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7 - Publish results
8 - Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

With these steps, let me elaborate it's true purpose:

1 - Define the Question

Make sure that what you intend to explore is stated. This is to ensure that you cannot change the question later on that better suits your results or what you hope to prove. For example; one might be trying to prove that their product is safe (eg. beef). During the experiment, results may prove otherwise.

Thus, you go back and change your question to something else such as, "How X particle is not-safe" or "Our beef is better without X" etc. The point is to maintain consistency and avoid a possible bias in your research. More often than not, you are wrong. This is good! This means that you are questioning
and learning.

You also want to make sure you're asking the proper question. In this example, "Why our beef is safe" is a bad question. It is loaded and presuming the conclusion that it is already safe when you could obviously be proven otherwise. Thus, you ought to have an open-ended question that allows for details and development such as "Is our beef safe?" or "What is the quality of our beef?". The latter question is much better as it is open and allowing for
further interpretation by anyone and removes bias.

2 - Gather information and resources

When making a question or claim, you want to ensure that you have information and resources. This is possibly the greatest fundamental. No one will believe you, and you would not believe anyone, if they said that their beef was safe but then said they have not sampled any of their beef. Furthermore, you also would not believe them if they said that their beef was safe but tested someone elses. You also want to make sure that you are using the right resources. You ought to test the quality of beef with something that is reliable and already proven via scientific method. You wouldn't go proving your quality of beef with a dog-sniffer or a gut-feeling. You will likely use the tools of quality control and bacteria control.

In addition, you want to make sure you take as much information in as possible. Just sampling 1 piece of beef is not sufficient. This is where statistics comes in. You must attain a generally large distribution. While statistics can thoroughly explain the details of why one is better over the other and how to find an appropriate sample size, the point is intuitive - the more the better and accurate.

3 - Form Hypothesis

This is where you will make the hypothesis that particle X is causing bad beef quality or that particle X is causing others to be sick. Again, you want to avoid bias and ensure open-ended results. You would not say something like, "Our beef is safe" as it is not specific enough.

4 - Perform experiment and collect data

This is where you make your personal observations and results. You must ensure that you are doing so in a non-bias way as well. This is where double-blind tests come into play. For example; you are testing the results of your beef. Someone gives you two pieces of beef. One is bad quality, the other is good quality. You, as the researcher, are not allowed to know which is which. Your participants also does not know which is which. You then give the beef to the participants and records the results of their reaction to the beef (or spoiled beef). This allows you to properly assess what is causing the
sickness and if it is, in fact, your beef.

There are several means to testing that remove bias, but this is a crucial one. An important fault that can happen is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You ought to avoid the possibility that your desired results will affect the way in which you conduct your research. In the case of clever hans, the possibility of an intelligent horse is remarkable. The trainer will desire for this results and the benefits are grand. This desire will lead to the unconscious behaviour to ensure that the data is collected and presented in such a way.

Clever Hans Video

This is also an important note for religious debate. If you are pre-disposed that God exists, you want to prove that God exists. Thus, your arguments and data collection will inevitably be directed in this way. A scientist ought not to have any pre-dispositions towards any results and not make any presumptions of the conclusions.

5 - Analyze data

This goes hand in hand with the above. The methodology is also pertinant to the type of research. Basically, don't use inappropriate or false methods to analyze something

6 - Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

Considering your open hypothesis, you are now able to reform your hypothesis and gather a new idea of the results. Often, it is reformed. Often, it remains the same. It all depends on the experiment. In the case of clever hans, the new hypothesis was that he was simply reacting to the audience rather than actually solving math problems.

This reforming and interpretation of data is the ability to be open to new ideas and willingness to change your previous. Many are incapable of doing so and this step can ruin careers and lives. However, it is usually the resisitence and pre-dispositions that ruin this ideal. Noam Chomsky was a great linguistic and developed the Language Acquisition Device. However, there are many arguments that rock the very foundations of this once grand held theory. Much of what Noam Chomsky still remains to be true, but there are many things that are no longer adapted and utilized and Noam Chomsky has had no resistence or stubborness to this. He has adapted with it and grown from it himself. In philosophy, Wittgenstein released in his Philosophical Investigations, he recognized the flaws in his Tractatus. While there are still many truths, there was a certain vice he saw in himself that he acknowledged and pledged a large chapter of his life to and publication.

7 - Publish results

Do not hide your results. These results allow for more learning. Furthermore, no one will believe you if you do not allow anyone to really see your results. For a humourus example, this person says he taught a whale to jump out of it's tail. Of course, he can't really describe his results or how it is possible. Thus, he takes them to an actual whale and demonstrates his results. Also notice that he needs to actually show a real whale rather than just reasoning. This is a clear demonstration of how Science aims at your ability to perceive the results yourself.

8 - Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Of course, it is always good to have others to retest what you have done. This is to reinforce your reliability and to allow for further validation and modifications. Also, this is usually just to experience the results yourself which most people must do in order to believe the results.

Conclusion

Conclusively, science is born from the humans intuition to test others claims. It is born from the idea that you should be able to experience what others have experienced in order for it to be true or to believe it. Science allows for discussion, modification, and change. Science will never claim to know everything and is more inclined to postulate that it knows nothing. It is rationale, reasonable, and logical. Science is all these things in order to remove the possibility that others are lying or have been deceived. It is the observable truth at the time. An interaction of subjective will with objective proof and path to experience.

I hope this has been enlightening.

~

**really** · 02-14-2009 05:39 AM

Remember, Truth, like meaning, arises from Context. State a different context, you have a different truth.

Thus, this thread would be a great sticky in this Science & Mathematics board (despite the sub-title).

Nice effort.

**DuB** · 02-14-2009 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by O'nus

The best that science can ever
hope for is a 98% certainty.

I have heard you state this elsewhere and I have to say that I'm a little confused where you are getting this number from. I see the general point that you are making, but I should point that it is not only possible, but even commonplace to observe effects that are significant to degrees substantially larger than 98%. In some areas of research, particularly medical research, a confidence level of 98% (i.e., p-value of .02) is not very impressive.

**O'nus** · 02-14-2009 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by DuB

I have heard you state this elsewhere and I have to say that I'm a little confused where you are getting this number from.

Confidence margins mostly. I'm taking the in between of those two major p-values.

I see the general point that you are making, but I should point that it is not only possible, but even commonplace to observe effects that are significant to degrees substantially larger than 98%. In some areas of research, particularly medical research, a confidence level of 98% (i.e., p-value of .02) is not very impressive.

Which research..? I'm curious to see more of what you're referring to because I am betting you are quite right.

~

**ninja9578** · 02-14-2009 06:16 AM

You forgot "Identify variables" in your scientific method. Most experiments have many many variables, even the best ones. They have to be recognized and studied individually.

**O'nus** · 02-14-2009 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by ninja9578

You forgot "Identify variables" in your scientific method. Most experiments have many many variables, even the best ones. They have to be recognized and studied individually.

That's true, that ought to be in step one. I'll add when I'm more civil minded.

~

**DuB** · 02-15-2009 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by O'nus

Which research..? I'm curious to see more of what you're referring to because I am betting you are quite right.

Basically what I'm saying is that the concrete confidence estimates that you mention (98&#37

seem to be referring to statistical inferences, and statistically speaking it is entirely possible to reject or retain a given hypothesis at greater than 98% confidence (i.e., p < .02). I could find a random journal article or two for you that does just this, but I'm afraid it wouldn't really illustrate much beyond what I've already said - I'm sure you can use your imagination, and further trust that this is not an uncommon occurrence. (In any case, finding a couple examples can't really speak toward how often it happens in the grand scheme of things.)

Now, clearly we rely on factors other than statistical tests to inform our confidence in a given finding. For example, we may call into question the methods used to obtain the data, the validity/reliability of the measures used, etc., and this would probably lower our personal level of certainty. On the other hand, if this is an effect that has been replicated time and again, this would probably increase our personal level of certainty. However, our personal level of certainty is not something that can be quantified and expressed as a concrete probability (reasonably, anyway).

**dajo** · 02-15-2009 11:45 AM

That's the scientific approach to deal with things, yes.

This is why science is truth? no..

**O'nus** · 02-15-2009 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by dajo

That's the scientific approach to deal with things, yes.

This is why science is truth? no..

This approach to deal with things, this scientific approach, allows for the best methodology towards forms of truth that are not contaminated by human manipulation. Removing human manipulation from factual conclusions is the crux of the scientific method.

Thus, how is this not a path towards truth?

~

**dajo** · 02-15-2009 08:24 PM

Science can only be as advanced, as we are.
Things we don't see, don't know or can't mesure
are still possible to exist. And one major insight
or scientific realization could change our entire
world-view.

I'd suggest you get into quantum physics.
They deal with the limitations of science.

Science IS, as I said, important. But does NOT
grasp all there is and never will. There are still
many unanswered questions and that is the
beauty of it: Things are still open, they evolve,
as will science.

**O'nus** · 02-15-2009 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by dajo

Science can only be as advanced, as we are.
Things we don't see, don't know or can't mesure
are still possible to exist. And one major insight
or scientific realization could change our entire
world-view.

I'd suggest you get into quantum physics.
They deal with the limitations of science.

Science IS, as I said, important. But does NOT
grasp all there is and never will. There are still
many unanswered questions and that is the
beauty of it: Things are still open, they evolve,
as will science.

You obviously didn't read thoroughly. I never said science can grasp eerything but, in fact, said to always leave room for development and the high likeliness that there is more to add to your results. I understand quantum physics but it seems you are boy respecting the philosophical plateau of science
~

**dajo** · 02-16-2009 12:03 AM

Sorry, that did sound kind of like that.

It's just the truth-thing, somehow bugs me.
Never mind though, I think that'd be beating a dead horse

**O'nus** · 02-16-2009 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by dajo

Sorry, that did sound kind of like that.

It's just the truth-thing, somehow bugs me.
Never mind though, I think that'd be beating a dead horse

I thought as much, with really's response too. The point that I am aiming at is that, whichever truth you are seeking, scientific methods are likely going to be set in place in some sort of means. Even subjective truths involve you questioning yourself and trying to pre-define those terms in which the subjective truths are based upon.

~

**really** · 02-16-2009 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by O'nus

I thought as much, with really's response too. The point that I am aiming at is that, whichever truth you are seeking, scientific methods are likely going to be set in place in some sort of means. Even subjective truths involve you questioning yourself and trying to pre-define those terms in which the subjective truths are based upon.

~

Subjective truths do not require definition - that is required in the realm of science. A nonlinear subjective truth is not definable.

The point is that science is limited to its own domain of reasoning. Of course, it seems like the only way to understand things while restricting one's awareness of anything beyond it. It deals with the linear and the causal. Quantum physics/mechanics is pretty much the edge of science - as far as it may go, because it is beyond these attributes.

**DeathCell** · 02-18-2009 06:55 PM

I understand Dajo's feeling towards the use of the word truth.. Because even science itself can believe something to be true only to write itself off many years later.

Yes science and the scientific method helps find basic "truths" of life, the universe and everything but it can and will be wrong at points..

He makes much sense when he says science can only help us find or understand what we are searching for or have the proper equipment to find and understand..

Hard to find the soul for instance when we have no devices geared specifically for finding it.

**ChaybaChayba** · 02-18-2009 07:48 PM

Indeed, science is the search for truth, but most people mistake science as the truth. As if science can't progress.

**O'nus** · 02-18-2009 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I understand Dajo's feeling towards the use of the word truth.. Because even science itself can believe something to be true only to write itself off many years later.

That's the point though, as really also added - they are relative truths at the time that are still given room for development and modification. Science never claims to be undeniable - that is the reason why falsification is involved in the scientific method.

Yes science and the scientific method helps find basic "truths" of life, the universe and everything but it can and will be wrong at points..

This is why falsification is integral to the scientific method.

Hard to find the soul for instance when we have no devices geared specifically for finding it.

Precisely. Thus why many believe it to be a fabrication, along with many others things that are no means to demonstrating evidence for. However, this does not mean that scientists say there is certainly no existence of them, just that there is no means to prove it.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Indeed, science is the search for truth, but most people mistake science as the truth. As if science can't progress.

Exactly!

~

**esfx** · 02-19-2009 12:12 AM

Science may not be truth, but scientific theories are correct in their regions of prediction. For example, Newtonian orbital mechanics do very accurately describe the orbits of the planets, except for a minute precession of Mercury. New science does not destroy old science; it generalizes it. General relativity did not destroy Newton's gravity, it showed precisely that Newtonian gravity just boils down to taking only the first term from a Taylor expansion, so it actually defined precisely when you can continue to use Newtonian gravity, and where you need to step up to the next term in the expansion.

Another example is the Standard Model. Whatever replaces it will still have to make the same predictions as the SM below, say, 100 TeV. It may turn out that the particles we see in today's accelerators are just lower harmonics on strings. But the point is, we do not discard the SM. Electrons may be strings but we don't need to know that for, say, electronics. So the SM is correct to within a well-defined error limit. Another example is the age of the universe. We know that it's 13.7 ± (something small) billion years old, and no new discoveries can possibly put it outside that scientifically established error, ever.

You see, the science of the past 200 or so years has already effectively explained about 99% of middle-scale physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Now we're just defining the relatively unimportant last 1%. So don't hold your breath for anything really earth-shattering to happen, because it's mostly set in stone.

What we will start to see for the rest of the existence of humanity is not new science, but rather new engineering. We will expand the boundaries of what can be made small, and what can be made large. We will have nanotech devices that can do seemingly magical things, but still abide by regular, old 1930's era quantum mechanical chemistry. We will also see large structures built in space and on other planets, but they will still only rely on basic 19th century mechanics to operate.

**Taosaur** · 02-19-2009 01:07 AM

"Science is Truth" is an equivalent statement to "Hammer is Tool:" irrefutable, but it only goes so far. Even within the scientific method, non-rational approaches--intuition, imagination and inspiration--are required to form hypotheses and theories more daring than "Kumquats are smaller than apples." The scientific method is necessary but not sufficient to make leaps like Newtonian physics, evolution, relativity and string theory.

Other approaches to truth don't require science at all. To name a truth-making endeavor at least equal in stature to science and as vital to human advancement: art. Art! What understanding could we have of this world without literature, drama and music?

I would add ritual, prayer and meditation as well, to humanity's toolbox for revealing and knowing truth. Truth means not only accuracy, but also sincerity and authenticity. It's not necessary that every individual devote their life to religion, or science, or art, but all three are Truth.

**Andrew Quaze** · 02-19-2009 01:07 AM

I must admit this thread brought a warm fuzzy feeling to my heart. I had long ago given up hope of finding someone with the intelligence and comprehension to appreciate science and the scientific method in all its glory.

Thank you O'nus for restoring some of my hope for humanity!

Everyone has made several good points, and I'm afraid I agree with esfx's reasoning. But, I am hopeful that there may be a few more earth-shattering discoveries to be made.

Science is not truth, it is a mechanism for which we may ascertain the closest to an absolute truth we can get. It's always changing. Science, in its purest form, is always subject to revisions and changes. Will science ever teach us everything there is to know with 100% certainty? No, but I'm willing to bet it can get us pretty damn close. There is no way to be 100% certain because by our very nature we question things. There will always be the slightest possibility that its wrong in the back of our minds.

**Taosaur** · 02-19-2009 01:21 AM

Originally Posted by esfx

You see, the science of the past 200 or so years has already effectively explained about 99% of middle-scale physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Now we're just defining the relatively unimportant last 1%. So don't hold your breath for anything really earth-shattering to happen, because it's mostly set in stone.

That's about as likely as The Rapture. If it were conceivable that there is a fixed sum of knowledge in the first place, I would invert those numbers: we are only beginning to grasp enough of physics, chemistry and biology (not to mention etc.) to generate serious quantities of data, and not until we improve our data analysis by a few orders of magnitude can we even begin to know how much we don't know.

**Xaqaria** · 02-19-2009 01:32 AM

Originally Posted by esfx

You see, the science of the past 200 or so years has already effectively explained about 99% of middle-scale physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Now we're just defining the relatively unimportant last 1%. So don't hold your breath for anything really earth-shattering to happen, because it's mostly set in stone.

About once a century, people start to make this claim. Every time they do, a few short years later someone discovers something that blows the roof off of our current understanding of reality. We don't even know if our laws of reality hold true outside the context of our locale.

The chances are that the potential for novel discovery is virtually infinite.

**esfx** · 02-19-2009 01:35 AM

Originally Posted by Taosaur

That's about as likely as The Rapture. If it were conceivable that there is a fixed sum of knowledge in the first place, I would invert those numbers: we are only beginning to grasp enough of physics, chemistry and biology (not to mention etc.) to generate serious quantities of data, and not until we improve our data analysis by a few orders of magnitude can we even begin to know how much we don't know.

You seem to think that science is about collecting data. Well sure, we haven't tracked the motion of every particle in the universe yet. But in terms of interactions, yes, we pretty much got it nailed down. For example, consider how much (little) has changed in the science (not engineering) of electronics, chemistry, physics, etc, over the past 100 years. Well, basically nothing. Maxwell's equations are correct in all but the most ridiculously extreme circumstances. Chemistry hasn't changed one iota in 70 years, and I already mentioned the Standard Model.

Let me ask you this: What, precisely, do you expect to change in our knowledge of the universe?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

About once a century, people start to make this claim. Every time they do, a few short years later someone discovers something that blows the roof off of our current understanding of reality. We don't even know if our laws of reality hold true outside the context of our locale.

Actually, that only happened once, in the late 19th century. The scientific culture was different then.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The chances are that the potential for novel discovery is virtually infinite.

Novel discovery =/= radical transformation. I never said there wouldn't be discoveries, but they will be confined to ever smaller regions of the universe, in the sense of energy scales, space scales, or time scales. For example, if string theory is proved correct, that will just be a small addendum on the SM. It will not affect our lives in any way, probably ever.

**Robot_Butler** · 02-19-2009 01:48 AM

I agree with you, Onus, but I would avoid the term "Truth." That is a pretty loaded term as people have already pointed out. I'm sure you could come up with a more appropriate term (assuming this wasn't your whole point to begin with, you instigator

).

Science still relies on observation, which is severely limited and subjective. While we are always improving our ability to observe, we will never be able to come close to absolute truth. However limited it may be, I agree it is currently the best system available for us to use in our endless pursuit of truth.

I think people often underestimate the importance of the very first steps of the scientific method. "Define the question" and "form a hypothesis" seem to be the limiting tasks in science right now. These initial steps are often the most difficult, and the most reliant on our human bias and beliefs. This is also the time for the looneys, the believers, and the fringe thinkers to throw out every possible idea, no matter how crazy. Then, we can look for ways to prove or disprove it (and throw it back in their faces

). I see too many self proclaimed scientists who are seemingly annoyed when people come up with unproven ideas. It seems like they are somehow insulted by ideas. It has to be an idea before it can become science. I think we need the believers, the fringe thinkers, the charlatans and the crazies. They pose the questions, and dare science to prove them wrong.

**Xaqaria** · 02-19-2009 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by esfx

You seem to think that science is about collecting data. Well sure, we haven't tracked the motion of every particle in the universe yet. But in terms of interactions, yes, we pretty much got it nailed down. For example, consider how much (little) has changed in the science (not engineering) of electronics, chemistry, physics, etc, over the past 100 years. Well, basically nothing. Maxwell's equations are correct in all but the most ridiculously extreme circumstances. Chemistry hasn't changed one iota in 70 years, and I already mentioned the Standard Model.

Let me ask you this: What, precisely, do you expect to change in our knowledge of the universe?

Chemistry most definitely has changed, and pretty drastically in recent years. Case in point; just within the last few years a method for reversing the Casimir effect has been discovered.

Originally Posted by esfx

Actually, that only happened once, in the late 19th century. The scientific culture was different then.

Nope! See; Copernican Revolution

Originally Posted by esfx

Novel discovery =/= radical transformation. I never said there wouldn't be discoveries, but they will be confined to ever smaller regions of the universe, in the sense of energy scales, space scales, or time scales. For example, if string theory is proved correct, that will just be a small addendum on the SM. It will not affect our lives in any way, probably ever.

This is your opinion and nothing more. The defining characteristic of scientific revolution is that the extent and specifics of any sort of a shift in our scientific paradigm cannot or are not predicted before they happen. There is absolutely no way for you to know that our understanding of science won't completely change course in 100 years or tomorrow.

Thread: The Scientific Method - Why Science is Truth

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

The Scientific Method - Why Science is Truth

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions