Do you have the definition of 'scientific method'?

[badger]

Do you have the definition of 'scientific method"?

I often read and hear people insisting that the scientific method must be followed before they will accept any ideas or proposals.

But so far during these conversations, nobody has ever shown a clear description or definition of what that process should be. I've come to believe that this term is just something that can be 'thrown down' to obtain leverage in debate or conversation... an 'it' phrase.

I recently tasked the internet about this and one university scholar's article explained that there were five differing answers for different areas of research. So that person just had an unfixed and loose answer which was very unscientific.

Can anybody here define the scientific method?

 

[SalixIncendium]

The scientific method is a empirical system of obtaining knowledge through a cyclical process of steps...

 

[badger]

The scientific method is a empirical system of obtaining knowledge through a cyclical process of steps...

Thank you for the above.
Please allow me to ask questions about the above.

The use of the word 'empirical' interests me, because the cycle shown in the diagram might not be using as accurate research results, nor tested with correct testing as may be required.

Of course, decisions made upon scientific method can often be disproved at a later date.

The method above may be the best course of action for any searches, but if the researchers are in any way biased then the results could suffer dreadfully. I wonder if 'careful selection' of researchers, testers, experiments and analysis is not crucial to accuracy? If so, surely there should be mention of those additions in the definition?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Thank you for the above.
Please allow me to ask questions about the above.

The use of the word 'empirical' interests me, because the cycle shown in the diagram might not be using as accurate research results, nor tested with correct testing as may be required.

Of course, decisions made upon scientific method can often be disproved at a later date.

The method above may be the best course of action for any searches, but if the researchers are in any way biased then the results could suffer dreadfully. I wonder if 'careful selection' of researchers, testers, experiments and analysis is not crucial to accuracy? If so, surely there should be mention of those additions in the definition?

No, because the results aren't readily accepted as facts. This is why the method is cyclical. Results are questioned, if not by the same researchers/testers, by others, and the process runs again until all margin of error and/or bias is eliminated.

 

[badger]

No, because the results aren't readily accepted as facts. This is why the method is cyclical. Results are questioned, if not by the same researchers/testers, by others, and the process runs again until all margin of error and/or bias is eliminated.

Hello again.
So the scientific method cycle does not produce results that are readily accepted. All results are questioned? OK.

At what point of the SM process can science declare that 'all margin of error and/or bias has been eliminated? Never?

If this is the case, debaters who criticise others for seeking truth by any other cycle of actions don't really have a strong case, because the answer can come winging back that 'SM does not produce truth with certainty'.

I would give far more respect to challenges that ask 'How did you research, test findings and analyse all?" rather than 'Did you follow the scientific method?'. The title of itself seems to be no more than a name, maybe?

 

[EricPH]

The theory of evolution is probably the greatest challenge to the scientific method. We fill in all the gaps by either saying, mutation and selection did it, or God did it.

Science is summed up by the God of the gaps argument, or evolution of the gaps argument.

 

[badger]

The theory of evolution is probably the greatest challenge to the scientific method. We fill in all the gaps by either saying, mutation and selection did it, or God did it.

Science is summed up by the God of the gaps argument, or evolution of the gaps argument.

Although I did not have evolution/creation in mind when I started this thread, it certainly does seem to be an interesting point that you make.

 

[TheLightWithin]

The title of itself seems to be no more than a name, maybe?

No. It is the procedure or process as described above, that can minimize errors, confounded variables, and the like.
Modern inventions exist because this process was repeatedly used to figure out what would work.

 

[badger]

No. It is the procedure or process as described above, that can minimize errors, confounded variables, and the like.
Modern inventions exist because this process was repeatedly used to figure out what would work.

Hello again.
Did you have any modern inventions in mind?
I can think of a few modern inventions which have caused much difficulty.

I have no doubt that research, proposal, testing etc is a key part of the journey to invention, to give this procedure a name which has become so powerful in debates etc seems strange.