|
Post by Admin on Sept 6, 2023 16:39:35 GMT
The Scientific Method has much history behind it, finding its roots among many historical people and cultures, dating back to ancient Egypt, Aristotle, and others.
The term "Scientific Method" emerged in the 17th century, even though as stated above, it has its roots dating back much farther.
When I was a Science teacher, we hammered the steps of the method into children - the earliest grade level I taught was 6th grade and the text books certainly had it in there as a foundational concept in Science to be learned and used. This is all good.
Much of what i post on this site is simply based on observation and I don't follow through with the method from Hypothesis to Experiment, etc... This is fine and you should feel comfortable too, to do so.
But I think it's still important to bring the Scientific Method up here. From time to time we may use it, especially when people disagree about something posted, Scientifically disagreeing that is - more like intellectually discussing it.
The method does not always have all the steps below and some use varying forms of it. But the one below is the generally most accepted version of the method, and the one I use to "make" public school students learn.
Michael
and/or
The Scientific method isn't always used to perform Science. Below, a quote from the wikipedia article on the "Philosophy of Science" demonstrates this:
"Subsequently, the coherentist approach to science, in which a theory is validated if it makes sense of observations as part of a coherent whole, became prominent due to W. V. Quine and others. Some thinkers such as Stephen Jay Gould seek to ground science in axiomatic assumptions, such as the uniformity of nature. A vocal minority of philosophers, and Paul Feyerabend in particular, argue that there is no such thing as the "scientific method", so all approaches to science should be allowed, including explicitly supernatural ones. Another approach to thinking about science involves studying how knowledge is created from a sociological perspective, an approach represented by scholars like David Bloor and Barry Barnes. Finally, a tradition in continental philosophy approaches science from the perspective of a rigorous analysis of human experience."
|
|
|
Post by kingcong on Sept 11, 2023 7:05:01 GMT
I think there's an important distinction to be made between casual, anecdotal scientific observation and more formal scientific investigation. With casual observation we can experience and enjoy the wonder of what's around us in a haphazard fashion, prompting us to think and ask questions of ourselves and others... but we need formal process-oriented scientific investigation (whatever method is employed) to reliably answer those questions beyond reasonable doubt, through research, experimentation / testing and analysis. Casual observation is fun and and ignites interest, but only scratches the surface of scientific matters. At best, it leaves us with questions and suspicions rather than dependable scientific conclusions...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 11, 2023 15:08:43 GMT
I think there's an important distinction to be made between casual, anecdotal scientific observation and more formal scientific investigation. With casual observation we can experience and enjoy the wonder of what's around us in a haphazard fashion, prompting us to think and ask questions of ourselves and others... but we need formal process-oriented scientific investigation (whatever method is employed) to reliably answer those questions beyond reasonable doubt, through research, experimentation / testing and analysis. Casual observation is fun and and ignites interest, but only scratches the surface of scientific matters. At best, it leaves us with questions and suspicions rather than dependable scientific conclusions...
I agree with what you wrote.
I think its important to note that the Scientific Method may not be able to be used in some circumstances, such as being a naturalist/nature watching.
Observing nature may not be open to using the Scientific Method, on it. For example, I may observe the behavior of a certain species of birds, perhaps crows, but what I observe them do then I can't apply the Scientific Method on. It would be not only quite difficult but perhaps impossible to set up independent and dependent variables on them, as they are wild animals and do what they do, much of it based on their instinctive behavior. It could be very difficult to set up an experiment to cause the crows to be Scientifically tested as well.
Of course, Charles Darwin did most of his Science via observation and trying to explain what he seen - he rarely, if ever, applied the Scientific Method, yet his theory of Evolution is amongst the most important works in Science.
Michael
|
|
|
Post by kingcong on Sept 11, 2023 18:54:55 GMT
For sure - but when we're unable to test our observations and resulting hypthoeses, we have to be extremely careful in drawing conclusions (if, indeed, we can draw any whatsoever). An alternative in nature watching might be to increase the scope, sample size and frequency of observation.
For example, you're out walking for the day and see a hawk catching fish at a nearby lake. Do you conclude that hawks catch and eat fish - or that this species of hawk eats fish; or this species at this location eats fish; or this specific hawk - regardless of species - eats fish; or this specific hawk - only when it's at this location - eats fish; or this specific hawk, at this location, when other food sources such as rodents aren't readily available, will occasionally eat fish just to survive... etc. etc. Since you can't easily create experiments to test these possibilities, a long-term, geographically-wide observation / data collection / analysis exercise could be an alternative approach to understanding more.
As I see it, when you can't obtain proof through testing, the next best thing is compelling quantity and quality of evidence from other sources. Without testing, a large and wide-ranging scope and volume of observational data is required to reach a strong theory, but even then it's not proof... it's "just" a theory.
Casual observation can be fascinating and it's a lot of fun - and, let's be frank, it's what most of us do... but it's only one rung on the ladder of discovery and understanding. So long as we accept that and take care not to make big assumptions and draw hasty conclusions, we're on our way to greater enlightenment
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 12, 2023 15:11:37 GMT
For sure - but when we're unable to test our observations and resulting hypthoeses, we have to be extremely careful in drawing conclusions (if, indeed, we can draw any whatsoever). An alternative in nature watching might be to increase the scope, sample size and frequency of observation.
For example, you're out walking for the day and see a hawk catching fish at a nearby lake. Do you conclude that hawks catch and eat fish - or that this species of hawk eats fish; or this species at this location eats fish; or this specific hawk - regardless of species - eats fish; or this specific hawk - only when it's at this location - eats fish; or this specific hawk, at this location, when other food sources such as rodents aren't readily available, will occasionally eat fish just to survive... etc. etc. Since you can't easily create experiments to test these possibilities, a long-term, geographically-wide observation / data collection / analysis exercise could be an alternative approach to understanding more.
As I see it, when you can't obtain proof through testing, the next best thing is compelling quantity and quality of evidence from other sources. Without testing, a large and wide-ranging scope and volume of observational data is required to reach a strong theory, but even then it's not proof... it's "just" a theory.
Casual observation can be fascinating and it's a lot of fun - and, let's be frank, it's what most of us do... but it's only one rung on the ladder of discovery and understanding. So long as we accept that and take care not to make big assumptions and draw hasty conclusions, we're on our way to greater enlightenment
I agree with everything you said. The only exception being your use of "theory" when it comes to Science. A Scientific Theory, as I posted in the General forum, is something that has been repeatedly tested and considered as factual. Many people don't know that a theory in Science is based on hard evidence. Laymen think of the word "theory" as being something people just think as a good guess or could be true and could be false.
I'm getting ready to ride my motorcycle half way around our local lake. I'm sure I'll see something interesting - I nearly always do. The most interesting thing I saw there this summer was a Black Bear and her Cub. As soon as I seen them, they both quickly ran away - I think the motorcycle engine alerted or even scared them off.
Michael
|
|
|
Post by kingcong on Sept 12, 2023 16:49:14 GMT
Instead of "theory", I should have written "hypothesis"
Enjoy your ride - and take care
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 13, 2023 16:14:38 GMT
These two Wikipedia articles are chuck full of different ways to do and study Science, from repeated observation, much peer review, & of course using the Scientific Method.
Of course, some fields of Science are more inclined to be studied and validated with one type & others using a different type of validation. For example, studying the Natural World can involve more direct observation while Physics may involve more mathematically sound uses of the Scientific Method.
I found it interesting that one of the articles spoke about how a lot of repeated observations to validate something could be completely undone and disproved by only one observation that contradicts it. For example, in Nature, 25 naturalists might make the same exact observation that a certain species of a small poisonous Toad, if eaten by a fish then the fish dies within 5 minutes (which comes from a true story of a common poisonous Toad in my region). But if just one person observes the poisonous Toad being eaten and the fish simply did not die, then it can tear apart the validated observation(s) the 25 naturalists made. In such a case, of course, more observation needs to take place.
The articles are at:
&
Michael Piziak
|
|