What is Science?

Mercedes Benzene · 06-25-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by SidewalkCynic

Now then, is scientific method a deductive process, or would it be better described another way?

You're treading into philosophical waters.
Now, since the "scientific method" is not very well defined, it might be best to examine some of the origins of modern sciences.

Descartes was considered the first "modern philosopher" when it comes to mathematics and physics. There really was no such thing as the "scientific method," but rather, Descartes used many scientific methods. He questioned whether it is really possible for us to know anything for sure. So, in order to rehabilitate human reason, he decided it would be a good idea to start with the basics. He used urban planning as a metaphor: If one sets out to plan a city, one should not look at old cities. One should start from scratch. Rebuild the city with organization and credibility. This was how he planned to restore society... ignore past authority, and examine things himself.
His method was deductive.

Simplify complex problems into small, simplistic parts
Subdivide problems
Guide thoughts in an orderly way. Start with the simplest
Establish rules, so as to not omit anything

(See "Discourse on Method")
Basically, Descartes' ideas focused on the theoretical. Work through problems logically (Euclidian philosophy).
So is this most like the modern scientific method? Is it primarily deductive.

We can also look at the work of Bacon. Bacon's goal was to distinguish between sound and unsound knowledge. Unlike Descartes, Bacon thought it better to ignore deduction. Don't start by splitting up a large problem, don't start with math, and don't jump to general conclusions. Bacon's method is entirely inductive.

Now obviously, neither of these embodies modern scientific method completely, since it has drawn from so many different philosophical ideologies. I'm personally of the opinion that modern scientific method is more inductive than deductive, although both obviously play some role. I also think it is entirely dependent on the circumstances. Some situations lend themselves better to deductive reasoning, while others lend themselves better to inductive reasoning.

The main problem is: we can't decide on a precise definition for modern scientific method, so how can be definitively decide how it operates?

SidewalkCynic · 06-25-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

The main problem is: we can't decide on a precise definition for modern scientific method, so how can be definitively decide how it operates?

Well, if this is true, as I previously assumed, then, "scientific method," or any term devised to refer to scientific method, cannot be apart of the definition of science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercedes Benzene

Now obviously, neither of these embodies modern scientific method completely, since it has drawn from so many different philosophical ideologies. I'm personally of the opinion that modern scientific method is more inductive than deductive, although both obviously play some role. I also think it is entirely dependent on the circumstances. Some situations lend themselves better to deductive reasoning, while others lend themselves better to inductive reasoning.

Is it possible that a deductive scientific method, and an inductive scientific method, can be segregated and isolated, and both then, described consistantly?
Or then, does it become a problem in each specific field?

modest · 06-25-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by SidewalkCynic

Looks like a good read, thanks.

No problem. The book definitely worth the read if you're in to this sort of thing. It's really-highly praised in philosophy of science. "Original" and "landmark" and all that. It introduced the idea of falsifiability of scientific theories because observations can't prove that a theory is universally true (only that it isn't yet falsified). It's one of those things that seems so obvious that you can't imagine its such a modern concept.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SidewalkCynic

Now then, is scientific method a deductive process, or would it be better described another way?

Yeah, good call. While Mercedes Benzene is surely correct that it's neither entirely inductive or deductive, Popper's rendition of it was written as a rejection of the inductive method (which was the name for the old scientific method).

He called it the hypothetico-deductive method. So, I'd say you could describe it as a deductive method, and you're in fact spot on seeing how it is named that. The idea is essentially:

Quote:

hypothetico-deductive method

Scientific method whereby science should set up testable hypotheses and then try to falsify them, rather than trying to confirm them directly by accumulating favourable evidence.

Hypothetico-Deductive Method

And wiki says:

Quote:

Karl Popper (1902-1994) is generally credited with providing a context for major improvements in scientific method in the mid-to-late 20th century. In 1934 Popper published The Logic of Scientific Discovery which repudiated the classical observationalist-inductivist account of scientific method and advanced empirical falsifiability as the criterion for distinguishing scientific theory from non-science. According to Popper, scientific theory should make predictions (preferably predictions that are not made by a competing theory) which can be tested and the theory rejected if these predictions are shown not to be correct. Following Peirce and others, he argued that science would best progress using deductive reasoning as its primary emphasis, known as critical rationalism. His astute formulations of logical procedure helped to reign in the excessive use of inductive speculation upon inductive speculation, and also helped to strengthen the conceptual foundation for today's peer review procedures.

History of scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It really is the modern scientific method.

~modest

EDIT: Of course, creating an hypothesis in the first place is mostly going to be an inductive affair.

SidewalkCynic · 06-27-2009

Okay, I found this in the history of scientific method article:

Quote:

An Egyptian medical textbook, the Edwin Smith papyrus, (circa 1600 BC), applies the basic components of scientific method: examination, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis, to the treatment of disease.

Now, in each of these four steps, I can identify that the doctor ("scientist") is reliant upon referencing defined information. He cannot examine, if he cannot identify the consistently defined physiological components and recognize the consistently defined diagnostic anomalies to prescribe a consistently defined treatment; where as, he finally reaches the stage where he can make an educated guess as to how well the treatment will effect the patient, so as to assist in the subsequent examination and any further exercise of repeating the defined method.

In this example, I would be more inclined to categorize the doctor in the same category as engineers. I see the "consistently defined" information the doctors and engineers reference as being the result of science. And this, analysis of mine, should not be incongruous with that of the general population, who when freely associating terminologies, incorrectly refer science to the listing of information found in the categories of physics, astronomy, life sciences, earth sciences, and the etc., which should be understood as technology, because it is information used as a tool.

modest · 06-27-2009

The question, If you'll indulge me SidewalkCynic, is how does one know that any given definition is consistent with reality? There are many different logically consistent definitions which might apply to something like "mass" or "lightning". How do scientists, in a practical sense, decide on any given logically consistent description of a thing?

~modest

lemit · 06-28-2009

I don't know where to start with this. I've been away from this thread for a few days and am very dismayed at what I've found.

I thought somebody would correct the misimpression of research libraries before now. I'm sure I'm not the only Hypography member who knows Library of Congress classification has been the standard for 40 years or so. I'm sure I'm not the only one who knows Library of Congress is abbreviated LC.

I hope I'm not the only one who knows that Dewey was abandoned in research libaries many years ago because it is too vague and can't be adapted to new and developing research. I hope I'm not the only one who knows that while LC classification has its weakness, its beauty is in its standardization: an application for copyright starts the process of assigning an LC call number. The verso of the title page of all books on which a copyright is at least pending gives information about that call number. What that means is that you can go to any library in the country (except a few special libraries and school libraries, although most of them have ongoing conversion projects) and find the book under pretty much the same call number as in your local research or public library. And you can find related books much more easily than the somewhat primitive Dewey system allowed.

In the last few days, while this discussion was going on, I recommended Hypography to several of my friends who work in a research library where I worked close to 20 years. I'm really embarrassed.

I wonder, how do serious researchers not know how to use a research library? Are the rest of the posters here junior high school students? And why has this thread survived this long? It seems to be an attempt at prepublication promotion of a book. If you look at it as something more serious, it evaporates in a way that should be given serious study. I can tell you how to find books on evaporation.

I'd rather give a tutorial on research libraries on an appropriate thread, but lots of people inexplicably seem to be looking at this thread. I say inexplicably because there wasn't much here to begin with and then it turned into a discussion of an obsolete classification system. I had thought this was a serious science site and recommended it to my friends as such, even showing them how they could find me here. If any of them is reading this, I'm sorry.

--lemit

Larv · 06-28-2009

Rigorous peer review is really what science is all about. Peer review is the "natural selection" of the scientific process, wherein "unfit" ideas are tested and sent off for extinction, while others more defensible survive for another round of testing. Without peer review science would be just another religion.

As such, skepticism is the strongest muscle on the scientific body politic. Skepticism, formally executed in a peer review, often engages Occam's Razor to shave off needless fluff. Many scientists don't like the peer review process because they might see their fluff shaved off and rudely dispatched. The Internet forums on science, including this one, are great places to watch the fluff fly and see what survives.

Ya gotta by tough and wear Kevlar shorts to be a scientist.

SidewalkCynic · 06-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by modest

The question, If you'll indulge me SidewalkCynic, is how does one know that any given definition is consistent with reality? There are many different logically consistent definitions which might apply to something like "mass" or "lightning". How do scientists, in a practical sense, decide on any given logically consistent description of a thing?

~modest

Yeah, that's what I would like to clear up. And I think that my plan to encourage local districts to devise taxonomies consistent with their understanding of knowledge, and comparing them with other taxonomies and the demographic indexes that can be measured, perhaps patterns can be distinguished and eventually some form of better consistency can be evolved, or progressed.

I thought that scientists had some type of system that maintained a logical consistency - the only discrepancy I am aware/concerned about is the definition of science, but I have to read Popper, yet. I believe the ambiguous definition of science is just a result of previously inadequate analysis, and an over-zealous feud to distinguish science from religion. I am more inclined to suggest that religion employs science, and organized theist religions have a tendency to maintain antiquated applied social science practices. Where as, most atheists are so overwhelmed with the over-zealous feud that they have developed and impose a faulty social construct on the science industry and/or community. In other words, where we recognize that gods are used in an ambiguous manner to fulfill whatever matter need be by the theists, atheists use "science," and "reason," in just the same manner.

And all I want to do is to begin straightening out the discrepancies so as to begin progressing non-theist culture as for the better evolution of mankind. Yeah, it's going to be very difficult for atheists to accept what is on the horizon, but that is too bad - collectively they claim to have the open minds compared to the theists. I think they are just as dogmatic.

SidewalkCynic · 06-28-2009

Quote: