The scientific method

[ronthepon]

I came across a so called scientific method today.

Here it went:
1- Observe a new phenomena.

2- Develop as many hypotheses as possible.

3- Consider each hypothesis separately to get any predictions the hypothesis makes.

4- Experimentally test the hypotheses.

5- Get down to the most likely seeming hypothesis.

6- Develop an appropriate theory.

Any opinions?

[HappytheStripper]

Yup .. now all you need to do is choose your phenomena .. Good Luck !!

Any thoughts ??

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by ronthepon

2- Develop as many hypotheses as possible.

Sounds a bit strange to me. You wouldn't develop as many hypotheses as possible. Rather you would come up with plausible explanations and start researching the most likely of those.

[Eclogite]

In the modern implementation of the scientific method peer review is also central.
At stage 1 the observations need to be confirmed by others, or to be gathered by techniques that have been well validated.
At stage 2 and 3 the hypotheses must be reviewed and informally assessed by colleagues.
The experimentation in stage 4 needs to be validated by colleagues
The report on the intial hypotheses and experimental results must be reviewed by the editorial bodies of the journal publishing the results.
The published research must be assessed by others working in the field
The work must be further reviewed, assessed, modified and validated or rejected by other parties, some of whom must necessarily repeat the experiments.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

In the modern implementation of the scientific method peer review is also central.
At stage 1 the observations need to be confirmed by others, or to be gathered by techniques that have been well validated.
At stage 2 and 3 the hypotheses must be reviewed and informally assessed by colleagues.
The experimentation in stage 4 needs to be validated by colleagues
The report on the intial hypotheses and experimental results must be reviewed by the editorial bodies of the journal publishing the results.
The published research must be assessed by others working in the field
The work must be further reviewed, assessed, modified and validated or rejected by other parties, some of whom must necessarily repeat the experiments.

In theory...

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/.../note11ref.asp
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content...urcetype=HWCIT
http://naturalscience.com/ns/article...8/ns_slee.html
http://www.springerlink.com/(pk2ak04...lts,1:101589,1
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1114539

[Eclogite]

Nowhere, Southtown, in my post do I claim the scientific method is foolproof at the outset.
The method is, however, far superior to one in which no peer review at all occurs.
The method works over time. The peer review that leads to the downfall of a concept may occur a couple of decades after publication.

The links you have provided demonstrate the viability of the method by showing how it is self critical, a cornerstone of any system that strives for objectivity.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by ronthepon

I came across a so called scientific method today.

Here it went:
1- Observe a new phenomena.

2- Develop as many hypotheses as possible.

3- Consider each hypothesis separately to get any predictions the hypothesis makes.

4- Experimentally test the hypotheses.

5- Get down to the most likely seeming hypothesis.

6- Develop an appropriate theory.

Any opinions?

We are currently demonstrating it in the Strange Numbers thread. The Scientific Method in Action. Use it or loose it.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

Nowhere, Southtown, in my post do I claim the scientific method is foolproof at the outset.
The method is, however, far superior to one in which no peer review at all occurs.
The method works over time. The peer review that leads to the downfall of a concept may occur a couple of decades after publication.

The links you have provided demonstrate the viability of the method by showing how it is self critical, a cornerstone of any system that strives for objectivity.

It is inanimate. A toy to be manipulated in anyway that the weilder sees fit.

The only way to be objective is to make ourselves be objective. The behavior of others is out of our control.

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by Southtown

The only way to be objective is to make ourselves be objective. The behavior of others is out of our control.

We cannot make ourselves be objective. By providing multiple checks and balances as described in my previous posts we can approach objectivity asymptotically.

[Southtown]

Forgive me for being meticulous, I'm not trying to pick a fight. But it seems to me that "providing checks and balances" will do no more that give others an option to utilize them. If you meant 'we can approach objectivity by utilizing checks and balances' then I would say you see my point.