Is there such thing as a scientific method and do we need it?
“Wonder is the feeling of a
philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder.” One hardly has to
argue that the same astonishment about our surroundings, as Plato
puts it in his famous quote, applies to science and scientists in
general. But what is science? And where does science continue from
thereon?
For centuries certain ground rules on
HOW to work form the basis of scientific work - the so called
scientific method. The Oxford Dictionary defines the scientific
method as a “procedure (…), consisting in systematic observation,
measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and
modification of hypotheses”. Whether this method is applicable in
every field, one could consider to be scientific, must be reviewed
and reevaluated in most cases. While testing and experimenting,
coming up with results and devising universal laws based on the
results of trials and hypotheses works in most natural sciences –
assuming that the laws of physics and nature work in linear and
constant ways – humanities work in different (and sometimes
mysterious) ways, mainly for the lack of proof and complexity of the
human mind. Also, when it comes to aesthetics (also a big part of humanities), opinions and taste are a thing, that tends to change over time.
The same applies to receptions of
theories, ideas, or persons in your field of study. But this does not
only applies to humanities, as for example Phrenology, which by the
way would be a great showcase in which scientific methods proved a
complete scientific-ideology to be wrong, used to be “a thing” in
psychiatric research and is nowadays considered a pseudo-science.
Talking about pseudo-sciences: don't they also use some sort of
scientific method and does the principle of wonder as basis of
science (or philosophy) not apply? A cynical person could argue that
in this case “If you open your mind too much your brain will fall
out”, as Tim Minchin quotes in his song “Take my Wife”, and
draw the conclusion the method doesn't make everything scientific.
But if a scientific method and an open mind can still lead to un-,
oder pseudo-scientific work, how should we define science?
The late Paul Feyerabend, whom I only
name to show a different perspective without going into the depth of
his idea, tried a different approach to the definition of science,
away from the universal point of view that method is and should the
base of science. His idea was that anything goes and the only thing
that should form the basis of scientific work is ethics. But does
ethics, or agreeing to only say and publish what is true, really
differ from the scientific method? Both sides strive for a basic
regulation of scientific work, whether it is through form (method)
oder ethical agreements shouldn't make much of a difference, as long as the author explains his points absolutely truthfully. In the end method is only "something talked about by people standing on the outside and wondering how the scientist manages to do it." as Percy Bridgman put it.
Jan Philipp Jacobs
“Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder.” One hardly has to argue [I don’t disagree with you, and in fact I would strongly defend your case, but I think you overstate it here; indeed, one does need to argue about this. Ironically, this blanket assertion rather contradicts the quote and your broader point—to wit: the philosopher wonders, Does this apply to scientists, too? that the same astonishment (about our surroundings) [foc/E/M- ^ about the nature of all things] (as Plato puts it in his famous quote,) [foc/E/M- ^that Plato extolls in that quotation from the Theatetus dialogue applies to science and scientists in general.] But what is science? And where does science continue from thereon?
ReplyDeleteFor centuries[Gr-^comma] certain ground rules on (HOW) [St-no caps, rather itals] to work (form) [T/Asp-^have formed] the basis of scientific work( - ) [St-no space, then em-das,then no space] the so called scientific method. The Oxford Dictionary defines the scientific method as a “procedure (…), consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses”. Whether this method is applicable in every field, one could consider to be scientific, must be reviewed and reevaluated in most cases. While testing and experimenting, coming up with results and devising universal laws based on the results of trials and hypotheses works in most natural sciences – assuming that the laws of physics and nature work in linear and constant ways – humanities work in different (and sometimes mysterious) ways, mainly for the lack of proof and complexity of the human mind. Also, when it comes to aesthetics (also a big part of humanities), opinions and taste are a thing, that tends to change over time.
The same applies to receptions of theories, ideas, or persons in your field of study. But this does not only applies to humanities, as for example Phrenology, which by the way would be a great showcase in which scientific methods proved a complete scientific-ideology to be wrong, used to be “a thing” in psychiatric research and is nowadays considered a pseudo-science. Talking about pseudo-sciences: don't they also use some sort of scientific method and does the principle of wonder as basis of science (or philosophy) not apply? A cynical person could argue that in this case “If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out”, as Tim Minchin quotes in his song “Take my Wife”, and draw the conclusion the method doesn't make everything scientific. But if a scientific method and an open mind can still lead to un-, oder pseudo-scientific work, how should we define science?
The late Paul Feyerabend, whom I only name to show a different perspective without going into the depth of his idea, tried a different approach to the definition of science, away from the universal point of view that method is and should the base of science. His idea was that anything goes and the only thing that should form the basis of scientific work is ethics. But does ethics, or agreeing to only say and publish what is true, really differ from the scientific method? Both sides strive for a basic regulation of scientific work, whether it is through form (method) oder ethical agreements shouldn't make much of a difference, as long as the author explains his points absolutely truthfully. In the end method is only "something talked about by people standing on the outside and wondering how the scientist manages to do it." as Percy Bridgman put it.
[. . .]
ReplyDeleteThe (Oxford Dictionary) [(Which dictonary, exactly?) St- itals] defines the scientific method as a “procedure ((…),) [St - ^ . . . ] consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses (”.) [St - ^.”] Whether this method is applicable (in) [Gr,Prep - ^to] every field (,) [Gr,P] one could consider to be scientific (,) [Gr,P] (must be reviewed and reevaluated in most cases) [E,foc,rep - ^ is unclear] . While M,foc - ^forming hypotheses, conducting trials,] testing and experimenting, (coming up with) [reg,M,foc - ^compiling] results [Gr,P- ^,] and devising universal laws based on (the) [det,M,foc - ^those] results (of trials and hypotheses) [M,foc] works in most natural sciences ( – ) [St-no space, then em-dash,then no space] assuming that the laws of physics and nature work in linear and constant ways ( – ) [St-no space, then em-dash,then no space] [foc,P,coh,det- ^the] humanities work in different (and sometimes mysterious) ways (, mainly for the lack of proof and complexity of the human mind) [Gr-run-on sentence, foc, coh, M, P- ^. This is mainly due to the difficulty of devising ways to conduct empirical trials or gather data in fields that are essentially aesthetic] . (Also, when it comes to aesthetics (also a big part of humanities), opinions and taste are a thing, that tends to change over time.) [E,foc,coh,M,P,Gr - ^ And when it comes to aesthetics, De gustibus non est disputandum—in matters of taste there can be no dispute. There are variations in taste and opinion among individuals, and even generally accepted aesthetic principles change over time.
[. . .]
[. . .]
ReplyDelete(The same applies to receptions of theories, ideas, or persons in your field of study. But this does not only applies to humanities, as for example Phrenology, which by the way would be a great showcase in which scientific methods proved a complete scientific-ideology to be wrong, used to be “a thing” in psychiatric research and is nowadays considered a pseudo-science. Talking about pseudo-sciences: don't they also use some sort of scientific method and does the principle of wonder as basis of science (or philosophy) not apply? A cynical person could argue that in this case “If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out”, as Tim Minchin quotes in his song “Take my Wife”, and draw the conclusion the method doesn't make everything scientific. But if) [M,foc,coh,E, reg,st,Gr - This section is far too free-associative: you use lower-registered expressions, sentence fragments, some grammatical slips (“does not only applies”), and run-on sentences, and the result is a set of underdeveloped ideas. - ^ That same dilemma—one of relative validity—applies to how domain-specific theories are incorporated into practice and whether theorists traffic in them or remain skeptical to them. This is readily apparent in the humanities. Just look at the varieties of literary theory and how those theories go in and out of vogue. It may be tempting to aver that such trendiness does not take place in the physical sciences, but the physical sciences are junk heaps, strewn with the scrap of rockets that exploded on the launch pad. And this is not merely due to the sheer number of ideas that necessarily get falsified. That is the textbook definition of the scientific method. Many if not most theories will necessarily prove false, or at least explanatorily insufficient. There have been plenty of theories that long went unfalsified, not because they withstood scrutiny, but because they were fortified by individual scientists’ cognitive biases and the pull of group polarisation dynamics. Phrenology is a perfect example of this problem. The neuroanatomist Franz Joseph Gall was clearly devoted to methods no one would question as scientific, and he was able to deeply advance the science of of neural dissection, as well as help to establish the now widely-accepted theory that the brain has localized modality. But he did that while at the same time finding spurious correlations with cranial physiognomy and subjective judgments about the character of individuals and even entire ethnic groups. If] a scientific method and an open mind can still lead to un-, oder pseudo-scientific work, how should we define science?
[. . .]
[. . .]
ReplyDeleteThe late Paul Feyerabend (, whom I only name to show a different perspective without going into the depth of his idea,) [foc] tried a different approach to the definition of science, away from the universal point of view that method is and should the base of science. His idea was that anything goes and the only thing that should form the basis of scientific work is ethics. But does ethics, or agreeing to only say and publish what is true, really differ from the scientific method? Both sides strive for a basic regulation of scientific work, whether it is through form (method) (oder) [Ger - ^or] ethical agreements shouldn't make much of a difference, as long as the author explains his points absolutely truthfully. In the end method is only "something talked about by people standing on the outside and wondering how the scientist manages to do it." as Percy Bridgman put it.
[. . .]