Talk:Scientific method/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Citation

This section:

The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Contains no citations to verify its content, I'd consider either removing it or find a citation for it. The part with "scientific researches" could be considered a weasel w"ord - there is no suggestion to whom might have proposed this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparthia (talk • contribs) 20:13, 1 January 2013‎

• Support removal: The view that scientists "let reality speak for itself", putting aside theoretical presuppositions, is hopelessly antiquated. Theories can "predict" experimental results only given a host of auxiliary hypotheses; it is common and quite legitimate, when an expected result fails to occur, for doubts to fall more heavily these than on the theory itself. The paragraph ignores the most common rationale behind experiments, which is not simply to test theories put forward as explanations but to test them against alternative theories. Peter Brown (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That is letting reality speak for itself.

Secondly, citations are not required in article leads, as long as the text is an accurate summary of cited content in the rest of the article. Arc de Ciel (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Arc, Goldhaber & Nieto (2010) is footnote 1 pp940-941 A."How to test a theory". They cover much of what you had to say. For what it's worth. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

In accord with wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle we ought to discuss the latest changes. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Anyway, QuarkGluonSoup, I/we await your rationale for your contribution. 03:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Quarkgluonsoup, it appears to me that the flashpoint of the article is currently the usage of the phrase "reality speak for itself", which I mentally translate to a paraphrase of John Locke: "truth can take care of herself" "Truth would do well enough, if she were once left to shift for herself." --John Locke (1685) A second letter concerning toleration . In other words, I personally have no problem with the synonymy. However philosophically, this turn of phrase is compatible with the correspondence theory of truth. One of the advantages of the article is that by concentrating on method, we can separate the myriad theories of truth from the practice of science, and I personally find the writing no problem. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That phrase is only one of many problems with this article.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. If we were to address each item, point by point, would that work for you? I would anticipate other editors will jump in as well. When I ran a diff there seemed to be only a handful of changes.

To other editors: your participation and citations are welcomed. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

We need a few other editors involved, yes.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I was confused as to the motivation behind some of the edits - e.g. removal of the statement that scientific inquiry involves experimental replication. I'm ambivalent about the precise wording of the "reality speak for itself" statement, but I think the article would be worse off for removing it. I also don't see very much reason to add the tags - perhaps some, but nothing that I think was addressed by the previous edits. Normally a justification is expected... Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think you can unilaterally remove tags while there is an ongoing discussion on the matter?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I removed them because there had been no attempt to justify them. This is a common practice on a lot of high-level articles, at least the ones that I edit. And you really didn't need to use that wording; a simple question would have been sufficient. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Quarkgluonsoup, just a heads up that there is a lot of content in this article with interlocking citations. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Q., another contributor is now available to comment. We additionally welcome your comment. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Time out

I think it would be good for those of us who edit, to re-read Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith, in which the goals of consensus-building, keeping a cool head, etc. are behavioral guidelines for the encyclopedia.

Perhaps using techniques, for example those of Thomas Gordon (psychologist) (Active Listening, I-Messages, Shifting Gears and No-Lose Conflict Resolution) which encourage consensus might help here. (An I-message consists of "I feel xxx when yyy happens, as opposed to a You-message "You yyy"). I'm sorry that I did not bring up these ideas before.

In general, Gordon found that a you-message will arouse hostility or other defensive behavior between people in the course of their interaction. Gordon's technique for avoiding the defensive behavior is active listening during the interaction (see I-message#Conflict resolution for a better version of what I have been intending to say).

SBAR is another technique (intended for use in asymmetrical interactions) pioneered by the US military, used in health care organizations with large hierarchies. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps suspending the discussion for a while would also help (although I would want to return the article to its original version in the meantime, in accordance with the BRD editing pattern). But I have to say that it seems the discussion has become unproductive - or at least unpleasant, due to the personal attacks - and perhaps we should bring this to dispute resolution to help focus us on finding a solution. Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

A bot expansion has prompted me to act on the article, and to ask that article work be targeted to specific phrases, using inline notes, such as {{cn}}, {{Tone-inline}}, etc., rather than to become trapped in a deletion cycle . This will have the effect of focusing our actions and attention, with consensus as the goal. __Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It is hard to assume good faith when the article remains garbage and any attempts to correct it are reverted.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You were reverted pending discussion, which is a common procedure on Wikipedia (WP:BRD). In response to your edit summary, the discussion is not currently continuing, as nothing directly article-related is currently being discussed. I did not respond to your last set of comments because of the time-out suggestion, and because of the continuing personal accusations (WP:NPA). I'm willing to continue the discussion, but I think that rereading some of our previous responses might be helpful. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Progress

Quarkgluonsoup, I can see progress: my personal goal is to avoid disrupting the article. For example, we can use inline tags such as cn (citation needed) instead of a general tag at the top. It's more precise and helps us focus on the specific issue. It helped me when I saw your personal reaction "it's hard to ...". Now my question is "Would it be helpful if I were to add an example of an inline tag?". There is a set of these at our disposal.

Crazynas, If we were to substitute inline tags for article-level tags, then that would allow readers to pinpoint disputes more exactly. In my view, that would mean that the top-level tags could be dispensed with, after the approach of using inline tags is demonstrated and established in the article.

Arc, when I was reading Penrose's The Road to Reality it occurred to me that I might have a substitute world for reality, but it does not bespeak a Reality which is alive, responsive, and surprising; my proposed phrase is "the situation"; to me, that substitute word is clinical, or perhaps suited to a report at a crime scene, or even a battlefield. That said, I propose to insert an inline tag as example usage. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"Situation" sounds reasonable to me, though I think I would still prefer "world" to that. Perhaps we can consider that further if we ever get back to talking about the article content. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As long as the problem is with the entire article, the tag at the top remains.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

We have to start somewhere, working point by point. Here is an example for using inline tags such as cn (citation needed) on a questioned sentence:

1. At the end of the sentence, immediately after the period, add the tag.
2. Wait for the ref supplier to add the ref.
3. An editor adds the ref and removes the cn. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is with the entire article, so the tags at the top are the only option. Why are you wasting time debating how to tag the article when it has so many problems?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I personally distinguish between debate and proposal. It is possible to use hybrid approaches when solving a problem. (Tag at top and inline tag used together was a possibility I left unsaid, but did not rule out.) I believe that 'debate' implies winner/loser, and that style of discussion is discouraged in the encyclopedia, as antithetical to consensus. __Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out on your talk page (I presume you read it since you blanked the message), you haven't convinced us to see the same problems that you do. In other words, you did not obtain WP:CONSENSUS during our discussion. That is not to say that you are suggesting no legitimate changes, or that you cannot reach consensus in the future, but you will have to provide different justifications.

Alternatively, if you want to continue helping to improve the article, you could give us specific inline tags as Ancheta suggested. This has the advantage of pointing out exactly what statements you think need fixing - you did point out some specifics in the discussion, but you now seem to be focused on making statements about the entire article. I think it would be an effective way to proceed. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There is more than one way to solve this. One idea is to tag at the point of discussion. Another is to create a parallel article, as suggested above. Another is to compile sources. ... Might we all agree to find a way forward? __Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The way we move forward starts with you telling me, edit by edit, where you disagree with the edits I made that you reverted without reviewing. That is step one.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The protocol to which you refer is WP:BRD. Discussion leading to consensus as the goal. The numbered items we are discussing follow the list 1-14 several sections above. The article history shows the sequence of actions which differs from the characterization immediately above. It would be helpful to understand the rationale for the changes, of course. To demonstrate the style of inline tag, I interpolate an example on item 1, which demonstrates the suggested style of editing. If that is acceptable, then perhaps we might apply it to the article? __Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

1 "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

2 "The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false." 23:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

3 "These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. " 23:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

4 "Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance)." 23:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

5 "Scientific method has been practiced in some form for at least one thousand years (ref name="Alhazen") 23:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

6 "Confirmed theories are also subject to subsumption by more accurate theories. For example, thousands of years of scientific observations of the planets were explained almost perfectly by Newton's laws. " 23:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

7 "Because science builds on previous knowledge, it consistently improves our understanding of the world. The scientific method also improves itself in the same way, meaning that it gradually becomes more effective at generating new knowledge. For example, the concept of falsification (first proposed in 1934) reduces confirmation bias by formalizing the attempt to disprove hypotheses rather than prove them. (Karl R. Popper (1963))" 23:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

8 "The goal of a scientific inquiry is to obtain knowledge in the form of testable explanations ..." 23:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

9 " This allows scientists to gain an understanding of reality, and later use that understanding to intervene in its causal mechanisms (such as to cure disease). The better an explanation is at making predictions, the more useful it is, and the more likely it is to be correct. The most successful explanations, which explain and make accurate predictions in a wide range of circumstances, are called scientific theories." 23:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

10 "Since every new theory must explain even more than the previous one, any successor theory capable of subsuming it must meet an even higher standard, explaining both the larger, unified body of observations explained by the previous theory and unifying that with even more observations. In other words, as scientific knowledge becomes more accurate with time, it becomes increasingly harder to produce a more successful theory, simply because of the great success of the theories that already exist.[2] For example, the Theory of Evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth, how species adapt to their environments, and many other patterns observed in the natural world;[3][4] its most recent major modification was unification with genetics to form the modern evolutionary synthesis. In subsequent modifications, it has also subsumed aspects of many other fields such as biochemistry and molecular biology." 23:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

11 "Scientific methodology directs that hypotheses be tested in controlled conditions which can be reproduced by others. The scientific community's pursuit of experimental control and reproducibility diminishes the effects of cognitive biases. --- New paragraph --- For example, pre-existing beliefs can alter the interpretation of results, as in confirmation bias; this is a heuristic that leads a person with a particular belief to see things as reinforcing their belief, even if another observer might disagree (in other words, people tend to observe what they expect to observe). ---New paragraph --- A historical example is the conjecture that the legs of a galloping horse are splayed at the point when none of the horse's legs touches the ground, to the point of this image being included in paintings by its supporters. However, the first stop-action pictures of a horse's gallop by Eadweard Muybridge showed this to be false, and that the legs are instead gathered together.(Needham & Wang 1954 p.166 shows how the 'flying gallop' image propagated from China to the West.)" 23:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

12 "Another important human bias that plays a role is a preference for new, surprising statements (see appeal to novelty), which can result in a search for evidence that the new is true.(ref name="Goldhaber 2010 page=940)" 23:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

13 "In contrast to the requirement for scientific knowledge to correspond to reality, beliefs based on myth or stories can be believed and acted upon irrespective of truth, often taking advantage of the narrative fallacy that when narrative is constructed its elements become easier to believe." 23:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

14 "Myths intended to be taken as true must have their elements assumed a priori, while science requires testing and validation a posteriori before ideas are accepted." 23:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

And what is your reason for deleting these? You indiscriminately undid them all, leaving none of them. It is clear that you didn't even bother to read them before reverting. So what is your reason?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

These 14 points existed before your edits: the edit history shows that editor Quarkgluonsoup deleted the 14 points above. The evidence shows that you deleted the 14 points, for a net deletion of 2527 bytes. To delete previous contributions by other editors, without prior discussion, is disruptive editing. The customary way is to achieve consensus before making large changes. I quote from the note at the top of this talk page: "Note: this article has existed since the first year of the encylopedia and has had hundreds of editors with thousands of edits. Before making substantive changes to scientific method, it may be prudent to read the archives first, and to discuss objections on this talk page ..."

WP:BRD was first mentioned to you on 24 Jan 2013 (in the meantime, a bot has removed some older talk sections, as shown in the talk page history -- and these removed talk page sections are not germane to this discussion). The list of the 14 points under contention, with interpolated inline tags, shows my proposed edits for the article; these proposed inline tags (e.g., boldface 'discuss', 'cn', or, sometimes wikilinks) comprise my summary of the discussion above (24 Jan 2013 - 6 Feb 2013). You likely have a different view. It might be easier for you to formulate your objections beforehand, rather than to 'think out loud' in a work in process, using the words of the article to formulate your own thoughts. It comes across as disruptive editing. Please be careful. That is the reason that I mentioned the technique of editing in a parallel article. It's safer for you that way.

The goal of this discussion is to reach consensus about edits to the article, of course. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

As the discussion still has not restarted, I have removed the tags. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is sill ongoing, so the tags remain. No explanation has yet been provided for why all of the edits were reverted. Only the conversational edits can be appropriately deleted and discussed here, and the fact that they were all deleted means that the reverters were simply too lazy to bother looking at and evaluating each edit. Prove that you evaluated each edit and reverted it on its merits by explaining your reasons here.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Q., You have the sequence backward. The edit history shows that you deleted the existing work of other editors. The article existed in consensus before your deletions. It is your responsibility to live up to your own words: you need to show how you listened to others, when in fact you deleted previously existing edits without discussion with others, yourself. We need to work at this, one point at a time. You have an annotated example, shown above, of how to proceed. It does no good to impugn the entire article without even proving it. If that is too hard, then attack One point at a time, please. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, these [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] are the talk page edits you have made since February 13th. None of them contain discussion of article content (where simply stating something like "the entire article has a problem" does not count). Speaking of which, you never responded to my request that you specifically describe which viewpoints were being over- or under-emphasized in the article. Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Why has Quark being removing large parts of this article? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a line by line description of what the issues were with my edits.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

All fourteen sections above contain discussion of your edits. In each case there are objections to your justifications; in which cases are the objections unclear? Also, asking someone else to argue with you does not constitute restarting the discussion - it will take more than a couple of lines. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

All that is listed above is quotes of my edits, not even an argument about what the problem with them is.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Q., a section following proposes an approach to your objections. We await your responses, of course. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

New section-level tags

user:Star767, The off-topic tag on the section scientific method#Models of scientific inquiry is vague. I refer you to the article statement "Scientific method is not a recipe". In other words, this section gives some of the intellectual background for the topic. In particular, C. S. Peirce's articles on the scientific method form a justification for the method. If you prefer, this section tag can be turned into a set of inline tags, such as 'discuss'. There are examples for inserting inline tags, discussed in the talk sections above. Since you have been tagging a lot of articles in the last few days, I will wait for your response, but it would be good for you to respond in a timely fashion. 19:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

user:Jesse V., There is also now an OR tag on the overview section. Would it be possible to turn this section-level tag into a set of inline tags, such as {{cn}}='citation needed' on the specific sentences in question? Again, I will wait for a specific response from you. -Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Jesse V, I believe I can address the section-level OR tag with citations and annotation for every sentence, if necessary. While the footnoting is in progress, I propose to substitute a 'work in process' tag for the section. Done for now, please respond with inline tags. 11:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

To all editors, While this work is in process, if the footnotes suffice I would appreciate feedback about a work in process tag. In particular, while I am adding footnotes to the text, since I did not write the targetted sentences, I believe a tag WP:SYNTH will not apply to my projected additional footnotes to the target sentences. I encourage the use of inline tags, in the meantime.

Arc de Ciel, I believe I can address the top-level neutrality tag with appropriate footnotes explaining the text; my sources will include a historian, Lindberg 2007 Beginnings of Western Science and a practicing scientist, Gauch 2003 Scientific Method in Practice. In particular, Gauch shows how the current tone of the article can be shown to reflect the practices of working scientists. The objection about the use of the words 'must' and 'required' might possibly be addressed with the use of subjunctive mood, which allows English speakers to speak of issues which are not yet true, at the same time that these speakers talk about actions that are not yet taken, but which allow examination of hypothetical consequences of a posited explanation, and calculation of the probability that predicted consequents would be found in some sample population. __Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed phrasing in the subjunctive, for example, using some of the points from the past sections:

1 "That a method of inquiry be based on empirical and measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning."

3 "That these steps be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. "

23:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Why was the POV tag removed without discussion? I should revert all of the other changes you made without discussion, but I will be generous and not remove them at present. You haven't even begun to address the problems with the article. I'm not going away.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Q., welcome back. The recent article changes were previously discussed in this section. As noted above, I found sources which specifically address your POV: Gauch 2003 and also Lindberg 2007. I added an inline tag to start the ball rolling, so your concerns were not forgotten. You are welcome to contribute & you should provide citations to back up your statements. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Lindberg, a historian of science, explains that we have to start out with a broad definition of science, in order to explain the history. (This appears to coincide with your POV & is cited in the article.) But as the questions become more refined, we specialize. This is noted in Gauch, a practicing scientist (as is Arc), who shows practicing scientists the broader context which they are forced to ignore as they address their specific inquiries. Gauch in fact aligns the steps and the tone of the article (which you attack) with the practice of science. He specifically calls the steps we currently list in the article 'elementary', and calls for practioners to advance them. ( I will add this to the article. ) It appears that some of the items in the article that you attack are implicit practices of working scientists. But we need to bring the issues that specifically concern you to the talk page, and discuss them. But you have been absent; care to respond to my proposal of 9 April 2013? Other concerns to which you allude have been addressed by scientists such as C S Peirce, who is cited in detail. Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

To all editors: there is a "discuss" inline tag in the article; I plan to replace the tag with Gauch's 'four bold claims' p. 28: four principles for scientists: "rationality, truth, objectivity, and realism".

Further, I intend to tag other items, as I have previously demonstrated, above, one tag at a time, so that it is clear that I intend to back up the tagged text with a citation. You are of course free to participate in the process of tagging or footnoting. When it becomes clear to other editors that this will be an ongoing process, I propose that this process replace the top-level neutrality tag. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm still watching the article as well, I've just been really busy lately. :-) I'm not familiar with Lindberg's book, but I think Gauch is definitely one of the better sources that I've read. I would support using his four principles at the point of the current discuss tag. We have previously had a discussion about confusion around the word "truth" but I suppose we can clarify it later; Gauch uses it in a sense that I generally agree with, e.g. he says "A true statement corresponds with reality" (pg. 34) which I would call a valid description.

It also occurs to me with respect to the objection about science before the scientific method, that we could include a phrase such as "Science in a broad sense existed before the modern era, and in many historical civilizations, but modern science is so distinct in its approach and successful in its results that it now defines what science is in the strictest sense of the term" (from the Science article, cited to Lindberg). I would have no problem including a statement like that as general background, even though it isn't strictly the subject of the article.

About the subjunctive mood, I'm actually still unsure what recommendation you're making, since the examples don't have context. Could you describe how they would fit into the rest of the sentences? Also, another possibility which has occurred to me is to make a simple descriptive statement. For example, "These steps are repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion..." - since this avoids the imperative as well. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Arc, I am answering in subjunctive, as an example:

'The expectation is that these steps be repeatable with 99.999 % confidence, for if the reasoning were to hold with only 90 % confidence, it would take only 4 iterations to lower our confidence to 65%. '

'Thus, the network of trust which future users of our results would justifiably place in our results would be proportionately degraded. We use the higher threshold in order to guard against mistakes or confusion.'

Note to other editors: see confidence interval for more information. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I would agree with that. Arc de Ciel (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I could find sources to support a claim that aliens built the pyramids. The disputed sections are disputed because they are wrong, not because they are uncited.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Quark, there are no reliable sources which claim the aliens built the pyramids. Wikipedia is built on citation to reliable sources, such as those currently in the article and others that we've been discussing. "Right" and "wrong" don't come into it. Beyond that we have other policies such as WP:NPOV, which is the basis for the neutrality tag. Speaking of which, I am still waiting for a description of what specific point(s) of view are being described disproportionately (i.e. the rationale for the tag); this is the third or fourth time I have asked. A detailed statement to this effect would help a lot in moving forward. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been another month. Is there anything further to add to the discussion, or any changes we have consensus for? Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(2 weeks later) Okay, I've removed the tag yet again, as there is clearly no content discussion ongoing, and there is no specific rationale for the tag despite multiple requests. See also the second and third usage notes of Template:POV. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

While I could offer many positive comments on this page, I came here looking for information on "generalization" in the scienctific method but did not find anything. Would someone please address this topic in this article? It is more important in social science than in physical sciences, because one atom of calcium (for example) is assumed to behave the same way as other calcium atoms. Not so in behavioral science, which are more vulnerable to a range of experimentor biases. Statistics are one way behavioral science supports the idea that a set of findings can be generalized to a larger population. I would find it helpful if this point were addressed, perhaps under the section on statistics. Thanks! Carolinajames (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Carolinajames

Carolinajames, briefly, hypothesis formation will generate a lot of explanatory ideas, which arise naturally from inquiry; inductive elimination is one approach to evaluating the quality of possible generalizations. A scientific method will then test the mooted hypotheses. I am currently reading about eliminative induction, which I was led to by Gauch 2003, already cited in the article.

As you note, the article does not address generalization per se; logically speaking, it would be invalid to generalize a finding from one population to a larger population, as the extrapolation would have to assume the same statistics for the larger population, which would have to be justified, somehow. But then, the investigation is back at square one. I, for one, welcome another perspective and your comments about the article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Andalusian scientist in the history section

I would like to know what other editors think about including Abu al-Abbas al-Nabati, who developed the scientific method in the area of Materia medica, in the history section. As it is, the history section makes only a brief mention of medieval Muslim contributions to the method; perhaps even a sentence could mention the contribution of Nabati and his student Ibn al-Baitar. This is a case where I don't plan on being bold and inserting it myself, however. I just now started researching this individual so perhaps I am impressed upon recently learning about him, and he appears more notable to me than he actually is. Hence my asking for feedback here first. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo, There is an article, History of scientific method which notes Niccolò Leoniceno's influence. He critiques the materia medica compiled by Pliny. I learned about this from Limbrick's commentary on Francisco Sanches' That Nothing Is Known. Perhaps your contribution might complement that article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I will suggest the inclusion on that article's talk page when I have the time and see if others like the idea. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Muybridge's trotting horse photographs

I added the photographs of the trotting horse since just showing the animated version defeats the purpose of the photographs. I also added a caption that helps explain what this has to do with scientific method. --Khaydock (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. The animated version shows the difficulties of observation, in the face of prior incorrect belief. It took a bet by Leland Stanford to instrument a galloping horse and show the real horse gallop. The difficulty of perceiving the gallop without stop-motion photos led to the incorrect 'flying gallop' pictures of the last 1000 years. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this completely confuses me. Firstly, is the horse trotting or galloping? In every description I have seen it is galloping, and this is in the caption for the animation. But the individual pictures are described as trotting. What is going on here? - I thought the animation was derived just by concatenating the individual photos. The second point is that I can't understand the point being made here. Of course taking the "slow motion" photos (whether individual frames or animated) showed that the previous belief was wrong, despite long held belief and paintings echoing that belief. But I can't see what this has to do with people mis-interpreting the photos to reflect their long held belief. Sure some people may have done this but it's not science. And I can't see how the animation "defeats the purpose of the photographs". To me the animation is perfectly clear, which brings me to the third point: the caption to the animation says "the exact positions of the feet can no longer be clearly seen". Well to me they certainly can be (but perhaps I am just bessed with a slow computer!).Baska436 (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I learned about the issue from Needham Science and Civilisation in China where he called the misobservation the flying gallop, apparently stemming from China. Perhaps the trotting nomenclature is a regional difference? The article with the Muybridge pictures calls the gait a horse's gallop, for what its worth. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't think that it can be a "regional difference" - a trot is a trot and a gallop is a gallop. The article on Muybridge seems to say that there were two (at least) different series: in 1878 of the trot, (following, apparently a single picture of the trot in 1871) and, also in 1878, the series "the horse in motion" which was definitely the gallop. The animated sequence was apparently made much later (2006) from the "horse in motion" series, and so is also the gallop. So I believe all references to "trot" in relation to these photos should be removed. Whatever, I still can't see that it shows any real light on "scientific method". Baska436 (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will edit out 'trot'. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A clarification: In real life, or when watching a film, it is difficult to see how many of the horse's feet are off the ground or on the ground at any particular time. Because of this, and maybe because people thought that a horse appears to be moving swiftly when its feet are symmetrically splayed and all off the ground (rather than all gathered together), a number of artists had painted pictures in which all four splayed feet are off the ground. Different people observed horses and came to different conclusions, in line with what they expected to observe. It was only after photographs captured the positions at particular instants that the actual answers to these questions were found. This is an example of how prior beliefs, as propagated by paintings, were difficult to change until more precise methods of observing physical reality (i.e. photography) were used.

How about doing the following test. Take a group of people who have not thought about horses feet and tell half of them that all four feet are off the ground only when the feet are splayed. Tell the other half that all four feet are off the ground only when they are together. Then show them a horse or a film clip - or the animation shown here (without the caption), and see if they tend to find evidence for what they have been told. Or better yet, tell them that the film definitely shows what you just told them is actually false, and see if their appeal to novelty will lead them to see things differently. Another thing, take a look at Muybridge's snapshots and suppose an artist had painted a horse in one of those poses. I think in many cases (especially snapshot 4, 5, 9, and 10), viewers would say that the painter was nuts, the horse is off balance, it could never be in that position. Anyway, I think this example is good for showing various aspects of scientific method - the centrality of observation, affects of biases, etc.Khaydock (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a different issue with the horse. Having an animation like that that can't be turned off is terrible design. Its highly distracting to some users and not at all consistent with any basic design guidelines I've seen in the last ten ears. Now a lot of design decisions,most probably, are somewhat subjective but this isn't. Its bad period. Its the kind of thing you used to see in the first couple of years of the Internet but seldom after that except on really amateurish sites. Something should be done to address this, IMO it makes the article difficult to read and immediately gives the user a feeling that this article is not high quality. Mdebellis (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not about web page design; there was a time, before Leland Stanford's bet, when no one could observe a horse's hooves during a gallop. Scientists during Stanford's time considered the gallop to be literally beyond the power of human observation. Now we have photography to thank, but the existence of the video is not trivial. It is a record of human accomplishment. The fact that the video is distracting serves to show that the observation of the gallop by a human is difficult, even to this day. I have seen a stop action photo in place of the video showing the instant when all 4 hooves are gathered together in the gallop. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You are conflating two different issues. I agree that the video is important. But that doesn't justify bad design. The idea that you are going to violate good design principles on purpose because you think you have an important point to make is amateurish. It would be like having the article on Einstein's theory of relativity centered around a huge flashing multi-color gif of the formula e=mc**2 and replying to someone who criticized the gif by saying "the formula is not trivial. It is a record of human accomplishment. The fact that the flashing gif formula is distracting serves to show how important it was..." No matter how important your point you still aren't justified using run on sentences, flashing gifs, or animations that don't turn off. Pick up any intro book on web design and most likely one of the first rules they will say with no ifs ands or buts is not to do this. Btw, I'm not saying get rid of the video just that there has to be some way to fix it so the user can stop it or so it times out after a while unless the user prompts it to continue. This is also in the Wikipedia guidelines on user accessibility. Mdebellis (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Four principles

Hi Ancheta. In the last discussion, we were talking about the "let reality speak for itself" statement, and I was interested in your proposal to say that scientists pursue Gauch's four principles instead. Since it was your idea, did you have a particular wording in mind? (Other editors are also welcome to comment, of course.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Arc, I have a stack of books before me, to which I can finally return:

1. Hugh Gauch 2003 Scientific method in practice
2. David Lindberg 2007 The beginnings of western science
3. Leon Chwistek 1948 The limits of science London: Kegan Paul
4. John Ziman 1978 Reliable knowledge
5. Elie Zahar 2007 Why science needs metaphysics: a plea for structural realism
6. John Casti 2003 The one true platonic heaven
7. Larry Laudan 1981 Science and hypothesis
8. Imre Lakatos 1978 The methodology of scientific research programmes
9. Martin Bojowald 2010 Once before time
10. Lee Smolin 2013 Time reborn
11. Toraldo Di Francia 1981 The investigation of the physical world
12. James Jeans 1943 Physics and Philosophy

I see there is now a 'too long' tag on the article.

Gauch's premise is that general principles of scientific method apply to all sciences. He anticipates that his book will be the least technical book on a practicing scientist's bookshelf. His book on scientific method is for scientists, by a scientist; if he skips a topic, it is for practical reasons, as a scientist.

1 Rationality - using good reasoning, attacking a problem on its merits. Using specific annotation, practices, techniques to arrive at the goal. I distinctly recall Feynman's critical reaction to people who confused notation & demonstrated poor thinking, who Smolin disdainfully calls 'the mystifiers'.

2 Truth - Gauch subscribes to the correspondence theory of truth.

3 Objectivity - public & verifiable statements

4 Realism - see Looie496's summary in the science article.

By rights, this article ought to be neutral about the nature of science. There need not be any justification about the efficacy of science, or the success of science, or any more efforts to justify the article or its approach, or of science itself.

__Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that in my experience it would be unusual to see any of the above books on a practicing scientist's bookshelf at all. :-) I'm reminded of Steven Weinberg's description of the "unreasonable ineffectiveness of philosophy in science" (written in Dreams of a Final Theory; it is analogous, of course, to Eugene Wigner's essay on the effectiveness of mathematics).

Of course, in working on this article I am (at least I hope) aiming at an NPOV description. It seems to me that this includes the observation that science is efficient/successful/etc; it is effective at producing empirical results, e.g. one can look at the progress of technology - medicine, transportation, etc. But that said, I think that the article could still use some major improvements; I've previously mentioned the draft I'm revising, although I haven't worked on it for quite a while.

To return to the first point, I recall you commenting that sourcing in this topic area is difficult - I would say that this is part of the reason. The practice of science is learned essentially through apprenticeship, and there is no single authoritative source for scientists to learn general principles. My impression is that there have been many attempts but the sources are poor; among other things, imprecision of language often makes the meaning unclear, and sometimes authors draw conclusions about science based on misunderstandings. (Of course, those who have been scientists themselves tend to do better; the further they have gone as a scientist, the better.) You may recall that I described "truth" as an imprecise word; we might want to consider that with reference to Gauch, and to substitute the definition for the word. But by contrast, things also go badly when scientists attempt to speak the language of philosophy (I'm especially thinking of some of the early quantum physicists here), so there is a gap in understanding. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually found a citation for your statement that scientists learn method by apprenticeship (but I will have to re-read to find it again).

Gauch is forthright on Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend. He notes that his 4 posited principles get trashed in turn by one or another of these well-known authors, so scientists are left to their own devices, such as a justification based on common sense (and proper upbringing, such as 'would you say this untruth to your mother?').

In other words, these 4 had no interest in getting at the truth. My feeling is they are bringing up the equivalent of Zeno's paradoxes, meaning that they are running rough-shod over some aspect of knowledge that is necessary to bring out the science. It's like Galileo discovering some paradoxes about transfinite numbers; he didn't let that stop him, other than to publish his finding.

Gauch notes that it is personally satisfying for scientists to do work on furthering the principles of scientific method (beyond the content of our article, which covers only the basics), because it is so basic to the sciences. Gauch's personal contribution to scientific method is a criterion for lost productivity (by not using his published results). Other obvious contributions could be personal practices, such as methods of annotation or retrieval. For example, Isaac Newton would fold over pages in his books to serve as bookmarks (Westfall is my citation); one of my professors spoke of the advantage of carrying a concrete 'thinking piece' in his pocket. Watson & Crick's contribution was to recognize the need to get beyond mathematics when analyzing. Feynman spoke of the necessity of being brave; Smolin writes of the need for new advances in scientific method to get beyond the current crisis in physics (Currently we are stuck with methods which are encapsulated in some box or another -- I can provide the page number in Smolin 2013).

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we focus on individual contributions to the scientific method, such as the ones you mentioned? I have no objection to that approach, as long as we maintain the general framework into which they can be placed. Do you have a citation for Watson and Crick, though? Their work on DNA relied on a highly mathematical field, X-ray diffraction, and the model was directly based on the diffraction data. I would have thought that statement would have come from a more qualitative field.

I'm familiar with some of Smolin's views and work - IIRC he has said that the current description of the scientific method is not yet a complete explanation of why science is effective, which is similar to the statement you describe, but how this statement should be treated would depend on how strong of a position it is interpreted as taking. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: remove Computational Approaches

I'm trying to think of ways to respond to the tag that this article needs to be condensed. As I read through it the section "Computational Approaches" seems to me something that should just be completely removed. I'm an expert on AI and computer science and the text is hard for me to even understand, let alone how it fits in with the article. Its place in the article seems to indicate that the Computational Approach is an alternative to the classical or pragmatic approach and I've never heard of such a thing. There is no reference for this section at all. MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I support this idea. The citation apparently does not contain the claim. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Models of scientific inquiry

There is currently a section with this name. There is also an article with the same name that mirrors a lot of the info in that section but there are inconsistencies between the two. With reducing and compacting this article in mind it seems to me a good idea would be to reconcile the two articles and move the majority of the text into the external article and thus reduce the length of this one. MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't checked, but in principle that sounds good, be WP:BOLD, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and also your input on the other issue above. I plan now to move forward with this step to try and consolidate and condense some of this article. I am going to first copy some text from this article into the Models of scientific inquiry. Then I will remove some text from this article and leave essentially a very high level overview of the models in the section here with a link to the separate article for more info. If anyone has an issue with this lets discuss otherwise, we can work through them when I'm ready to merge the two articles. I'm going to take my time on this, I think this topic is really important and I tend to obsess over wording on these things more than on other articles. MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

When copying content from one article to another, be sure and attribute the editors from the source article when being placed into the merged article. The easiest and simplest way to do this is in the edit summary. Just add the summary with Wikilinks to both article in the summary such as: "Content from [[Article A]] is being copied into [[The article the content is being copied into]]" This allows editors to view the attribution with links from their watchlist. If this step is forgotten or overlooked it can be done afterwards by adding a Dummy edit. A lot of editors will state that it is a dummy edit in the summary as a wikilink as well.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 23:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

First sentence in overview

The first sentence is: "Scientific method has been practiced in some form for at least one thousand years" This sentence is either very controversial or meaningless. Most of the science writers I know of tend to mark the start of the scientific method around the time of Galileo or so, certainly not a thousand years ago. Of course "in some form" are IMO, I hope I'm using this word right weasel words. You can interpret them anyway you want. Certainly some forms of learning before Galileo: philosophy, religion, crafts, etc. were essential inputs to the scientific method. But I think it give readers, especially those with no background the wrong idea to say it goes back a thousand years.

Also, I don't understand the reference that supports this. It seems to be about light and totally irrelevant although I'm probably missing something there. MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I used to think that also about Galileo, until I read Shmuel Sambursky's work on the presocratic philosophers. Alhazen's motivation was a skeptical approach to existing scientific claims in Hellenic science (see his Critique of Ptolemy). His investigations into Ptolemy's theory of light covered an amazing range of disciplines, from geometrical proof of the characteristics of light, to a method of proof for his claims about light rays (which was used hundreds of years later by Albrecht Durer), to dissections of the brain (where he sketched the optic chiasma). It took hundreds of years to assimilate and surpass Alhazen. It took devoted study by Johannes Kepler and Andreas Vesalius to do this. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Before we start talking about someone's theory of light we need to make sure we are discussing the same issue. My issue is I say that the claim that ""Scientific method has been practiced in some form for at least one thousand years" is controversial and I want to know how reference four backs up that claim. I don't understand how reference four can back up that claim when reference four seems to be about a theory of light, not about the history or methods of science. If I'm understanding you, you claim that the ref to the history of light example shows that people were doing science a long time ago. So you are using the reference essentially to do original research. You aren't citing someone else who claims that science goes back a thousand years, you are essentially doing original research here by giving a ref for something you claim is science and is very old. MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Shmuel Sambursky, ed. (1974) Physical thought from the presocratics to the quantum physicists p.139 "The role of criticism in science". Sambursky selects from Alhazen, Doubts concerning Ptolemy "...It is not the person who studies the books of his predecessors and ..regards them favorably who is the real seeker after truth. But rather the person who in thinking about them is filled with doubts, who holds back with his judgement, ... who follows proof and demonstration. .... A person who studies scientific books with a view toward knowing the truth ought to turn himself into a hostile critic of everything that he studies. ..."

I think that you are following Alhazen's example admirably. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

We aren't communicating. I didn't understand how that paragraph responded to the questions I asked. I will try one more time: I don't understand how reference 4 supports the text that says the scientific method goes back a thousand years. It seems as far as I can understand it to be a treatise about light. Can you explain how that text directly supports it or are you agreeing with me that reference four does not directly support it but requires some additional explanation and hence the text is original research? MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:16, 2 ASugust 2013 (UTC)

1. The citation is from Sambursky, who selected a scientist, Alhazen, from 1000 years ago. Alhazen wrote about his method in Critique of Ptolemy.
2. Doubt is the essential point of Alhazen's method (Doubts concerning Ptolemy). (Peirce agrees with this, some 850 years afterward) Alhazen disproves Ptolemy's emission theory of light.
3. Demonstration, a method espoused by Euclid, is exemplified by the German translation in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft of another Alhazen work on light, in which he uses a taut string to prove that a light ray is straight. Albrecht Durer later uses taut strings to create images in a mechanical way, using perspective, which is the European term for Alhazen's work in optics. Demonstration is Aristotle's weak point but Alhazen went beyond Aristotle here (as did Galileo). Durer applied Alhazen's idea, by then 500 years old, for using taut strings to represent light rays in Perspectiva. The first translation of Alhazen took 250 years to reach Europe; Alhazen's original question was "what is the path of a ray of light". His method is essentially experiment, based on the bright light shining through holes in walls of a darkened room in Iraq, but his investigations were also mathematical and physiological. Note how Newton followed this as well. Note how a taut string is an idea which geometry teachers could use to teach people about straight lines even today.

   

4. It's not OR. Originally, there were additional statements in previous versions of the article which expanded on the citation. I respect the other editors, who whittled away the statements, but if you insist on additional statements, I will resurrect them from the previous versions, and the illustrations. (I have not previously used the Durer woodcut.) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ancheta Wis. Your entire discussion is based on original research. Do you have reliable secondary sources that clearly make this claim. Your response to me should be an academic citation and the specific page where the specific claim about 1 thousand years ago is made. The sources presented do not make the claim. I want to see a source that explicitly says something like the article, i.e "The scientific method has been practiced in some form for at least one thousand years". Otherwise it is pure OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Original research is allowed on talk pages as part of speculation. It is not in violation of any policy or guideline. The line removed was simply "Scientific method has been practiced in some form for at least one thousand years". As true as this may be, it is not unquestionable information. The text has been challenged but only needs verification with a reliable secondary source. Once that is accomplished the "Burden of evidence" has been fullfilled. This doesn't sound too difficult.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The question was never about OR in the Talk pages it was that the justification expressed in the Talk page for something in the article was OR. I don't agree that justifying the statement "Scientific method has been practiced in some form for at least one thousand years" is not difficult. The standard discussions I'm familiar with start the scientific method around the time of Galileo and Bacon. I think since this is the Overview, that should be the starting point. If we want to also say that things like logic, scholarship, engineering, go back a lot longer that seems reasonable and I'm sure it can be easily referenced. But its not just a question of finding some reference to support "Scientific method has been practiced in some form for at least one thousand years" its making a case that that is the consensus of the relevant communities. MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

M., Lindberg, cited below, would not agree. See his pp364-367, in which he states that the Scientific Revolution of the 16-17th centuries is founded in the centuries before them. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Everything in history is founded on what came before. Major advances do not occur in a vacuum. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Also Linberg, on p. 362, writes about Aristotle saying things about the scientific method, even if his followers (and he himself) didn't actually follow it. Which is also true today. Myrvin (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have something like: For the history of the scientific method, according to Lindberg, Aristotle wrote about the scientific method even if he and his followers did not actually follow what he said. Myrvin (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Myrvin, I lost my edit summary (so sorry) for Parmenides, who Lindberg states as flourishing 480 BCE. Thank you for the work. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That's OK. Check out my note on your User Talk page. I've put an "fl." in the text Myrvin (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Citation and quote

IRWolfie, here is one secondary source per your req. Lindberg studied this very question with the following result. He in fact researched Alhacen (note the name correction from the 1400s spelling popularized by Alhazen's publisher).

David C. Lindberg (2007) The beginnings of western science: the European scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450 ISBN 0-226-48205-7

p.2 "Was there anything in Europe or the Near East in the twenty centuries covered by this book that merits the name "science"? No doubt! I have in mind languages for describing nature, methods for exploring or investigating it, (including the performance of experiments) ......

p.361 "A convincing paradigmatic case can be made of medieval perspectiva (our geometrical optics). I have devoted many decades to research on the major figures in the history of ancient and medieval optics ..."

p.362 "The second candidate for early modern revolutionary status is methodological - the invention and practice of "experimental method"... First we need to recognize the gap that exists between methodological theory and methodological practice. " [Here Lindberg notes that there is a gap between what Aristotle said and what he and his followers actually did.] "In any case our concern will be with methodological practice. ... If these matters can be considered settled. ... Ptolemy (and his sources of astronomical data) are primary sources of planetary observation, employing a variety of astronomical instruments, in order to confirm or disconfirm the adequacy of his geometric models for the planets. Similarly in his optics, Ptolemy deployed apparatus in contrived experiments. ..."

pp.362-363 "In medieval Islam, Ibn al-Haytham (ca. 965-ca. 1039) performed experiments designed to prove or disprove optical theories."

I trust this suffices to verify that scientific methodology existed during the stated time period, both theoretical (2000 years ago) and practical 1000 yrs ago. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The Devil is in the details. It all depends on how it is worded. In a previous comment you had a quote that said this "the Scientific Revolution of the 16-17th centuries is founded in the centuries before them" that I absolutely agree with and I was trying to express that thought in earlier comments. However, above right here you said: "scientific methodology existed during the stated time period, both theoretical (2000 years ago) and practical 1000 yrs ago" that I vehemently disagree with. MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

M., the statement "the Scientific Revolution of the 16-17th centuries is founded in the centuries before them" was my paraphrase of Lindberg. The quoted statements pp 361-363 were Lindberg's argument that methodological practice includes experiment, a revolutionary step.

Our work ought to be about improving the article, hopefully in concert. It will do no good for the article unless we lift up our viewpoints a notch. Please note that we currently are stuck at a low level, merely following Peirce's list by arguing over our respective beliefs. Rather, I propose that we focus on just what comprises a method. Lindberg can be a guide to methodology here, when he notes that use of experiment is part of the methodology in science. Including definitions, apparatus, claims, and criteria for judging the truth of the claims. O.K.? It is OK with me if we use Peirce's list, because he thought about it a long time, and we don't have to reinvent the wheel. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

None of these state what I desired. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I am reminded of Alhazen: "The road to truth is rough, and those who interested in the truth are not interested in other things."

Seriously, Lindberg is clear that Alhazen's methodology is practical (it is experiment) and Aristotle's methodology is theoretical. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone will be satisfied with a compromise, but the question is, can you live with it? Part of the problem with the dispute is that we are not talking about a strictly scientific subject in this situation, but rather in part, history. How that is determined from sources depends on a number of things but discussion of what constitutes methodology seems a step in the direction of understanding how the reference and source is relevant to the article.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 23:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

What we determine from sources about history is exactly the same as in all topics. It must be verifiable and with no OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Not seeing the original research. Could you demonstrate it instead of edit warring please.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 03:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You've got the burden backswards. Explicitly quote to me the material that backs up the claim in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The burden of evidence falls on those that add or re-add content. It is satisfied with a reliable source. If you are challenging that source as not being reliable please demonstrate such or be prepared to be reverted for edit warring.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 04:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought my last edit which IRwolfie reverted was a nice compromise. I have no problem saying that science in some sense can be traced back to things humans have been doing long before Bacon, just as long as we are clear that what we call science now, there is a strong consensus in the academic community that it started around the time of Bacon and Galileo. I agree with IRWolfie that my edit was rather vague, but that's because I think the work that some people want to cite is IMO also rather vague, I was trying to work out a compromise. But I don't feel strongly about it and I definitely see his point which is why I didn't revert back. MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you look at the sources, and the cited text? I stated that the sources fail to verify the text full stop. Whether they are reliable or not does not come into it. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Reasoning, circular v. linear

Andolan1, I'm interested in your citation about circular v. linear reasoning. If all that the author is trying to do is discredit circular reasoning, then perhaps you might amplify your citation with some quotations. However, I am especially interested in adding linear logic to the article, as this new formulation represents some aspects of scientific reasoning quite well. What might your newest citation have on linear logic? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Arc, Gauch specifically credits, as a positive result of scientific reasoning, the side effect that practioners of the myriad religions can contribute to a scientific result without losing their own beliefs. I believe that it is possible to rephrase potentially divisive contributions to the article in this way.

When Smolin writes of the need for new advances in scientific method, he of course is stating that advances in science will accompany the advances in method. What struck me about the linear logic article is that time might be viewed as a resource (see Hoare's vending machine -- you can have the candy, or the money, but not both simultaneously). This dovetails with Smolin's hypothesis that there are some aspects of time that might be real, rather than only abstraction. __Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, I think that information (referring to Gauch) is relevant and would be useful to include. When you refer to "potentially divisive contributions," are you suggesting that the recent additions to the article are an example of this? I am not sure that the Bible and the Newsweek article are appropriate sources for this article (I reserve judgement on some of the others). I seem to recall seeing an editor add the claim about Daniel somewhere, but I can't remember where and I don't think it was retained.

I have to say that I'm not familiar with linear logic, so I probably shouldn't comment on that. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Arc, one key point about linear logic is that reasoning need not lead to a set of results which increase monotonically. This allows linear logic to model scientific reasoning, in which reasoning is defeasible; hypothetical knowledge can be tossed out in favor of more likely knowledge. In other words, in this form of logic, a scientist can treat hypotheses as resources. One can seek to definitively disprove the (hypothetical) consequent of some hypothesis; or, if one fails to disprove (in the mathematical sense) that hypothetical consequent, one can at least assign a measure of confidence/doubt (in the statistical sense) to that hypothetical. No ontological baggage about the respective hypotheses need be carried around. [This dovetails nicely with the finding of Imre Lakatos: "Ideological interference leads to bad science". (as paraphrased by Brendan Larvor 1998 Lakatos: an introduction p.7)] The resources can be used up, like money expended on a candy bar from a vending machine (Hoare's vending machine example); one benefit of this form of logic is that 'quart of oil' is an allowable expression, as opposed to the traditional Aristotelian teachings. Gauch (2003, p225) paraphrases all of this as statistics 'is' inductive logic. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what Linear Logic is and I know a fair bit about logic, set theory, etc. So I'm really skeptical that adding this kind of esoteric topic is what is needed for this article right now. This article is an important topic and I think its kind of a mess right now. I've yet to be able to force myself to read all the way through it and its a topic I'm very interested in. I think someone needs to seriously rework this article to make it flow better, make it tighter, and stick to the main points about the scientific method with other articles for detailed digressions. MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

M., welcome & thank you for your reply. As the current article stands, it contains statements about how we arrive at truth/ reality, what one currently believes, and how one proves what one believes is true, to others. Hopefully, the article shows how the beliefs of one individual can coexist with the beliefs of others, independent of fiat. The theoretical core of the article is the sequence of methods listed by Charles Sanders Peirce, which Peirce credits as stemming from Aristotle. Peirce viewed scientific method as a correction to the a priori method. (I was planning to add a citation for this.) __Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does have statements about how we arrive at truth and that's the problem. It reads like original research by a few people on various topics that are related to the scientific method. What it in no way does is what it should do which is provide a readable overview about what the scientific method is, the history of it, etc. And IMO adding what Pierce thought about Aristotle is exactly what it doesn't need. That is more esoteric Original Research. Just as one basic criticism this article is way too long and it rambles all over the place. It is in serious need of an overhaul not adding yet more rambling on specific issues that are of interest to the editors but to few of the users. MadScientistX11 (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

M., It's not OR. Peirce started with 'How to make our ideas clear' (1878) on his way to a scientific meeting in Europe. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

M., in a rewrite, perhaps we might use specific examples to make scientific reasoning real, such as identification friend or foe, which leads to a false dilemma. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Definition

In the introduction section it is stated that "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." I find it difficult to put into words, but isn't the following part of the sentence rather strange: "a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence"? Can a method of inquiry be based on this? And isn't there also a tautology hidden in this sentence, because I find that "a method of inquiry" is very similar to "specific principles of reasoning". Isn't it more correct to say "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on specific principles of reasoning concerning themselves with assessing empirical and measurable evidence." or "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must concern itself with the assessment of empirical and measurable evidence." --Tomvasseur (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for that definition? . . dave souza, talk 20:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a good point. I actually assumed that we could use the same source as before as I thought it is more a change in phrasing instead of the actual substance and as such probably wouldn't be big enough a difference to necessitate a new source. However, I will go look for that on the long term.--Tomvasseur (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The most recent changes ( 13:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC) ) to the article may shed some light on this question. The recent changes are an expansion of the history section to include the role of belief (& religion) on scientific method. From our current perspective, the most useful result of a belief is that a belief will motivate a consistent behavior, such as observing a sunrise. The consistent applications of a method likely were motivated by a desire to propitiate the gods (for fear of being struck down by lightning, starvation, return of spring, fertility, etc.). But I don't have a source except for general knowledge, such as the ancient practice of animism, such as the worshipping of giant insect mounds, and the existence of ritual and display behavior. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WickerGuy, thank you for your work; one of the threads which I am hoping for is the integration of hellenistic Judaism into the narrative. I just took it as a given that Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) was influenced by neoplatonism, exactly how that occurred was not one of my questions. So I look forward to more of your contributions. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

New Section

In the summer of this year, some new material was added to the history section that stated unequivocally that Christian theology was a major shaper of the scientific method. This has been both maintained by some scholars but disputed by others. The material slightly interrupted the smoothness of the flow of the history, and employed sources that were OK but somewhat biased including one book from a conservative Christian publishing company. I have removed that material from the history section and created a new section on Scientific Method and Religion which incorporates some but not all of the material removed from the history section, which hopefully gives a more balanced treatment of the matter.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere between 5 to 10% of the new material is cribbed from other Wikipedia articles but with the citations from those articles intact.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

WickerGuy, I noticed the Gerald J. Toomer 1964 is one citation, but it's not displaying the bibliographic information when I click on the Toomer 1964 link? Thank you for your work. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Found the Toomer citation in Alhazen --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

opening section

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

'experiment' should be changed to 'experimentation'. That is all. Sylentnyte (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: this is a quote from the OED, which says "experiment", not "experimentation". --Stfg (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Multiple hypotheses

Strong inference is required for the proper application of the scientific method [7]--5.15.49.211 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

5.15, Thank you for the link.

To all editors: John R. Platt's (1964) Science strong inference article,linked above, is a clear statement which dovetails with the article. It deserves discussion as a way to improve the article. Comments? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Arc here. I think Platt is an excellent source - perhaps some commentary under "Models of scientific inquiry" might be useful. For other parts of the article, I think it would be a good resource on the importance of crucial experiments and the identification of plausible hypotheses before planning experiments. (I find the tree metaphor to be especially useful.) Platt also quotes Chamberlin 1897 at length, which is another source I think would be useful. Sunrise (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A Question

Hello, I have a hot question: do the scientific activities that are known as qualitative inorganic analysis und qualitative organic analysis comply with the given description of scientific method?Nikolas Tales (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is couched in already existent terms: observation, experiment, experimental data, analysis, hypothesis, prediction, measurement. So the answer to your question requires that you cast the terms of your domain into the above terms.

When Enrico Fermi was young, he was expected to describe his experimental procedures for determining the (unknown) composition of material substances; instead of the liquid solutions he was expected to prepare, he simply looked at the substances under a microscope to determine what they were. Then he and his friends wrote down the elaborate back story as if they had performed the inorganic analysis by the expected methods.

In general, scientific method is needed when you don't already know the answer. __Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I feel that you didn't reply to my question, perhaps I need to rephrase.Nikolas Tales (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a yes-no answer because you are going to have to map the activities of qualitative inorganic/organic analysis to the article's concepts for yourself. One activity at a time, to each concept. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

BC/AD vs. BCE/CE

The article currently has six uses of BC/AD, and four uses of BCE/CE. Inconsistency is not desirable per WP:ERA. Unless there is an objection, I will change the style in the minority to the style in the majority and standardize on BC/AD. Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 22:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I personally would use BCE/CE. Aristotle, Alhazen, al-Biruni, etc. were independent of Christendom; their respective articles use BCE, CE, etc.. For the writers of Christendom, I would have no objection to AD. For the writers of Ancient China and India, BCE is appropriate as their calendar systems have different and independent astronomical bases. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me. If there's no objection, I'll standardize to BCE/CE. SchreiberBike talk 02:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)