Talk:Scientific method

This article is part of WikiProject Philosophy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Template:Oldpeerreview

Before making any significant changes to this entry, please read all the recent discussions. Archives of older discussions for this page can be found here:

Contents

1 THE Scientific Method 1.1 Methodology? 2 Importance of this article 3 Scientific Method in Religious Practice 4 Postdictions 5 Clarification needed 6 Mass and weight 7 Never 8 Messenger particles / exchange particles 9 Conservative now, revolutionary then 10 Current comment 11 Science manages... 11.1 Reconstruction 12 Covariant laws 13 Critique of the final sentence of the lead paragraph 14 laws 15 Revert new intro? 16 /Headless chicken 17 Comments moved from article 18 Revert NPOV edits 19 Proposed change 20 Scientific method -- Wikiportal 21 Bacon's method 22 Time for a trim 23 Pictures for photo 51 and for perihelion advance 24 DNA example needs different presentation 25 announcing new policy proposal of general interest 26 Suggestions 27 DNA icon

THE Scientific Method

Here's a major problem. I don't see a clear solution. Many scientists object to the the numbered steps, they object to the very concept The Scientific Method, and they fight to get it removed from grade-school textbooks. Examples:

• D. Simanek, physicist (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scimeth.htm)
• J. Denker, physicist (http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm)
• P. Bridgman, physicist (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/bridgman.htm)
• R. Feynman, physicist (http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/what_is_science.html)
• W. McComas (http://amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html)
• H. Baur, chemist (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/pre95/0-252-06436-4.html)

In the main entry I find the phrase: "These activities do not describe all that scientists do but apply mostly to experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry)." But the entry is about Science, not about experimental science.

If scientists state that the description of Science is controversial, that a numbered list called "THE Scientific Method" doesn't exist, and that the list is an invention of grade-school textbook authors... then why does it appear in Wikipedia? If "THE scientific method" is only a description of experimental science, why pretend that it applies to science itself? Or put another way: if "what is science?" is genuinely open to question and is debated by the experts... then the title of this page in Wikipedia has POV problems: it is a distortion, it describes a myth about science and tries to give a snappy reliable simple clear answer which unfortunately is in conflict with reality. First suggestion: remove wording that suggests that a single method exists. Replace "THE Scientific Method" with another less biased term such as "Methods of Science." In addition, perhaps the "No Scientific Method" controversy deserves an entire separate entry? --Wjbeaty 09:36, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, go for it: No Scientific Method - The archives have some material on this position, to save you some time. See above. Ancheta Wis 11:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's a fallacy: to remove "The Scientific Method" doesn't mean we're forced to replace it with a null. Methods of science certainly exist. But there is no simple collection of steps that *all* scientists follow. We're currently misleading the readers by pretending that such a list exists. Yes, physical scientists follow such a list... so in order to highlight the mistake, we could change the title of this entry to "The Physicist's Method," and let the readers start complaining that there is no entry for sciences in general. Well, that's certainly the case; we don't have an entry for scientists in general. Essentially the physicists have taken over the "what is science" controversy, and defined Science as being Physics. Simple! All sciences are based on experiment! Unfortunately that's wrong. --Wjbeaty 11:16, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

See the list of sciences below which can demonstrate at least some usage of experiment. Ancheta Wis 00:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

One of the formulations for the position which you are referring to can be called "cargo cult science", as named by Feynman. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia seeks to present an unambiguous platform for non-practitioners and also for observers of the global community of scholars -- the scientists. Thus the phenomenon of "Cargo Cult Science" occurs in many places, and has occurred at many times in history (sounds like a law, doesn't it).

Ah, that's the key: "unambiguous." The definition of Science is currently up in the air. In truth it really is ambiguous, and the WP entry should reflect this in no uncertain terms. Hiding a *genuine* area of ambiguity in an effort to present an unambiguous platform is the very opposite of accuracy. Accuracy should be our first goal, and I think that constructions of "false unambiguousness" should be spotlighted as the distortions they are. --Wjbeaty 11:16, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

See statistical hypothesis testing in which the program is to eliminate error. An unambiguous program. Ancheta Wis 10:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

A clear, numbered statement of the steps, which is a logical description which has existed for decades, if not centuries, allows for discussion beyond the mere statement of the steps, which is an advance. The steps have a logical structure. I hope that the article makes it clear that there is a necessary relationship between the steps. I also hope that the article makes it clear that there is an unknown involved, (the problem), and that once the unknown becomes known (by experiment and observation), what was a scientific problem can then be described by mathematics or words, and communicated.

But it appears you are referring to the apparent prescriptive nature of the steps. In the article, this is addressed by referring to the "iterative" and "recursive" nature of the scientific method. This is where the freedom comes in. A theoretician might specialize in step 1, and sweat for the days when no concepts in step 2 are forthcoming. An experimenter might specialize in step 3, and work expectantly for anything in step 4. A journalist might wait for statements in step 2, and for innovative, logical thinkers who can clearly state 2 and any testable consequence (step 3).

The numbers 1 2 3 4 are immaterial; the relationship of the steps is the whole structure in the method. They could be called X Y Z W, or OHDE. What is essential in the method is "what is known" versus "what is unknown". If there is an unknown in step X, (and already there is confusion because one might not know that I have defined my X to be your 1) then it is up to the scholar to properly characterize it, and write and communicate about it. That is not prescriptive at all. That is scholarship, freedom, and responsibility.

Thus some scientific finding 1 2 3 4 might then be encapsulated as someones's X, a neat paragraph in his toolbox, but that wouldn't be new knowledge anymore, it has already been proven or applied. The "iterative" and "recursive nature" of the method then demands that someone come up with something new, his own personal logical structure, his own personal problem. Merely fighting over what the steps are is a linguistic stage. (My personal position is that "the" is linguistic; some languages like Russian don't have "the", and a nice subtlety is lost. However, if the article were to be named "a scientific method", then the logical structure is lost, which is the whole point. Each step depends on the previous one. The last step means you are ready to publish.) If his problem X already has the 1 2 3 4 structure, he is ready to publish. If his problem Z has a step missing, such as 3, there are several well-known theories which are published, with thousands of researchers working on an incomplete and likely flawed concept, that is happening today. They are free to work on it and apparently have the confidence of their funding sources. Ancheta Wis 11:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I hope it is clear that this is a non-linear process and that what is described in the article is a traversal of a logical structure. How someone traverses it is his personal choice. The 1 2 3 4 statement is clear enough to display the logical structure, and to communicate to others. Some people like to read a book backward. Some people like to skip around. But the numbers of the pages are still sequential, by convention. (One of my favorite mathematicians, Stanislaw Ulam made a discovery by writing the numbers in a spiral.) Again, this is a free choice. Ancheta Wis 11:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I encourage you to read the article again. Ancheta Wis 11:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

McComas' "Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists" appears to be the only item which is pertinent and his steps miss the structure which is detailed in the WP article, particularly the transition from 2 to 3. Thus it is flawed. The other references are statements of position only, with no elucidation. Read the article. There is a structure in it. Ancheta Wis 11:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"The other references are statements of position only, with no elucidation." No, they're opinions expressed by experts: professional scientists. I assumed that authors here would take them seriously enough to post counterarguments rather than the expedient ploy of giving them a negative label, and then ignoring everything they say.

Let me clarify my other complaints: This WP entry is not titled "The Methods Of Science," it's titled "The Scientific Method," and the article assumes that a Method exists. This carries implications. It implies that scientists use this capital-M "Method," rather than several other methods not described. For example, it yells out that all true Scientists use only deduction. But that's not accurate. Induction, even full-blown Illogic, both are tightly woven into contemporary science, and if a description of "THE Scientific Method" ignores this, it's evidence that the authors have done little science themselves.

I invite you to read about George Boole, whose life's work was on some little words (a, and, or, not). That is what science and scholarship are about. Humble, concrete steps which others can build upon.

There is a nice article on the word the which is pertinent here. My personal position is that the is linguistic, as some languages such as Russian and Japanese do not have it. Yet some languages (such as Spanish) do not use the in the same way as English. The cookbook The Joy of Cooking lists a funny misinterpretation of the: the author, who is American, was trying to specify for her Mexican cook, how to present a roasted suckling pig for Christmas Dinner: with an apple in its mouth. Unfortunately, the definite article translated to the mouth. The cook adamantly protested. The author firmly specified mouth, pointing to her mouth. Christmas Dinner occurred, with an angry cook marching in with the suckling pig, clenching an apple in her mouth. So we are in the realm of connotation, denotation, and annotation, which is actually a nice position for an encyclopedia to be in. I believe that your statements are annotation about connotation, rather than denotation. Ancheta Wis 12:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

This carries implications is an example of connotation. The commentary, or gist of your concerns is an example of annotation. But the scientific method is about denoting the subjects of study. (The problem or unknown.) The whole intent of the process is to resolve the unknown, and to communicate the result to the scientific community. If there are conditions on the result, such as slower than relativistic speeds, then that is part of the communication to the community. And of course, the reaction of the community can be both confirming or denying the validity of the scientific result by the original researcher. Hence the need for scientific communities. See the articles in History of science for more. Ancheta Wis 16:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath and Hans Hahn in 1929 once said:"In science there are no 'depths'; there is surface everywhere". That is denotation in action. Probably you are reading more into things than is meant by literal-minded scientists who are simply telling it as it is.

I am sincere about the No Scientific Method article. For example, the method of long division which is taught in American, and probably other schools is somewhat rigid, in much the same sense as the connotation of The Scientific Method. If students were simply taught that division is repeated subtraction, that would allow the development of the concept of trial divisor and a very rapid introduction to the art of estimation. If you seek to topple something, why not zero in on the mysterious part of the method -- the Characterization stage, which involves all manner of imagination and inspiration. The field sciences like anthropology and the social sciences are still stuck in this stage, and are in dire need of more explication in the very sense of The Scientific Method which you seek to topple from its connoted position. The very fact that Wikipedia's founders had to move to brand new principles, out of desperation, because their preconceived notions weren't working, amid nonchalance, and now finally to acclaim, is actually a characterization of a part of social science that does not even have an accepted name yet. When I stated to Jimbo, that he was a significant person, for this accomplishment, he merely shyly looked aside. Yet that is my assessment. Ancheta Wis 12:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The Scientific Method was born in fire, of a medieval civilization which is entirely foreign to our post-Newtonian civilization. Unfortunately, the literal immolation of Giordano Bruno and the imprisonment of Galileo, and the disgrace of the Lincean Academy annealed and brazed something to a hardened, metallic sheen, to which you object. Yet we cannot deny the history of the scientific revolution, to which this article is tied, and which it is meant to connote. It was a heroic time, but we live in a different, softer time. That does not mean the method has to change. The period of imagination, cooperation, collaboration into which we were born connotes something freer than the hand axes and swords of the bronze age. Yet the scientists working today still have to hold their work up to the trial of experiment, Galileo's single greatest achievement, around which the scientific method was built. Ancheta Wis 12:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

William Stanley Jevons, Herbert Simon, Shen Kua and Kanzi, not to mention the famed men listed in the history of science (Yes, Emmy Noether and C.S. Wu are listed) are actually the type of individuals for whom the scientific method applies. The rest of us typically stick to one or two of the stages, if at all.

Ancheta Wis 12:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Another widely held implication of "The" Scientific Method is the idea that now finally we can distinguish Science from Non-science: if the practitioners aren't following "THE Scientific Method," then they aren't Doing Science. Yet this is news to many, since the precise nature of science has yet to be agreed upon (beyond defining it as "science is what scientists do" or "science is what scientists say it is.") The nature of science is still very controversial. People who would prefer to end the controversy prematurely might "do an illegal end-run" and settle on a concise definition of science. "The Scientific Method" is perhaps a premature coup made by one side of the controversy who are pretending that their viewpoint is the only one, and who dishonestly usurp the high ground by naming one scientific technique "THE Scientific Method." PLEASE question such tactics; regard them with suspicion.

If the entry was titled "The Methods of Science," and there was no discussion of "a" method, I'd have far fewer complaints. Shall I go through WP and change it, changing all the references too? (grin!) In a few decades or centuries, when we finally have a single "scientific method," then we can change it back again. Naming it "The Scientific Method" at this time implies directly that we finally have determined what Science is, and as far as I know, this is not true at all.

The authors of the WP entry admit that The Scientific Method mostly applies to physics and chemistry... So please explain to me how "THE Scientific Method" can be put forth as the description of what scientists do when it doesn't apply to science as a whole, but only to physical sciences? Same problem as before: it smacks of dishonest arrogance which is inapproriate to the bend-over-backwards honesty of a scientist. In other words, don't lie to the reader by pretending that a single Scientific Method exists. --Wjbeaty 11:16, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

What to do? Perhaps split the article so as to topple "The Scientific Method" from it's present postion, replacing it with numerous subsections collected under a heading "The Methods Of Science," and instead list "The Scientific Method" as a sub-heading "Physical science methods" --Wjbeaty 11:16, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I invite you to look at the thought article which is currently not yet of the length as this one. There have been thousands of edits by scores of editors over years, to get to this position. There must be something about this topic which captured our attention which you should also consider in your assessment. Ancheta Wis 12:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I have returned to the article and explicitly mapped some examples from the history of science to the four stages of the scientific method. Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel does this for some hypotheses of anthropology. I suspect that each of the sciences will have examples, and not just physical science. For example, linguistics and cognitive neuroscience very likely have nice published examples, but I have not investigated, as these are not my field of study. Ancheta Wis 07:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Another possibility is to create a Wikiportal for Scientific Method. It's a free country, you could go for it. Ancheta Wis 12:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Physics is a nice example.

Template:PortalScientific method

Here is a chance to get in on the ground floor for Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Scientific method.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Critical Theory

Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy

Here are some other possible venues for your program. Ancheta Wis 12:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

By what other methods do professional scientists explore and model reality? The Scientific Method® apparently refers to a dynamic cyclical process which professional scientists use to research and validate such research. Clearly, some professional scientists and some amateur scientists do not execute the Scientific Method® completely; however, that's usually because such execution is unneeded. Scientific thought concerns practicality and reason. Is it reasonable to suggest that the Scientific Method® is the process that every scientist uses? No. That's not what the article is suggesting. Simple pedantry seems to be the source of this discussion's initial complaint. Everything scientific is evolutionary. Readers should understand that. And so should the plaintiffs in this case. Adraeus 12:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Methodology?

I don't think the linked texts disagree much with how "Scientific method" currently describes what is done in science. They all agree that experiments, in broad sense, are essential to science. Not every scientist does experiments, but all depend on them. They also mention the provisional character of scientific theories and the constant reevaluation.

But they don't agree that this constitutes a method. A method often is used for an algorithm, people can follow without thinking. This is certainly not the case for the "scientific method".

Using "a scientific method" is also misleading, as it suggests the content of this page does not apply to all sciences. But with the broad definition of an experiment, it does apply to anything I would consider science (as Ancheta Wis pointed out in #Proposed change.)

I therefore suggest changing the title of this page to "(The) Scientific Methodology". Markus Schmaus 02:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Importance of this article

I hope I'm not speaking out of turn if I say that this article is absolutely crucial to a number of pages in Wikipedia. It needs to be snappy, understandable, and reliable - in sympathy with Carl Sagan I believe that making this page accessible to the general public will allow a greater understanding of what science is and what scientists do. Please remember the NPOV Tutorial if you're new to Wikipedia (like me)... and keep up the good work everybody. Nof20 05:27, 29 Jan 05 (UTC)

Scientific Method in Religious Practice

Scientific Method in Religious Practice (http://religiousbook.net/Lectures/Sciense_and_religion.html)

Many years ago Yogananda sayd: "My Yoga is Science".

Yoga — Sanskrit equivalent of the Latin word “relig-ion”, which means “link with God”, “methods of ad-vancement to Him”, “Mergence” of a person with God. One may speak of yoga: a) as of the Path and the methods of religious advancement and b) as of the state of Union with God (in the latter case the first letter of this word is capitalized).

This method can be developed as science. Religion and science have contradictions only in human mind. I have restored this link in article.

see also: http://www.swami-center.org

Skywalker, I was going to move your link that you just restored to the scientific method article when I saw that you have already done so on this talk page. It is good that you are explaining more of the rationale for the link. Please discuss the link and its logic on this talk page first. Note that you can sign your name with ~~~~ , and it would be good to log-in when you work on Wikipedia. I will wait for some discussion with you on this talk page, or elsewhere. If, after some interval, the statements in the linked page cannot be justified, please do not be disappointed if some other editor moves that link to another location. This scientific method article is heavily referenced by others. Ancheta Wis 11:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Ancheta Wis. Science in religion is very delicate subject. This article is my lection... I have 10 years experience in practice of yoga (religion) and some years as instructor. I verifyed used method and observed repeatable results. I'm ready for answer you questions.

Postdictions

Predictions do not refer exclusively to future experiments, but are often "postdictions" or explanations of surprising results from earlier experiments. For example, one of the first successes of General Relativity was its explanation of the precession of Mercury, an anomaly that had been known for over fifty years.

According to the logic of the article, a Postdiction is actually part of the Characterization stage. During the Characterization stage, Einstein is using the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury as confirming evidence of the theory, not a prediction at the date of publication 1915. The essential part of a prediction is that the result is not known. It takes honesty on the part of the researcher to distinguish what is known from what is not known, thus the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury is Not A Prediction.

Based on this position, I recommend reversion of the latest addition. Now

• if the "prediction" is actually something that is not yet observed, such as the existence of black holes in 1936 (Oppenheimer et al)
• then predicting the existence of black holes in 1936 is a true prediction of GR,
• just like predicting the deflection of light due to a star's gravitational field is a true prediction of GR in 1915,
• but precession of perihelion of Mercury is a postdiction Ancheta Wis 18:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll grant that postdiction does not meet the literal definition of prediction, but the term "prediction" has been used by scientists to refer to a broad array of events, including not only the literal definition, but also explanations for anomalous previously-observed data. There are several revisions that would satisfy me, including a note in the Characterization section to the effect of "Postdictions are sometimes referred to as predictions, but since the experiment preceeds the hypothesis, these are more properly termed part of the Characterization stage." In any case, decisions on revision / reversion of this page might also be applied to a similar edit on Prediction. I may have been over-hasty in my edits. If so, my apologies - I'm still new here.SMesser 21:16, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingness to engage in collaborative editing. How about this proposed text?

When a researcher has correctly characterized the subject of investigation, then that researcher can deduce consequences of the characterization; for example, when Einstein built up his logical structure for GR based on his Principle of Equivalence of Inertial mass and Gravitational mass, then he was able to deduce

1. The precession of the perihelion of the orbit of the planet Mercury
2. The bending of light rays passing near an intense gravitational field
3. The dilatation of time for a process in an intense gravitational field
4. etc.

In 1915, the Principle of Equivalence of Inertial mass and Gravitational mass and the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of the planet Mercury

were known. Thus, his characterization, based on at least 2 pieces of experimental evidence, served to bolster his confidence in making a prediction:

The path of light rays passing near an intense gravitational field will be bent. This prediction was corroborated by Eddington in 1919.

In the 1930s, Robert J. Oppenheimer, while studying solutions of GR, was led to predict black holes

By the 2000s, Gravity Probe B was poised to corroborate yet another prediction of GR.

How's this? Ancheta Wis 21:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This works nicely - thank you.SMesser 14:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Teachers using inquiry as a teaching method sometimes teach a slightly modified version of the scientific method in which "Question" is substituted for Observation.

It's not clear what this sentence is trying to say, since neither "Question" nor "Observation" are in the preceding description of the scientific method.

Agreed. Removed it. -Vsmith 22:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, "Question" and "Observation" are part of the Scientific method#Characterization (first) step, in which a questioning, inquiring mind is engaged in a subject. The Teachers using inquiry ... sentence touches on an educational process which attempts to instill this critical facility into students who might not necessarily have enough mental background to be active questioners (inquirers). When these steps are integrated into a whole, then this may add to the students' mental equipment. Before jumping to the conclusion that observation is not part of the first step, try reading the rest of the article. Thus an active questioning mind is a prerequisite to the scientific method. Thank you for raising the question; however, it would be good to discuss how the sentence might be re-integrated into the article. One possibility is as a footnote. Ancheta Wis 01:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The phrase could and probably should be inserted in a better place in the article in a modified form - but, it was out of place where it was. The substitution of question for observation is in error. Obervation must precede any questioning, cannot just leave it out - no observation, nothing to question. Observing, questioning, measuring or characterizing are essential to the method. -Vsmith 01:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mass and weight

Keep going, Ancheta Wis—you are moving in the right direction.

You started from the implication of ignorance or blatant disregard of some God-given truth in

mass and weight are quite distinct concepts, but the distinction is often ignored in everyday life.

Then, after deleting my clarification, you went from the fat to the fire in claiming

But the distinction is moot in in many applications in our everyday life. For those who live only on the surface of the earth and are not in orbit around it, there may not be an obvious distinction (except perhaps for those who study gravitation and like fields in physics).

I guess you meant to make it not sound so deliberate, more like you were offering an excuse that there is really no reason for us to care about this supposed "difference." Of course, you had to throw in a little jab, pointing out the moral superiority of students in particular fields of activity, who are naturally so much smarter than the average Joe.

At that point, I was starting to think that what we needed was an addition along these lines:

Some scientists isolated in their ivory towers become so delusional and out of touch with reality as to insist that when we buy and sell goods by weight, we'd want to measure some quantity which varies with the strength of the local gravitational field. We do not do so, and we should not do so, we have never done so. The size of a rotl or a pound or any other unit of (mass, weight—take your pick, they are the same thing in this context, though weight has had this meaning for 800 years longer than mass has) might have varied considerably with geography, but that was due to factors such as the whims of kings, not variations in gravity.

But then you took out any reference to that second class of people who are either ignorant, obstinate, or indifferent in saying:

On the surface of the Earth, the distinction may not be obvious (except perhaps for those who study gravitation and like fields in physics). In orbit around Earth, we are weightless, but not massless.

Then you even took out the "master race" stuff:

for example, mass and weight are quite distinct concepts. On the surface of the Earth, the distinction may not be obvious, but in orbit around Earth, we are weightless and not massless.

So now all we are left with is the logically flawed jump from the meaning of "weightless" to the God-given meaning of "weight".

Actually, if a discussion uses both weight and weightless, the use of the word weightless is quite helpful in identifying which of the several meanings of the ambiguous word weight is being used. It distinguishes not only the meaning which is the same as mass in its physics jargon meaning, but it also distinguishes a couple of quite different meanings of weight as a particular kind of force within physics jargon.

If I don't have any bananas, I don't make that point by saying "All my bananas are weightless." Yet that is the only way that bananas could be weightless, in any of the applications in which their weight is normally discussed. That meaning of weight in commerce, and in cooking, is quite proper and legitimate, well justified in history, in linguistics, and in the law. Weightless is useless in connection with this meaning of the word weight, so the use of this word weightless is a remarkably effective indicator that the weight in that particular discussion is not the weight which is not different from physics-jargon mass (yet quite different from other meanings of the ambiguous word mass, which is one of the reasons we aren't real quick to incorporate that physics jargon into our everyday lives). [Got a little carried away with double negatives, I'll let the readers get a little mental exercise figuring it out.)

Furthermore, the use of the word weightless also helps to identify which of a couple of quite different physics-jargon meanings is being used. If you don't know it already, if you consider only the force due to gravity from the F = G·m·M/r² formula, for a person or object on the Space Station, the Earth is pulling 90% as hard as it does when they are on its surface.

See, for example, Sears and Zemansky, University Physics, 1970, p. 61:

There is no general agreement among physicists as to the precise definition of "weight." Some prefer to use this term for a quantity we shall define later and call the "apparent weight" or "relative weight." In the absence of a generally accepted definition we shall continue to use the term as defined above.

Their "definition above":

The weight of a body can now be defined more generally than in the preceding chapters as the resultant gravitational force exerted on the body by all other bodies in the universe. . .

This corresponds to the usage in Wikipedia apparent weight as well.

Contrast that with the definition given by NIST in SP 811, which corresponds to the "apparent weight" of Sears and Zemansky:[1] (http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec08.html)

NOTE: The local force of gravity on a body, this is, its weight, consists of the resultant of all the gravitational forces acting on the body and the local centrifugal force due to the rotation of the celestial object. The effect of atmospheric buoyancy is usually excluded, and thus the weight of a body is generally the local force of gravity on the body in a vacuum.

When the term "weightless" is used, it is almost always in connection with the latter of the specific physics-jargon force meanings, not the Sears and Zemansky meaning.

It isn't so simple after all.

Just a little more from the experts in this field, in the same section of NIST's SP811, Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI) quoted above:[2] (http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec08.html#8.3)

In commercial and everyday use, and especially in common parlance, weight is usually used as a synonym for mass. Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight used in this sense is the kilogram (kg) and the verb "to weigh" means "to determine the mass of" or "to have a mass of."

Examples: the child's weight is 23 kg      the briefcase weighs 6 kg      Net wt. 227 g

Then this section concludes with the excellent advice:

In any case, in order to avoid confusion, whenever the word "weight" is used, it should be made clear which meaning is intended.

Gene Nygaard 12:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2005 marks one century since the publication of Einstein's five seminal papers and has been declared WYP 2005 - the World Year of Physics in commemoration. Along that theme, I invite your energetic contributions to the definition article, where the above distinctions between mass and weight may very well enliven that article. There are a host of issues beyond mass and weight in physics, such as simultaneity, the question of inertia and inertial coordinates, their manifestation on the Earth as the trade winds acting under the Coriolis force, time, space, etc. What do you say to illustrating the concept of definition with the above discussion, but transferred to the definition article. (In my opinion, inertia is an even weightier topic, whose article may very well be improved by a disambiguation along these lines.) Ancheta Wis 16:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note- I personally did not write the specific prose that ignited your discussion. There have been thousands of edits and dozens of editors for this article, which has had a rocky history. Some of these editors have even been banned, but perhaps this article was merely one of the ones they touched. Anyways, a short browse of the links cited should reveal the short distance to the edges of our knowledge, even in this vast encyclopedia. I can start a paragraph on the talk page for talk:definition, if you like.

I don't know about the earliest version I talked about, but it certainly is your name on three of the specific changes in the quoted language to which I referred, plus the removal of an extraneous doubled "not". The last three versions were certainly yours.

02:57, 23 Dec 2004 Ancheta Wis (Difference between mass and weight)

02:52, 23 Dec 2004 Ancheta Wis (→Characterization)

19:17, 22 Dec 2004 Ancheta Wis m (→Characterization)

19:17, 22 Dec 2004 Ancheta Wis (→Characterization -The difference between mass and weight becomes obvious for space travelers.)

Gene Nygaard 04:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Never

Categorical statements that use the words always or never are welcome additions to our knowledge, but should be used with care. A test or an experiment is a comparison of an expectation with an observation. Thus it is possible to have an astronomical experiment. All that is required is that something be unknown first. When we think we know enough to be able to predict something, that is an expectation. If we then make an observation for that something, that combination of expectation and observation qualifies as an experiment.

The list of unsolved problems in the sciences is long; It often takes researchers considerable time to characterize some aspect of their chosen problem. Here is an example, from astronomy, our first science: the cause of the rotation rate of some galaxies is currently unknown, with the best guess being a putative concept, dark matter. But if dark matter can then explain the rotation rate of the galaxies, then a brave-enough researcher can make a prediction. An experiment can then be designed and then performed.

In other words, I disagree with the categorical statement

• In observation-based fields of science, actual experiments are never performed ...

The Hubble Space Telescope is an observatory which has had many experimental projects, for example, even providing the venue for experimental corroboration for the hypothesis of dark matter. We should probably re-phrase some of the latest edits to the article. Ancheta Wis 14:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Never is gone. Vsmith 02:46, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Messenger particles / exchange particles

The newest addition under reevaluation has a nice link to the Exchange particles of Gravitation x The Standard Model. If it is alright with everyone, I propose moving the link to the Standard Model and appending it there, with an attendant link to that article on this page. Is that alright? That means the hypothesized Graviton and the well-founded Photon, Gluon, and the W's and Z will sit together as they are thought to sit. My reason is that this item under Reevaluation is simply an iteration and recursion of the Scientific Method, where the hypothetical items are the relationship of the Graviton, Photon, W's and Z, and the Gluons. It's physics, alright, but it belongs on a physics page rather than the General Interest page for the Scientific Method, what with the Gluons and Gravitons and all. The link is actually a nice summary of the Standard Model + Gravitation. Ancheta Wis 00:38, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Go for it.SMesser 17:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Link transferred here. Ancheta Wis 18:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Conservative now, revolutionary then

This method is essentially an extremely conservative approach towards building a supportable, evidenced understanding of the various aspects of the world around us.

I agree that the scientific method is not revolutionary today, and can even be viewed as conservative. But 400 years ago, it turned the world on its ear. Thus the addition above is a relative statement, and can be viewed as an editorial comment. So where does this relative statement lead? How about discussing the direction you want the article to go? Ancheta Wis 01:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thinking about it, the hypotheses propounded by researchers, in order to solve some problem, can still be revolutionary; thus certain parts of the scientific method can be just as revolutionary as during Galileo's time. Again, just what does extremely conservative mean in the statement above? Taking the current theories of physics as an example, the experimental deductions and predictions will have to be revolutionary, just to get past our current conceptual problems. I am not so sure the sentence can stand the way it is.

I reworked a few words per the current comment below: Ancheta Wis 11:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Current comment

Current	Comment
Science deals with assertions about the way the world is, in the form of theories, hypotheses or observations.	Theory, at least as used in physics, overlaps both hypothesis and observation. That confuses the usage. Hypothesis is a possible explanation about an unknown, before the experiment. Hypothesis is raw guess, unsupported until more evidence can be amassed, from any direction. Hypothesis is flimsier than theory, but its frailty is also a strength, because it easily can become theory with more evidence from observation, from mathematics, etc. My favorite example is the scientist who realized that Salmon might return from the ocean to their streams using their sense of smell, as he smelled the environment near a waterfall. It took him years to prove that realization. If you were to strike the word theory, I would agree with the sentence. If you were to replace hypothesis with guess I would not disagree, but probably the sentence would not survive in Wikipedia.
Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If the prediction is found to be correct - then the theory remains.	Agree, if the word theories is replaced by hypotheses, or guesses. There are several parts: 1)If a problem is understood well enough to posit a prediction, that is a major advance. 2)That is different from actually testing the prediction with an experiment. For example, there are not any currently known ways to currently test string theory because we don't operate at the huge energies, high temperatures or tiny time scales needed for our current understanding of string theory. Or maybe we don't know enough mathematics. If the hypothesis survives, then it is theory, so I don't disagree with the second occurrence. Thus I might have phrased it Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by experiment. If the prediction is found to be correct - then the theory survives.
If the prediction is shown to be wrong, then the theory must be wrong.	Actually, the defect might be anywhere along the chain: in theory, in observation, in experiment design, in experiment process, in basic definition, etc.
Any theory which makes predictions can be tested scientifically in this way.	Agree
The idea is that these methods underlie the practice of science, enabling it to determine which theories, hypotheses and observations are true.	Agree
For short, use POHDECC (Problem, Observation, Hypothesis, Deduction, Experiment, Conclusion, and Communicate).	this is a summary mnemonic
This method is essentially an extremely conservative approach towards building a supportable, evidenced understanding of the various aspects of the world around us.	Perhaps replace the word conservative with the word cautious

end of Current Comment Ancheta Wis 11:16, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Science manages...

By attempting to summarise too much, the intro now says nothing intelligible.Banno

From the first para: "Science manages new assertions about our world with theories — hypotheses and observations". Science manages? What does that mean? Banno

The assertion "if a prediction fails the theory fails" is simply wrong. Banno

"Any theory which is strong enough to make verifiable predictions can then be tested scientifically in this way." So if a theory makes predictions that are not verified, it is not a scientific theory? Come again? Did the author mean potently verifiable? if so, what about falsifiability? Banno

"With them scientists determine which theories, hypotheses and observations are true." Do you really want to assert that science is determinate? Then you had better re-write the section reevaluation. Also implicit in this sentence is the idea that only scientific facts are true, which is cobblers. Banno 11:27, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Reconstruction

Current	Proposed
Science manages new assertions about our world with theories — hypotheses and observations.	Scientists propose new assertions about our world with theories: observations, hypotheses, deductions and tests.
Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out correct, the theory survives, but if a prediction fails the theory fails.	Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by experiment. If the prediction is found to be correct - then the theory survives.
Any theory which is strong enough to make verifiable predictions can then be tested scientifically in this way.	Any theory which is cogent enough to make falsifiable predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way.
These are the underlying methods of scientific practice. With them scientists determine which theories, hypotheses and observations are true.
The scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidenced understanding of our world.

Note: Please improve or comment as you see fit. Ancheta Wis 14:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The appearance of falsifiability already in the introduction bothers me for two reasons. First of all, it is not part of the scientific method in its canonical form. A number of eminent scientists and philosophers think falsification has no place in science (I'm thinking chiefly of David Stove and Martin Gardner ( see http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gardner_popper.html ). The other reason is that Popper himself, despite having the title 'Professor of Logic and Scientific Method' at LSE, wasn't much for scientific method ( see http://www.univie.ac.at/karlpopper2002/abstracts/ContributedPapers/worall.pdf ). Chris 08:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Covariant laws

Acrotatus, the article on scientific method is not an article about the content of the laws of science. It is commentary about the methods of science; how some logical predicate relates to some other logical predicate. Multiple contributors have added content to the initial paragraphs of this article, which are taken, expanded into articles of their own, and which live in peace there. I personally like your comments about a certain characteristic of the laws of mechanics, which were first observed by Galileo. The current mathematical statements in the articles about invariants under transformation would be improved for general consumption if you were to put your statements there. I have to state, that the invariants have a long history dating back to at least the Ancient Greeks, and that physicists are attached to them. However, the mathematicians, who have a claim to the invariants themselves, are finding that some pet ideas, such as conservation of energy, do not necessarily hold in a gravitational field. This finding, by David Hilbert, 1915 has not set well with others, who have found some expressions (involving pseudotensors) that can still be called invariants. If you like, we could transfer your work to a section of the physics articles. We could work together on this. For example, we could put your statements in the variational principle article. Other possibilities: Galileo's principle, physical law ... But the invariants, as a concept, may not be well-founded, even though they have a long tradition in science. And if that were to be the case (if some experiment were to prove that energy is not conserved in a strong gravitational field, for example), then even the invariants would be history, according to the principles of the scientific method. One of the ways that this could be accomplished might be to insert your comments into a /Invariants subpage. We could work on them there and discuss exactly where to put them in an appropriate article.

Agathocles of B., I call your attention to the Equivalence principle where your thoughts about covariance are in play. You are not alone in your thinking, but please refrain from further breaching experiments on this page. Ancheta Wis 11:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Critique of the final sentence of the lead paragraph

To the contributor of the final sentence of the lead paragraph:

"The scientific method is essentially a means of building support for a certain hypotheses through evidence."

If a researcher seeks to confirm a hypothesis H, one way to do it is by assuming some opposite hypothesis (or null hypothesis) Ň, and then seeking to disprove Ň. If the Ň was disproven, then H survives, but only as another possibility. There are errors (Type I error and Type II error, as examples) for which the researcher must be vigilant.

The previous ending sentence for the lead paragraph was stronger, because all this sentence does is leave the door open for H, Ň, or other possible hypotheses. Thus the need for evidence; the sentence does not state the role for some consequent prediction (some logical consequence of H) which would bolster the case for H, or disprove Ň etc.

Can you reply here, or better, rework the sentence? Ancheta Wis 10:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

laws

I removed the following paragraph that was revently added. It is badly written, and more important, simply not true. First, the word "proved" has no business in science. Second, while it is true that many individual scientists may think along those lines, and this assumption may be made for certain specific experiments, it is not at all fundamental to the method. Indeed, determining exactly what proerties of the universe vary and which do not over various changes (including space and time) is part and parcel of the goal of science. LDC 09:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a fundamental assumption in scientific method and this is that the scientific "laws" should always be space-time position independant or bounded to strictly defined space-time co-ordinates. This assumption is made to preserve that experiments and their results are also space-time position independant or space-time position bounded, so that it is not necessary to repeat experiments to all space-time co-ordinates in order to be able to prove a scientific theory. If the laws that govern experiments are position dependant and/or cannot be bounded in a specific space-time position, then the experiments have to be repeated to all space-time co-ordinates (or to all bounded space-time co-ordinates the scientific theory requires), in order for the scientific theory to be proved.

The answer to your question, "Dear scientists, could you tell us whether scientific 'laws' are dependant to spacetime or not?" is simple: some are, some aren't. Science is the method by which we discover which are which. The initial paragraph of this article is beautifully worded, pithy, informative, and complete. Please stop messing with it. LDC 10:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

yes but in order to define a scientific law you have to define it as space-time position independant (or strictly bounded to specific space-time coordinates). Thats why scientific laws are defined as space-time position independant laws (may be later some one proves that they are not, so they stop beeing scientific laws). Don you understand that? I hope now you can, so please put back the definition of scientific laws in scientific method. Agasicles 10:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scientific "laws" (yeah right, we wish!) are basically just a summary of a large number of empirical observations. If the bunch of observations (think experiments, or just hanging out with a pair of binoculars) seem to work out the same whether you are here or there, or whether you are standing on your head, then the law you come up with will be space-time independant. On the other hand, if things come out different depending on where you're standing, then the law you are using to summarise your set of observations should contain space-time as a variable. Space and time are just two of many many many variables that you might use in a law by the way. See SI for a comprehensive list of the base quantities and their measures. That's by far not the end of it though, since you can make up an endless list of derived measures and quantities: km/h (speed of a car), ms^-2 (acceleration of same car), l/km (fuel efficiency of said car).

Kim Bruning 10:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So your answer is that scientific laws can be defined as independant to space-time, but can also be defined as dependant to space-time. Ok then, could you please put this scientific answer to the definition of the scientific method? I am going to define now a scientific law, a space-time position dependant one. From now on, and for the next 3 seconds, moon is made by cheese! Then it turns to rock again. What a scientist I am! I can assure you also that I made 3 experiments during those 3 seconds and that all of them prooved that moon was actually cheese. Here you are the results of my experiments. Delicious, arent they? Agasicles 10:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Well for now it's not a law, but rather a hypothesis. (hypothesis, theory and law can basically be the same thing, but a hypothesis is something you just made up, while a law is something that people made up ages ago and still hasn't been falsified, while a theory is somewhere in between). Though truely if you have actual samples of cheese, and they taste yummy, then I can surmise that at least there is some cheese on the moon. Though perhaps it's just a small amount left behind by astronauts there? We'll have to take more samples and find out. Kim Bruning

Exactly. So you agree with me. Scientific laws are laws defined as space-time position independant and laws prooven to be space-time position independant by all experiments until now. Space-time position dependant laws are not scientific ones, you may call them hypothesis or whatever. Why dont you want to put the scientific law definition in scientific method article? Agasicles 11:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You said "On the other hand, if things come out different depending on where you're standing, then the law you are using to summarise your set of observations should contain space-time as a variable.". Yes but the law that contains space-time as a variable, should be defined as space-time position independant. You cannot play with that law, and say for example that now is defined as proportional to space-time variable, then next time change the law and define it as reverse proportional of space-time variable without defining another law (that handles this change) as space-time position independant. I hope that you can understand that. Agasicles 11:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not quite. If you have a certain quantity (like space-time) as a variable, then your hypothesis/theory/law is said to be *dependant* on that quantity.

hold on, we are talking about scientific laws, why you mess law with hypothesis now? Let me explain better. Scientific laws are defined by mathematical expressions. A mathematical expression may have space-time as a variable, but you cannot change the mathematical expression itself the next day, unless another expression defines the way this expression changes. At the end, and in order to be scientificaly correct, you always have to define a mathematical expression and claim that does not change and remains stable (for every space or time and especially for future time). This expression is acctually the scientific law that claims (as expression) to be space time position independant. Then experiment starts testing it. Agasicles 12:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, like I said earlier, laws are summaries of a (VERY LONG) sequence of observations. So you don't tend to change them around much once you've got them. Hypotheses are summaries of a very short sequence of observations though, and are actually more likely to be wrong than right ;-) And you can certainly play with your hypotheses to see what fits your observations better. Once you get a good fit, you can start to call it a theory :). Kim Bruning 11:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scientific laws are summaries of a (RATHER SHORT) (about 2000 years or number_of_experiments_done* time_the_experiment_last) sequence of observations, in a RATHER SMALLER space (Solar system, earth or even our laboratory) that are expected to always remain the same in whatever space or time (thus independant of space-time). This is another definition of scientific law. I agree with that. Agasicles 11:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's starting to go somewhere, yup! For further elucidation (or perhaps confusion) see also: Lie-to-children. Kim Bruning 13:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am glad that your arguments are over. Actually you are the childs, who believes that the laws of physics are space-time position independant. The truth is that the laws of physics are space-time position dependant and in the same time cannot be bounded in a specific space-time coordinate. And this has been prooved, by the failure of your scientific method in the blackholes theory along with the discover of the inconstant constants. You stupid scientists, you have the mind of a moron. Go on, keep trying to take off your Columbia and Challenger space ships! Agasides 19:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You will never get enlightenment until you accepts the truth of dependant space-time. For this there is diseases and war and death. Agasides 19:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agasicles: Your argument and your definition are ridiculous. See: scientific law. "Scientific law", "law of nature", and "physical law" are defined as a "generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature". Until you can change the definition at scientific law, in the Oxford English Dictionary, and in the scientific community, go away. Adraeus 02:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Scientific laws are childish generalisations of scientific thinking human minds, that are trying to convince themselves (and us) that our word has some "laws" that can be defined as independant of space or time, thus we can count on them and launch our Columbia or Challenger spaceships. Of course this poor scientific method that is supposed to lead us to the eternal law which can be applied anywhere and in anytime is the stickiest situation since Sticky the stick insect got stuck on a sticky bun. RickK 19:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) According to history (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientific_method&diff=12132007&oldid=12131763), comment inserted by User:Agasides. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert new intro?

I can't see any benefit in the new intro - it is ungrammatical; presumptive in treating maths as a non-empirical science and insulting to biology. A chance for comments before I revert... Banno 21:58, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free. Guettarda 23:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I say revert, it is rather insulting to biology and math is a different critter. Vsmith 23:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Vsmith. Banno

/Headless chicken

So as not to enable this type of Trolling behavior. Please insert the related materials on the referenced sub page. We don't need it as part of the Talk page for the article. Thank you Ancheta Wis 14:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments moved from article

Moved the following from article for discussion:

I wish to suggest another sequence of steps for the scientific method. They are;

1. observation

2. theory creation

3. hypothesis or prediction

4. experimentation or testing the hypothesis (which is more observation)

5 accept or reject hypothesis. Acceptance supports the theory, rejection does not support the theory

The difference between theory and hypothesis is that theory can be modified (it may also be rejected) but hypothesis can only be accepted or rejected.

A theory is not tested but is supported or not supported by numerous observations.

An hypothesis is tested and the result either supports or does not support the theory.

Theories are explanations of how the universe works which are supported by large amounts of observation.

e.g. Newton's Gravity

Hypothesis are narrower statements which are designed to be consistent with a theory and are testable

e.g. the sun will rise tomorrow

There are several cycles in the scientific method with suttle differences

1. observation > theory modification > observation >theory modification

2. hypothesis creation > experiment or testing > acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis >new hypothesis creation > testing >

There seems to be confusion between theory and hypothesis. The meanings are similar but suttley different. Any comments?

This is the first time I have edited Wikipedia. So please excuse me if I get the process wrong. I can be contacted at thelash@optusnet.com.au

Posted by User:203.164.197.187

Modified format a bit when I moved to talk. -Vsmith 02:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert NPOV edits

I will revert the last edit that reads:

"Scientists use observations, hypotheses ... to propose adequate explanations for natural phenomena ..."

and

"The scientific method is [a] means of continually building a supportable evidenced understanding of our natural world."

The highlighted words were added, the first of which I disagree with. The text now seems to say that scientists are satisfied with adequate explanations. I suspect that this is not what was meant. If there is an alternative reading, I suggest we make it clearer.

The second word I will remove because it only adds length to the sentence and not much else. Chris 23:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposed change

Since the present article about a single "method" centers on the experimental sciences and does not apply generally, why don't we admit that no single "scientific method" exists... then change the ,aom title to "Scientific Methods," or "The Methods of Science," and break out the current article as the *single* method used in the physical sciences. Creating a new section to describe non-experimental sciences would require some work. Then, since the current article would have it's own section, confusing disclaimers like the following could be moved from it to the "methods" section: "Difficulties with this have led to the rejection of the very idea that there is a single method that is universally applicable to all the sciences, and that serves to distinguish science from non-science." "These activities do not describe all that scientists do (see below) but apply mostly to experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry)." "Yet an experiment is not an absolute requirement. In observation based fields of science actual experiments must be designed differently than for the classical laboratory based sciences."

Ancheta Wis 17:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC): But note the following evidence in support of experiment-based science. Remember that an experiment is a test. It searches for the result of a prediction. It need not be in a laboratory. All that is needed is that something be initially unknown or disputed. That something is 1)characterized, 2)some property is hypothesized, 3) the denoted property is associated with a prediction of something as yet unknown, 4)a test searches for a result (the prediction). If the prediction is confirmed, the theory 1)&2) survive, otherwise the theory is disproven and requires reformulation in a new characterization. Note that 1 2 3 have to be written down before 4 is searched for. If 4 is known beforehand, this is merely corroborating evidence in favor of 1, and a new 2 (or 3) must be formulated in order to have an honest test (the prediction must be about the unknown). Otherwise you are done. The result can be communicated. Note that some other researcher may take your 1 2 3 4 as her hypothesis with a prediction that your 1 2 3 4 will be replicated. (This is the iterative and recursive side of the scientific method.)

• Astronomy: See above example for an astronomical experiment.
• Geology: See geology and history of biology for the role of fossils in the development of these sciences.
• History of science: See Francis Bacon, Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace.
• Biology: Missing image
  DNA_25.jpg
  
  
  The structure of DNA (1953) is a classic example. The prediction by Francis Crick was that an x-ray diffraction picture of a double helix (Steps 1 and 2 - Characterization as a double helix (their hypothesis)) would show an X-shape (Step 3 - Prediction). James Watson then went to Rosalind Franklin's lab to see the evidence (Step 4 - Experimental setup). His pulse raced when he saw the predicted picture (Step 4 - Experimental confirmation). The image showed an X (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/photo51/). Nobel prize follows.
• Economics: See writings of William Stanley Jevons
• Anthropology: See Guns, Germs and Steel
• Linguistics: See Language_acquisition for some hypotheses about our languages and some consequent experiment projects.
• Political science: I am told that Thomas Hobbes made the first steps in this field.
• Business: a businessman (step 3) projects his earning for the benefit of his stockholders. Step 1 is the characterization of the business as a going concern. Step 4 is the regular earnings report. Step 2 is the businessman's assessment of his operations.

Ancheta Wis 19:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC) reformatted the counterexamples.

See Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Physics for a nice example of a portal which could actually be applied to scientific method. Note: it will be interesting to see what happens with this experiment. If other editors take an interest in this project then the portal might succeed. Otherwise, it might end up in CfD.

Scientific method -- Wikiportal

Template:Portal In keeping with recent suggestions in this talk page, I have added 2 new wikiportals -- Science and History of science. Everyone is invited to participate in the corresponding Scientific method wikiportal (see icon and links above), which stub I have created for others to populate. All are invited to participate in its development, of course. Ancheta Wis 13:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I propose that if, after suitable consensus about the state of the portal for Scientific method, that the portal icon be promoted to the article page, if the portal were to be deemed ready for showtime, by consensus.

As visitors to the portal can see, there is room for a whole series of appropriate concepts, constrained only by the scope of the portal, which is about method rather than content. Of course, a discussion about method can appropriately be illustrated by content about science.

The mechanism for this venue is a series of templates, which remain to be populated. But it is deliberately left un-instantiated, by intent. The two sections which were instantiated are there for illustration only and are by no means meant to guide or influence the entire Scientific method wikiportal. The intention is to provide a venue for the free rein of the editors who are interested in contributing to the Category:Scientific method.

To all editors: This is your chance to structure a whole series of new and appropriate articles for an expansion in scope per this Talk page. It is certainly fair to create stubs or red links in the Scientific method wikiportal, with appropriate commentary on the respective talk pages about the intention and direction of the respective contribution. As the state of the articles about Science, History of science, and Scientific method in this encyclopedia shows, Everything is related to everything else -- R.P. Feynman.

Perhaps the portal venue can address the concerns listed on this Talk page. There is certainly room in this encyclopedia for all, and perhaps this specific article on Scientific method might then retain its current focus on a process which has served well for 400 years.

Ancheta Wis 15:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Monkofthetrueschool, I removed the 'five principles' that you added because you had put it in the middle of section. After your edit the text read:

• "Here are the four steps of the method:"
• "Your five principles"
• "the four steps".

Please be careful when putting new matter into an old and well-established article like this one. The question "what is scientific method" is not a simple one - please talk to other editors here. DJ Clayworth 21:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Bacon's method

The description of Bacon's method I introduced neglects any discussion of induction. Here's the text I used in case anyone else feels like writing about it: http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm Chris 23:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I included Aphorism XIX. Ancheta Wis 09:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Time for a trim

The article is getting long. I'm just going to cut out what I think is least interesting and we'll see how it goes from there. Chris 08:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

How about pushing items into main articles? Ancheta Wis 08:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the Descartes and Newton quotes properly belong in Wikisource. But it would be good to be able to bounce back and forth to them in support of the SM article. Ancheta Wis 08:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Pictures for photo 51 and for perihelion advance

It would be good to get an image of picture 51, to illustrate the DNA/experiment portion of the article. Ancheta Wis 11:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

For the precession of Mercury's perihelion, I am seeking an image similar to this , but larger, where the ellipse of Mercury's orbit is itself rotating around the Sun. The current image shows the precession of an axis of rotation which is not quite right for perihelion advance. Ancheta Wis 09:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Markus, thank you for the better picture of perihelion advance!! Ancheta Wis 16:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DNA example needs different presentation

I found the DNA example that runs through part of the article to be confusing when I skimmed through the article. I think the problem is that it uses the same subhead level, whereas it needs something else to set it apart, though I'm not sure exactly what. If you're not reading carefully and you miss the first DNA bit, the rest of the bits look out of place. --Lee Hunter 04:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I will try a back button at each location to set the context. Ancheta Wis 04:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC) and I added a little DNA icon Ancheta Wis 04:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The literary and cinematic technique of cross-cutting has been utilized in the DNA example. I inserted little DNA icons, number the crosscut sections, and italized the crosscut items to help the bits stand out more, while maintaining the structure of the 4 steps of the scientific method. Ancheta Wis 11:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

announcing new policy proposal of general interest

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal.Slrubenstein | Talk 20:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

SLR, have you considered proposing the use of astronomical epoch J2000.0 with the Astronomical year numbering? If these were embedded in everyone's preferences, then everyone who uses the 2005 date, for example, would automatically have it stored in the database in a neutral date format, but printed out in their preference. Thus someone who uses a Hindu calendar based on the Saka Era would enjoy a date with a base epoch 1922 years before J2000.0, an astronomical date. Someone preferring to date something using the Bangladeshi calendar would see a date with a base epoch 416 years before J2000.0, etc. Each civilization could then see the dates translated to their personal preference. If we simply stuck with an AD-BC/BCE-CE etc without also implementing the institution of an astronomical epoch, then we would simply be "baking-in" something that is still POV. But I think people would understand that an astronomical epoch as convenient as J2000.0. It would be a signal that Wikipedia is sensitive to personal preference, and has thought about the problems of POV, whether it be the date of the detection of the supernova in the Crab Nebula, or the date of the first Atomic bomb test July 16, 1945 (which I could also propose, as 55 years before J2000.0). As it stands, the BCE proposal might be viewed as premature. But with astronomical epoch, we are that much closer to a universal calendar. Ancheta Wis 22:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slrubenstein"

Suggestions

1. Why using "a scientifc method"? I can't see more than one.
2. "History" shouldn't be the first Chapter. First we should say what the scientific method is.
3. "Elements of a scientifc method" isn't a good title. Maybe something like "Definition" or "Requirements" would be bettter.
4. "Evaluation and Iteration" and "Peer review evaluation" should be subtitles ot "Elements ..."

Markus Schmaus -- 21:56 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, "Evaluation and Iteration" is the outer framework of the 4 inner steps. This outer framework is not part of the 4 inner steps of sci. method, but lies outside in a recursive/ retrospective / reflective / iterative loop; The 4 steps are part of a huge endless loop, to put it into software words. Subtitles would be inappropriate, but a "Repeat" or "Loop" or "Recursive" keyword which lay outside the 4 steps would also be accurate. However, that is not part of the English language, currently. The statement of the scientific could be made more precise in a pseudo-code which allowed loops or recursion as part of the language. If the 4 steps were in one color, and the loop of evaluation / review were in another color, that would show the actual structure of the method. But the essential point, which is the test of a prediction/deduction from hypothesis, where the hypothesis and prediction are made before the test is conducted, where the hypothesizers and the predicters lay their reputations on the line, and take a risk, is already stated as part of the 4 inner steps. That is the essential part. But to merely state "Repeat" does not adequately state the subtlety of the method. When workers in a field are exploring the concepts, they are engaging in a conversation about the subject, and typically, the expertise of one is a building block in the thinking of another, in the same field. Thus the iterations and recursions of the method serve as commentary on the discoveries in the subject. The "review" etc. are the timeless part. The reproducibility (repeatability) part is the workhorse of the method, but is not part of the inner loop. The reproducibility part is "Iteration". Ancheta Wis 15:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right, but I still don't like the title "Elements of the scientific method" what about "Essential steps"? Markus Schmaus

I think I disagree that "Definition" is appropriate. "Discovery of ..." is more appropriate. We are not really at the mathematical stage yet, because people are still at the heart of the method. It takes a special person to engage in more than 1 or 2 of the steps. Galileo, Newton, {Einstein/Schwarzschild} together, {Watson/Crick/Rosalind Franklin/Maurice Wilkes/etc} together. You get the point; it is the people who are engaged in the method that make the method special. In other words, we need to acknowledge the role of the people in the method. That is also the reason that History is still the appropriate first part of the article. But if you believe it is not, then how about giving a rationale for another structure to the article. I think I have given some reasons for not starting with "Definition" first; it is part of the History of science. Ancheta Wis 15:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we should first tell the reader how the scientific method is seen today before telling how this view developed. Markus Schmaus 21:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DNA icon

The current DNA picture looks good large but is not made for an icon. What do you think about Missing image
DNA_icon_(25x25).png
Image:DNA icon (25x25).png

 ? Markus Schmaus 13:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me, for one; would you like to do the replacement? I could, if you would like, but please feel free to do so. Any other editor's thoughts? Ancheta Wis 15:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)