Is it possible to return to the scientific method?

[rupol2000]

In the 19th century, science began to use the scientific method - positivism. The method was based on a simple rule: all scientific laws must be based on experience and verification, and no speculation is allowed.

This led to a scientific revolution and a series of startling discoveries. However, in the 20th century, scientists returned to scholasticism again. Is it possible to return to scientific methodology or politicians will not allow it?

 

[Moonglow]

The only instance where speculation in science is productive. Speculating to form a hypothesis. The only instance in science where speculation is productive is in forming a hypothesis. Furthermore, forming a hypothesis is only productive insofar as it leads to properly-performed experiments.Jan 27, 2014

Why is speculation forbidden in science?​

https://wtamu.edu › ~cbaird › 2014/01/27 › why-is-specul...

Why is speculation forbidden in science?

Speculation is not completely forbidden in science. In fact, used at the proper stage of science (hypothesis-forming), clever speculation can be qu...

www.wtamu.edu

What is scholasticism in simple terms?


Scholasticism is a way of thinking and teaching knowledge. It was developed in the Middle Ages. It started when people wanted to bring together what is called classical philosophy with the teachings of Christian theology. ... Scholasticism is not a philosophy or theology, but rather a way of teaching and learning.

Scholasticism - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism

 

[Anomalism]

In the 19th century, science began to use the scientific method - positivism. The method was based on a simple rule: all scientific laws must be based on experience and verification, and no speculation is allowed.

This led to a scientific revolution and a series of startling discoveries. However, in the 20th century, scientists returned to scholasticism again. Is it possible to return to scientific methodology or politicians will not allow it?

Our technology is advancing multiplicatively. I think science is doing fine.

 

[Moonglow]

Which scientific methods are you referring to?

What are the 5 scientific methods?


Here are the five steps.

• Define a Question to Investigate. As scientists conduct their research, they make observations and collect data. ...
• Make Predictions. Based on their research and observations, scientists will often come up with a hypothesis. ...
• Gather Data. ...
• Analyze the Data. ...
• Draw Conclusions.

The Scientific Method: 5 Steps for Investigating Our World | AMNH

Learn about the dynamic, open-ended process scientists use to investigate questions about the natural world.

www.amnh.org

This is but one of the scientific methods

 

[Moonglow]

Our technology is advancing multiplicatively. I think science is doing fine.

I could use a new back.

 

[rupol2000]

The pragmatism of Charles Sanders was an American form of positivism.

 

[rupol2000]

Here are the five steps.

The main "step" is missing here: the definition of the postulate. In the scientific method, a postulate can not be a declaration; it must be deduced from experience inductively.

 

[rupol2000]

Our technology is advancing multiplicatively. I think science is doing fine.

After the 2nd half of the 20th century, when the speculative method was finally approved, nothing has been developed, there has not been a single significant discovery. Progress is only in genetics.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

I see that we moved on from military strategy, to Science. What's next, Geology?

 

[rupol2000]

I see that we moved on from military strategy, to Science. What's next, Geology?

Military science is also science

 

[rupol2000]

The only instance where speculation in science is productive. Speculating to form a hypothesis. The only instance in science where speculation is productive is in forming a hypothesis. Furthermore, forming a hypothesis is only productive insofar as it leads to properly-performed experiments.Jan 27, 2014

This is what is prohibited by the scientific method of positivism. It is not permissible to first build a model and then prove it by experiment. The model itself should be built on the generalization of experience.

 

[rupol2000]

Scholasticism is a way of thinking and teaching knowledge. It was developed in the Middle Ages. It started when people wanted to bring together what is called classical philosophy with the teachings of Christian theology. ... Scholasticism is not a philosophy or theology, but rather a way of teaching and learning.

I called it scholasticism because scholasticism uses the same method. More precisely, this is the method of dogmatism

 

[rupol2000]

BTW Contrary to popular belief, I consider falsifiability to be anti-scientific. If we find one exception to the rules, this does not mean that the rule does not work. The method of falsification may reject a just theory that has exceptions but is nonetheless true and useful. If we are talking about the fact that the hypothesis must be testable, then everything is in order. But if we are talking about the fact that the only exception should cancel what is obtained from experience, then this is not true.

 

[Wuwei]

In the 19th century, science began to use the scientific method - positivism. The method was based on a simple rule: all scientific laws must be based on experience and verification, and no speculation is allowed.

This led to a scientific revolution and a series of startling discoveries. However, in the 20th century, scientists returned to scholasticism again. Is it possible to return to scientific methodology or politicians will not allow it?

You can't make rigid rules for scientific innovation. You can't think outside the box if you keep yourself in a box. Many discoveries are made by accident; some by relating aspects of two unrelated areas. For example the ring structure of benzine was discovered in a dream of a snake biting it's tail.
.

 

[rupol2000]

You can't make rigid rules for scientific innovation. You can't think outside the box if you keep yourself in a box. Many discoveries are made by accident; some by relating aspects of two unrelated areas. For example the ring structure of benzine was discovered in a dream of a snake biting it's tail.
.

It's not relevant to the case
Any path to discovery is acceptable, but the creation of a theory only on the basis that something was dreamed is not.

 

[Wuwei]

It's not relevant to the case
Any path to discovery is acceptable, but the creation of a theory only on the basis that something was dreamed is not.

The Theory of General Relativity was instigated when he walked by workers on a roof and pondered someone falling off.

 

[rupol2000]

The Theory of General Relativity was instigated when he walked by workers on a roof and pondered someone falling off.

Maybe that's why the theory of relativity is such shit.
It would be better if this idiot was killed with a brick

 

[Wuwei]

Maybe that's why the theory of relativity is such shit.
It would be better if this idiot was killed with a brick

Ah, I see we have a troll.

 

[GuyOnInternet]

In the 19th century, science began to use the scientific method - positivism. The method was based on a simple rule: all scientific laws must be based on experience and verification, and no speculation is allowed.

This led to a scientific revolution and a series of startling discoveries. However, in the 20th century, scientists returned to scholasticism again. Is it possible to return to scientific methodology or politicians will not allow it?

I appreciate your post, as I admire the work of the Vienna and Berlin Circles. The Logical Positivists/Empiricists largely agreed with the existing Scientific Method sketched out by Francis Bacon that had been embraced and enhanced by the scientific community from about the 17th century onward. They actually went so far as to caution scientists against listening to them on matters of science as they believed that scientists could best work out the methods of science in a sort of survival of the fittest battle amongst themselves and that any meddling of philosophers may very likely do more harm than good. They humbly accepted their role as mere messengers and were mainly attempting to spread the message to other areas of academia and to reign in irrationalism. The purpose, they believed, is that the experimental methods of science are applicable outside of science and useful to laymen in everyday life.

The methodology of the Vienna and Berlin Circles is best summed up as verification testing. I believe it must also be stressed that by verify, they meant to objectively test. Their message is that even though we are human and prone to bias, we should always strive to be as observant, analytical, and most importantly objective as we can be. To embrace their philosophy is to state that I will attempt to verify to the best of my admittedly fallible human ability whether an idea is true or false wherever I can. It means that even though I can never verify something to be absolutely true and that even though something as well established as a scientific theory or law can be overturned, verification testing can increase the likelihood that something is true and is the best guide that I will ever have. It states that I follow this practice because I am not in pursuit of some impossible to obtain philosophical purity of truth. I am satisfied with the fact that planes fly, cars drive, etc. I have little concern for some silly little problem of induction that so obsesses the deductivists to no end.

To be more specific, the accusation of "naive positivism" directed against the Logical Positivists is a load of hogwash. This nonsense about Karl Popper showing how fields such as Astrology can only be proven true, not false, is crap. So called astrological predictions can not be proven true or false because they are too open to interpretation. If the accusation of naive positivism had any merit, the so-called "naive positivists" would actually show an actual real world tendency to believe in nonsense like Astrology on a regular basis, which they clearly do not. The reality is that Logical Positivists are probably the last people you will ever see reading a horoscope or purchasing the services of a fortune teller.

The open-ended nature of fields such as Astrology and Fortune Telling are what accurately can be described as too theory laden. They do not limit their predictions to actual observation, except conflate observation with wishful interpretation. You see, it is not so much the observations themselves that are theory laden, it is the conclusions that we draw from them that are and some conclusions are a heck of a lot more "theory laden" than others.

In summary, the Logical Positivists and other skeptics are not shunned for their propensity to naively fall for nonsense because they were chasing evidence, they are shunned because of their unwillingness to blindly follow nonsense, particularly the dogma of the political activism based areas of the social sciences.

 

[GuyOnInternet]

BTW Contrary to popular belief, I consider falsifiability to be anti-scientific. If we find one exception to the rules, this does not mean that the rule does not work. The method of falsification may reject a just theory that has exceptions but is nonetheless true and useful. If we are talking about the fact that the hypothesis must be testable, then everything is in order. But if we are talking about the fact that the only exception should cancel what is obtained from experience, then this is not true.

Falsification, or the Black Swans Theory, only applies to universal claims that are not allowed to have any exceptions at all. For example, the claim that all swans are white is not allowed to have any exceptions. The rhetorical gimmick is based on the fact that there are some universal laws in the hard, physical sciences that are not allowed to have any exceptions at all.

However, most claims in science, and especially in everyday life absolutely are allowed to have exceptions. You can not disprove generalizations with the silly little black swans argument.

Additionally, how does that even apply to theories such as the theory of blood circulation? Does one living human whose blood does not circulate, if we even did find him, disprove Harvey's Theory?