Talk:Scientific method/Draft

Article Checklist for "Scientific method/Draft"

Workgroup category or categories	Philosophy Workgroup, Physics Workgroup, Chemistry Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories]
Article status	Developed article: complete or nearly so
Underlinked article?	No
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	--AlekStos 13:51, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

Scientific method

Current talk page

Archive 1

Alternative article: User:Matthias Brendel/Scientific method

I finished the prototype of my alternative article, which is here:

User:Matthias Brendel/Scientific method

I think it is:

1. Much better structured.
2. Much more textbook like (I had courses in philosophy of science)
3. Much more unbiased.
4. Much more focused on the important things.
5. Much more informative for the laymen, who want to get some quick information, what scientific method consist of.

I suggest to take that article and continue from that article. I suggest that we incorporate from Gareth' article step by step parts, if they are really important and missing from my article.

It is however much worse in spelling and style, since I am not a native English. So please copy-edit it, moreover, reformulate the sentences! The apripriate references are also missing, but those can be obtained from Garet's article.

I just think that my article is a better framework.

--Matthias Brendel 07:43, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Matthias, the difficulty with starting a competing article is that you in essence ask other contributors to replace what they have worked on with your work. Who will make that decision? I'd rather not, because I have no interest in alienating other contributors. Besides, the only ones who ought to make the decision are philosophers of science, and we don't have any such philosophers active right now (that I know of). No philosophy editor is going to become active only to say, "Your work is out, and your work is in." So we have no way, no mechanism, whereby the hard work of one contributor can entirely replace the hard work of another contributor.

Sorry to say it, but the only thing we are set up to do, right now, is to collaborate--not to replace. --Larry Sanger 09:06, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Thanks Mathias. There is a clear difference of style and intent behind the two versions. I'm not going to comment on the content, but what motivated my version was the wish to produce an article that is readable by a lay reader, in requiring no specialised prior knowledge. It was not intended to be exhaustive (the length does not allow this), but intended as a sampler, an introduction to some of the issues, in the way that Biology is not remotely exhaustive, but is provocative for the reader in its own, different way. It was certainly intended to be anything but a textbook chapter. I've restructured it in light of the comments aired about this version. I think one way forward might be to add a "See also" section that directs readers to the type of specialised issues that you allude to in your article.Gareth Leng 09:28, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Gareth: You know my opinion. Your article is a non-organized collection of some of your favourite ideas, philosophers, examples and citations. It has no structure. It is not a textbook chapter, and THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Your article is a magazine article, not an encyclopedia article.

--Matthias Brendel 10:20, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Larry:

1) You say we should not replace an existing article with another. Exactly this what was Gareth doing.

2) I cannot collaborate with this article, since IT'S BASIC STRUCTURE IS BAD.

3) So as I see what happens here that if something is started and a lot of effort was made then whatever wrong the direction is, you do not dare to correct the mistake. THAT IS BAD.

4) What is with my effort. Shall I just throw out my article? You did not say that "do not do this other version, we will trow it out anyway".

5) I could slowly replace everything according to my article, but

a) Why is that better? b) It is a lot of quarel.

6) My suggestion is the same: let us take my article as a basis, since its STRUCTURE is better, and put into my article Gareth's work.

The question is: shall we replace the furniture of a good building with some good pieces of furniture from a wrong building, or vice versa? Or just destroyout the good building, and keep the bad one with some good pieces, but wrong structure?

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

--Matthias Brendel 10:20, 6 March 2007 (CST)

I have to chime in here after watching this proceed for so long. The wikipedia article is not better. It is different. In my opinion it is actually very confusing to read. Yes, the CZ version reads like a magazine article, is this is critiscism or a complement? Why can't we have both? We desperately need a more approachable article than the one on wikipedia. I am certain that most of the people that read this article will be high school students, therefore a magazine-like article is good from that perspective. I don't see why an extension of these themes cannot be explored at a higher level in sister articles?

With regard to you first comment, "you say we should not replace an existing article with another. Exactly this what was Gareth doing". This does not make sense. Yes, there was an article imported from wikipedia but authors are encouraged to write their own. Gareth started with a blank sheet of paper not a wikipedia article. Maybe you had significant input to the wikipedia version, if so it would be good to work with Gareth incorporating some of the better ideas. Chris Day (Talk) 11:03, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Matthias, I agree with what Chris says re "this is what Gareth has done": no, he started over, and that is behavior that we on CZ want to support. And he did this before you arrived on the scene. Now, if you leave it up to me, we won't replace our article (it isn't Gareth's, it's CZ's) with yours. The fact that you took the trouble to write another article is impressive and praiseworthy but it should not obligate us to use it, or to create a new process whereby someone can write a new article out of whole cloth and simply expect to replace the current one. As to your complaints about the current article, they are your opinion. If you think, for example, that "its basic structure is bad," then you can explain exactly how its structure needs to be improved, and perhaps the current article can be supplemented with material from yours. You worry about "a lot of quarrel" in this case, but for us simply to replace the current article with an article developed by someone else, who just happens to claim that it is better, when neither party is an editor in the relevant area--well, that would create a huge amount of ill-will, and would set a dangerous precedent, which I want to avoid.

I will ask you, please, instead of simply dismissing another excellent contributor's work, actually to argue and explain your points, and allow us to engage in a dialectic, or else leave the article alone entirely. --Larry Sanger 11:18, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Chris:

1) As I remember an encyclopaedia doe differ from a magazine very much. It is closer to a textbook article. So this is a criticism

2) Our goal is to create a good encyclopaedia, and for this purpose a Wikipedia article is not less worth than any other contribution. Who wrote the article is not an factor.

3) "you can explain exactly how its structure needs to be improved". I explained it and I even demonstrated it. See my article.

4) "but for us simply to replace the current article with an article developed by someone else, who just happens to claim that it is better, when neither party is an editor in the relevant area--well, that would create a huge amount of ill-will, and would set a dangerous precedent, which I want to avoid."

Simply to keep things how they are, because you have no editor is a more dangeorus precedent. As I see Citizendium is not better organized than WIkipedia. You just forked Wikipedia, I do not se what for.

In Wikipedia it was at least possible to change something along the majority opinion. Here I see that it is not possible to change something. Things remain the same because of lazyness.

You are creating a dangerous precedence, causing me to leave this projecct.

I just remind you that I am more of a specialist in this area than Gareth. And you simply throw out my work.

That is exactly the opposite than the goal of this project: you encourage people to disregard specialists. You do it yourself.

--Matthias Brendel 11:56, 6 March 2007 (CST)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

please the topic WAS and IS scientific method. I fail to see anything related to that topic. As I am very virginal to the principle of the scientific method, it seems to me it is (I believe) about: observations reproducible observations explanation verification and falsification please stick to that topic and stay clear from side ways and side turns that are not directly related. Robert Tito | Talk 13:21, 6 March 2007 (CST)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

This is no Miss Universe contest, or Idol Robert Tito | Talk 13:02, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Outsider's View - Zach

I'll admit to not being an expert on the scientific method, but I have to say that I find Matthias's article easier to read, however looking at many of the factual changes that Gareth added to this version, many of them are both factual and organizational improvements. I think Matthias's intro is too long. I would limit it to a maximum of 1/2 or maybe 2/3 its current line-count. On the other hand, I think that Gareth's version goes a bit over-board on the quotes. Quotes are great when they reinforce a point, but we don't need 1-2 in each section if they don't really help the article that much. I like how both articles have good coverage of the elements of the method, but I think that Matthias's version has it split slightly better into sections. I also think Matthias's version has a lot of better coverage in sections 2 and 3 that are missing in the current version of the current article.

I think that we need to get over the idea of this being "someone's" article. It's not. It's the group's article. I think there's enough merit to the alternative version that I think it would do well as the core around which we could add stuff from the current article. I think the layout is good, and while it has obvious spelling/grammar issues as well as a lack of sourcing, it's still a good article, and I think that with some work in combining the two, we can have a lot better article overall.

By these comments, I obviously mean no disrespect to any authors or contributors. I'm just trying to provide another point of view on the (apparently contentious) issue. -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 19:44, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Thanks. So this confoirms my claim that at least there are some people, who agree that my article is better organized. If this is so, this also confirms my claim that my article is a better startpoint, since its structure is better. The better parts of Gareth's article can be incorporated in my article better, then the other way.

--Matthias Brendel 03:37, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Text book/encyclopedia/magazine

So which one are we? A bit of all three?

I have started this section since I think the following comments from above need to be addressed before we discuss content.

"an encyclopaedia does differ from a magazine very much. It is closer to a textbook article"

"Our goal is to create a good encyclopedia, and for this purpose a Wikipedia article is not less worth than any other contribution"

To me the whole problem here is more about presentation than content. Matthias, do you really think we serve the world better by replicating a text book style or britannica? Why can't citizendium do its own thing? Accuracy is critical but i see no problem in experts cherry picking their favourite examples to present in a more essay-like format. Just out of interest, why do you think CZ should be more like a text book? In your opinion is there room for more magazine-like commentary, and if so, how should the interface between the text book and the magazine look?

With regard to CZ being disorganised, this is clearly the case. We have too few editors, policy and style pages are still in flux, approval system is still being worked through by trial and error. And many more issues. However, this is a pilot and we have to start some where. Is it frustrating? Yes, it can be. Will it get better? Yes. You cannot make a difference if you don't hang around. Chris Day (Talk) 13:29, 6 March 2007 (CST)

I just started a thread in the forum that may be better for discussing this topic in depth. See: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,629.0.html Chris Day (Talk) 14:15, 6 March 2007 (CST)

I thought CZ is a free enyclopaedia and not a free magazine. I thpught CZ is a Wikipedia fork, which aims for better content and better organization, but for the same thing: namelly a free encyclopaedia. But maybe Larry did not define this clearly, and I was misslead. I do not see any reason in doing a free magazine.

For me it is obvious that high quality is a more important aspect for CZ than enjoyability (I do not know the best phrase).

I do not see any reason just to try to create something else, while you even do not know, what is that else. I do not contribute to a project, without a clear concept. --Matthias Brendel 03:34, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Matthias, I'm not trying to suggesting that we create something else but I think an encyclopedia can be enjoyable too. This is a modest goal but essential to attract new readers and teach them to love knowledge. Kids have a very short attention span, but once you have their attention who knows what could happen. For me, one of the goals is to get their attention, so readbility and enjoyability are essential for CZ to be worthwhile. My highest priority, however, is accuracy and this is where wikipedia can be very weak, at least in my field of biology. With respect to quality, why do we have to lose enjoyability to achive a high quality product? Wouldn't something that is accurate AND enjoyable be of the highest quality? Chris Day (Talk) 05:30, 7 March 2007 (CST)

To be accurate: my argument was this:

1. My article has a better quality in repsect to neutrality, structure, completeness, and so on. In short is more textbook like.
2. Gareth's article may have several other virtues, but his article is worse in these repsects.
3. Quality is more important than the other virtues. So a textbook like article is better than a magazine like.
4. So if we have to chose a basis, then the textbook articleis better then the magazine like.

Since you agree in all the premises, you have to accept the conclusion. The other things you write about were not a question. I did not write that we shall disregard enjoyability, I sayd that it is secondary to high quality.

So please try to get my argument accurately, and try to argue accurately! --Matthias Brendel 05:58, 7 March 2007 (CST)

I don't understand why i have to accept one or the other re: your previous poll and again your argument above. While you do not write "we shall disregard enjoyability" you do say "So if we have to chose a basis, then the textbook article is better then the magazine like." My argument is that we need to write something that inlcudes the best of both. We need to blend, not throw out one or the other. Chris Day (Talk) 06:12, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Because we have to chose a basis. Currently the magazine article is chosen and Gareth tries to make it closer to my article. But the other way is better. Lets take my article and put in ther what is better in Gareth's. In my opinion Gareth's article is still fundamentally wrong. Wrong in structure, wrong in focus.

--Matthias Brendel 06:20, 7 March 2007 (CST)

the atmosphere this article breaths

is one of middle aged women joining on their weekly gossip meeting - and the topic this time is the method, uhm method? yes the scientific method. Lets have another sherry shan't we?? The topic seems to be forgotten in personal debates, arguments are seldom on topic or in place. For those interested it might be new, but confer to the books written by Störig. Robert Tito | Talk 14:57, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Where to start

I'm interested in contributing to this article, but want to find the top priority area for specific improvement first, especially since a lot of work has been done already. Can anyone suggest a particular part or issue that's the best point of attack, before I move in on the text? I can see there is a lot of solid content in Mathias' alternative document, but the issue is where to we insert some of the additional content in the existing article. I can see that content like logical positive thought and the Vienna Circle are not developed extensively in the existing article, but I think the alternative text needs work on how it presents them.David Tribe 17:16, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Mathias' major problem, after style, appears to be structure. So i agree with you that the major issue, to reach harmony here, appears to be where to insert it. Once we have a structure that we can all agree on, then we can worry more about the content. Chris Day (Talk) 17:46, 6 March 2007 (CST)

TOPIC

All remarks should be within the topic. Remember the scientific method is about verifying or falsifying theories by using experimental observations. It is not used to prove experimentally derived experiments to prove something not theoretically defined.

Please stay on topic and do not use personal arguments, as scholar you should use the science as argument not the person. Robert Tito | Talk 21:16, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Structure

The structure is like this currently:

"1 Elements of scientific method 2 Hypotheses and theories 3 The scientific method in practice 3.1 Hypotheses 3.2 Experiments and observations 3.3 Peer review 3.4 The scientific literature 3.5 Confirmation 3.6 Statistics 3.7 Progress in science 4 Alternative views 5 See also 6 Notes and references 7 External links "

1, 2 and 3 is redundant. 2 shall be a part of 1, since hypotheses and theories are elements of scientific method. 3 is the same as 1 should be. I do not see any reason to list the elements of scientific method again. Important topics are missing, like philosophycal issues, and models of scientific method, which are important for the philosophycally interrested reader.

Why can't we use my structure from User:Matthias Brendel/Scientific method, which is better?

--Matthias Brendel 04:12, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Introduction

The current introduction is:

• Too short
• Not neutral. There is not even a hint that some philosophers do not agree with the nomological-deductive model, and that there are even philosophers, who claim there is no method, or are against method.

Why can't we use my introduction from User:Matthias Brendel/Scientific method, which is more detalied and more neutral?

--Matthias Brendel 04:15, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Your intro is too long by at least a third. I think we should rewrite an intro that is neither too long nor too short, but just right :-) - ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 11:36, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Can you suggest any sentence, which I can delete? I could not.

--Matthias Brendel 11:52, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Content

This is not my article it is CZ's. I have provided content that I can affirm to be accurate and verifiable; I have checked all references to Popper Kuhn and Feyeraband both against the original texts and any interpretation of them against other commentaries. Certainy this tect is selective, selective because of my own particular knowledge; I was taught philoophy at university for example by Popper's biographer, David Miller, so it is inevitable that I know more about him than others. However it would be very hard to escape Popper, as he is a rare case of a philosopher whose work has had a major impact on the thinking od scientists and the practice of science. In part this was through his collaborations with and promotion by Einstein, Medawar and Eccles in particular, and perhaps therefore greater in the UK than elsewhere, but the Logic is phenmenally highly cited and influential. (Incidentally Mathias, your assertion that Popper "followed" Pierce, if it implies derivation as it seems to, is inconsistent with Popper's assertion that he was unfamiliar with Pierce's work until after he had published the Logic). Kuhn's book of course is even more highly cited, and these two dwarf all other texts at least in this measure of impact. Feyeraband selects himself in part for his contrariness to Popper and in part because (I think) his views chime with those probably of most scientists, but I may be wrong in that.

Actually I wholly agree with Mathias that the Introduction was unbalanced in not referring to the dissent; this has been a clear misunderstanding because I'd earlier moved Feyeraband from prominence at the beginning to a passage at the end because of an earlier apparently oppodite concern from Mathias, that the article introduced dissenting views too early. I'm very happy to redress this, and have done so.

Popper Kuhn and Feyeraband had one thing in common; they all strongly affirmed that what they were doing was reporting on what scientists actually did. So I do think that scientists have a legitimate interest in and voice in this article. Clearly it is at present consistent with what I know, from my own experience, of the practice of science.

I don't think I've ever suggested that the article shouldn't be expanded. Just that I'm not able to write with any confidence on all things. That is why we collaborate, after all.

However, I think that Mathias's comments point to an apparent solution; Citizendium does not at present have an article on Models of scientific inquiry that Mathias' version links to. Creating that article and linking to it from here would address the content deficiency.

Gareth Leng 05:09, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Written before reading Gareth above)

Looking at both Introductions, I'd say the current one is clearly better in terms of style, simplicity and reader friendliness. I'm not sure that longer is better, and Im not sure its undesirably less than neutral. On the other hand the section (boxed) 'Elements of scientific' method in the alternative seems nicely organised and to be useful addition, although in could be edited with benefit.

The complete restructuring of what has been produced so far worries me a bit in terms of rudeness to those who have put a lot in already. Why not try an work up Elements of scientific method box early in the article and see how we go? David Tribe 05:21, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Gareth:

1) Popper is one influential philosopher of science. You may be well trained on Popper and Kuhn, but that is very narrow. I have a broader training. Beside Kuhn, Popper and Feyerabend, Carnap, Hempel, Lakatos, Toulmin, Barnes & Bloor, and a lot of other philosophers are also relevant.

2)Your training is very English-focused. Popper had a great influence in the English speaking world, because he was in England and published in English. He is a little bit over-valued in the English-speaking world. You native English tend to forget about the other parts of the world.

So I think you have too much attention on Popper and Kuhn and too few on others. Actually, you only have English authors in your article (from the middle ages on). That is too narrow.

--Matthias Brendel 06:08, 7 March 2007 (CST)

David: Yes, it is becomming better. I still favour my version. areth's is a little bit too brief for me still.

--Matthias Brendel 06:08, 7 March 2007 (CST)

I've had a go at the box; if it can be shifted to the right alongside the Contents it might work well? I wouldn't know about how to value philosophers except by their impact. Actually Popper first published in German and it was through Einstein (in German) that he first achieved prominence, but most (all?) of those philosophers you mention published in English and worked in the UK or USA. Certainly I have been selective in describing views that I know to have been influential in science. You're obviously including the USA as English; Kuhn is not English, and of the scientists mentioned, Einstein, Heisenberg, Kekule... ? From 1935 Carnap was in the USA. Gareth Leng 06:17, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Yes of course, philosophers have to be valued by their influence. But global, not only English-world influence. And certainly after the WWII, almost all the prominent philosophers in philosophy of science published in English. Still, you do not seem to know a bit about logical positivism for example. That is completly missing from your article.

On the other hand, you do not seem to know about the movements in philosophy of science. You mention Popper and Kuhn. But where do they belong to and why? Popper and Kuhn are two representatives of two branches of philosophy of science. What are these branches? I have in my structure the name of the the philosophycal movements and models. My article is STURTCURED.

And to be precise, it was Carnap, who made Popper well known in the world. LSD was published with the help of the VC. --Matthias Brendel 06:28, 7 March 2007 (CST)

"The book was brought to Einstein’s attention through musical connections. Popper’s friend Rudolf Serkin played with the Busch Chamber Orchestra and had recently married Adolf and Frieda Busch’s daughter. Frieda knew Einstein, now in Princeton, through his violin-playing. In April 1935 she sent him a copy of Logik der Forschung, explaining that the author was a Jew living in Vienna and hence had no prospects: ‘Have the great kindness to read the attached book. Your judgement, in case it is favorable to Popper, could perhaps help him to get somewhere!’ Not long afterwards the young secondary school teacher received a letter from Einstein which began: ‘Your book pleased me very much in many respects.’ He liked its rejection of the ‘inductive method’ in favour of falsifiability as the decisive feature of scientific theories; purged of certain mistakes the book ‘will be really splendid’. He offered to help in getting it known. Popper replied deferentially, but at some length, standing his ground where he thought he had been right. This elicited the reply from Einstein that appears in Appendix *xii of The Logic of Scientific Discovery."Gareth Leng 07:04, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Einstein, Kekule and Heisenberg are not prominent philosophers of science. They were prominently scientists. You have too many scientists in your article.

--Matthias Brendel 06:29, 7 March 2007 (CST)

It is true that I have a deep antipathy to labels, unless absolutely necessary, believing that the text should be self explanatory. I have no objection to linking to articles about particular movements or schools of thought, where these can be adequately explained.

I also have an antipathy to statements about what most philosophers or most scientists think, as I have no idea how to verify this. It's something I tried to avoid, as the tone implies argument by authority and elevates some views above others in a way that is unneccessary. I can live with a bit of this, but I don't like it.Gareth Leng 07:24, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Gareth: Exactly that is why your article is not organized, since you do not like labels. But an encyclopaedia has to have labels, and Wikis have sections, and those are for labeling, categorizing content in an organized way. You do not like this, that is why your article is not organized.

And an encyclopaedia has to state something about how a view is accepted. It has to name prominent views, videlly accepted views, minority views and so on. This is a task of an ancylopaedia. That is what the reader is awaiting.

If you ommit this, then you get an article, which is only your personal picture about this topic. It will not be an encyclopaedia article.

--Matthias Brendel 08:40, 7 March 2007 (CST)

No, you've misunderstood. It's labels like "Critical Rationalist Model" that I dislike, because it is not self explanatory, the label either has to be explained or else it stands as jargon between the reader and the meaning. And no, I don't consider that this article has to or should come to any judgement between majority and minority views in articles like this. Why? And how can it be verified? The principles by which I try to write is that it is not our job to make up the reader's mind for him, but to a) stimulate his interest to find out more and b) empower him the power to think for himself. We can report facts and opinions. But where there are different opinions on a topic, we do not decide between them by weighing majorities but indicate the arguments and leave it to the reader.Gareth Leng 08:58, 7 March 2007 (CST)

"Critical Rationalism" is a terminus technicus for the view of Popper and his followers. He named himself this way. It is quite selfexplanatory. But the thing is that this is the experts way of describing things. If you do not know this, then you are not an expert. And you are not writing an encyclopaedia.

"The principles by which I try to write is that it is not our job to make up the reader's mind for him, but to a) stimulate his interest to find out more and b) empower him the power to think for himself."

The job for an encyclopaedia is exactly what you reject, and not what you favour. Write your own book if you want what you describe here! That is nice tought, but not an encyclopaedia.

In an encylcopeadia facts are categorized, opinions are categorized and majority opinion IS INDICATED.

You do not just state that creationism and evolutionism exist, you also indicate, which is the accepted or majority view of science. That is not to decide the truth, but indicate some facts about the opinions. That is also a fact.

--Matthias Brendel 09:38, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Yes I know that Popper described his views of Critical Rationalism. But does that name tell anyone what his views were, or indeed anything about them at all? This is why it is not self explanatory. As for the rest, I guess this is a matter for Citizendium neutrality policy.Gareth Leng 09:49, 7 March 2007 (CST)

No, it is not. The problem is that you do not understand that an encyclopaedia uses such labels. It is unavoidable. If you do not like it, do not write encyclopaedias!

--Matthias Brendel 09:57, 7 March 2007 (CST)

"Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. He was also a social and political philosopher of considerable stature, a self-professed critical-rationalist"

[1]

This is what encylopaedias do. They label, that is their job. Iy you do not like this, then you are in the wrong project.

--Matthias Brendel 10:06, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Impasse

The Stanford Encyclopedia article on Karl Popper uses the term once, to explain that Popper described himself as a ‘critical-rationalist’. This is of course true; the categorisation is circular (Popper introduced the term to summarise his views) and its meaning not self evident. I don't see what meaning is added to the article by mentioning it.

There are two issues; one is avoiding jargon wherever possible, the second is actively avoiding judgements but confining the writing to facts and reporting selected notable opinions. A statement that an opinion is a majority opinion is a) implied argument by authority and b) requires either verification or clear editorial authority, and in my view should be applied very sparingly. These key issues of readability and neutrality are clearly stumbling blocks that separates your concept from mine. Gareth Leng 11:28, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Gareth: No.

1) jargon shall not be avoided, since this is an ENCYCLOPAEDIA. Do you understand this?! You may explain jargons, but the goal of an encyclopaedia is to contain quality knowledge. I.e. something like the experts knowledge clarified and simplyfied a little bit and mad understandable for a laymen. And actually the term "critical rationalist" is describing quite accuratelly Popper's standpoint. So we shall use jargons wherever possible and translate it also to the laymen. Both are needed.

2) Knowledge shall be structured.

3) This article is not about Popper. Popper is here only an example for a view. The naming of the movement is more important than the person of Popper. It is more important to describe the critical rationalists view then to describe Popper's philosophy. The later is described int he article about popper.

4) We do not want a random sample of some philosophers, but an organized collection of views on this topic.

5) You stick to "critical rationalism", but you also avoid other terms, like logical positivism, historic turn, social school of knowledge and other branches. You miss a lot of views in your article, and you miss a lot of philosophers. I tried to list all the schools relevant for methodology and represent them by the most relevant philosophers.

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

7) Verification: how do you verify that Popper is influential philosopher? The same way you can verify which view is a common, an accepted or a minority view. So you must have the answer yourself. If you do not have an answer thern you can not pick Popper and kuhn as prominent philosophers.

--Matthias Brendel 11:51, 7 March 2007 (CST)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

I would like to add that the wiki is simply not the place to attempt to adjudicate personal disputes you have with others. We have an adjudication process, which you may attempt to invoke if you remain a member in good standing, and which it is our duty to execute with impartiality. But it would be very much contrary to "due process" and to civil working relations if we use the wiki to settle complaints. --Larry Sanger 13:47, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Scientific institutions

What about developining some of the topics by describing current scientific institutions (the republic of science, scholarly behavior, scientific journals, competitive research funding and so on. Or may thats for elsewhere? Just a conjecture :o)David Tribe 18:20, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Personally I think that would be valuable. The practise of science is extensively governed by the gatekeepers of funding and publication, and perhaps Good Laboratory Practise should be mentioned.

On other issues, I found that this article from Carnap, wgich I've added to the reading list, may be helpful for the basis of expansion, for three reasons, first to distinguisgs between what philosophers understand by observables and what scientists understand by this. Second the ditinction between empirical "laws" and theoretical laws, and third, relating to this the very concept of a law; obviously in biology we don't talk much about laws but do in physics. Carnap R (1966) Theories and Nonobservablesfrom Philosophical Foundations of Physics

Another possibility would be a section on "thought experiments" - notably Einstein's, but the Galileo Tower of Pisa "experiment" was really a thought experiment (although practically executed in a different form)

Again, something neglected here (and in most accounts) is method in "big science", the human genome project and particle accelerators for example. This is different in being goal driven rather than hypothesis led.

Another issue relates to medicine - in what sense if any is medicine scientific?

I removed the sections on reductionism and measurement to reductionism, but I do think that reductionism should be covered here to some extent, and the section on measurement might fit in the context of a section on observables?

Obviously the structure that I attempted was to take a structured account (from CancerUK) of actual practise, and and break it down with each elements accompanied by some explanation and some commentary introducing related issues. A problem is that this is an account of method in biological sciences, and accounts in other areas of science might be very different. If so I don't think it would help to try to develop a generalised method, but it might be good to present the flows separately, as contrasting examples of scientific method in practice.

I don't want any appearance of my owning this article so would prefer to step away from this now. What I had implictly proposed was that this article a) be readable for a lay person, and be intended more as an introduction for scientists to the philosophical issues and considerations behind what they do, than as an precis for philosophers about movements within philosophy. b) that it should not attempt to prescribe what scientists ought to be doing, but describe what they actually do, with philosophical commentary on that. c) that it should acknowledge the diversity of scientific practise and the diversity of views held about method d) I wanted an article with authority (carefully referenced to on line available links, and judiciously selective in its choice of examples and issues to introduce) but that did not trespass into a tone of argument from authority

It would also be good I think to think about illustrations. The history of course has a separate article, so Galileo and Hume are not mentioned here for example, and the history provides a rich source of possible illustrations.

I'd favour some examples to bring abstract concepts alive, However rather than recycling Newton, Ptolemy and Copernicus, perhaps a sustaned example from Earth Sciences - plate tectonics perhaps - could be given a section as an example of a scientific revolution, an initially highly controversial hypothesis that became a theory validated by observations (geological continuity in strata now widely separated) and experimental tests (of the rate of movement of plates), with explanatory power (to understand the distribution of volcanos)? Just a suggestion.

Wishing you all well.Gareth Leng 06:11, 8 March 2007 (CST)

An observation on 'method' article

I can see why the 'scientific method' article is so controversial. The frequent citation of Peter Medwar in this particular version is a classic sign of Popperian devotion. Still, any article purporting to state what is the scientific method will open a can of worms.

The various different theories of 'scientific method' remain highly debated, as is the basic question of whether there is any one such method. I should think that an historical account presenting the different major traditions of thought -- induction, deduction, abduction (pragmatism), hypothetico-deductivism, the current 'empirical' trend of just describing what scientists do (etc) -- together with the contrasts between positions would be useful, in providing readers with a basic understanding of what has been said and what is currently disputed. That is, how about simply describing the debate?

I wonder if the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/) might be willing to allow links or abridged excerpts? That way we might, in fairly little space, be able to describe the alternatives and allow readers to pursue further.

Nick Rasmussen

Thanks Nick and welcome.It's certainly true that Popper has been a huge influence on scientists in the UK, (hypothesis-driven science has been the key word in Research Council guidance on grants for a long time now), and a lot of that has been indirectly through Medawar. One of the things to be aware of is that there is a separate article onHistory of scientific method - hence this was conceived as focussed on the scientific method in current practise.Gareth Leng 11:11, 9 March 2007 (CST)

Please see the copyright statement for the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy: <http://plato.stanford.edu/info.html#c> The encyclopedia project has the right to distribute it on the web or prepare derivative works, but the individual authors have the copyright in their individual articles. They do not use a GNU or GFDL license. There is no way we can incorporate text from there beyond fair use, unless both the authors and the encyclopedia release it into the public domain. I do not think that likely. What we can do, is refer to it for a more formally academic treatment of many of our topics. DavidGoodman 04:19, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

The current article is not really about "the scientific method" as much as the Methodology of Science. By the latter I mean, the ways scientists go about practicing their profession.

By the former, I mean a short (4-step) procedure used by scientists to confirm or refute a specific discovery. This "method" is more of a checklist, to ensure you've done your homework.

Proper scientific methodology usually requires four steps:

1. Observation. Objectivity is very important at this stage.
2. The inducement of general hypotheses or possible explanations for what has been observed. Here one must be imaginative yet logical. Occam's Razor should be considered but need not be strictly applied: Entia non sunt multiplicanda, or as it is usually paraphrased, the simplest hypothesis is the best. Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
3. The deduction of corollary assumptions that must be true if the hypothesis is true. Specific testable predictions are made based on the initial hypothesis.
4. Testing the hypothesis by investigating and confirming the deduced implications. Observation is repeated and data is gathered with the goal of confirming or falsifying the initial hypothesis.

Pseudoscience often omits the last two steps above. [2]

For me, the most important part of this 4-step process is where it recommends drawing conclusions from the hypothesis. The scientist then compares each conclusion with the facts. Any facts which contradict a conclusion invalidate the hypothesis.

Logically, it works like this:

• Hypothesis: the moon is made of green cheese.
  1. If this is true, then the spectrum of light coming from the moon should match the spectrum for green cheese.
  2. Astronomer X did a spectral analysis of moonlight and found that it did not match green cheese.
  3. Therefore, the hypothesis is untrue.

If you want an example that isn't so light-hearted, we could list the criteria used by medical researchers to determine whether a particular germ causes a disease. Such factors as:

• Does the disease ever occur without the presence of the germ (or at least antibodies indicating its presence)?
• Does the germ ever appear without the disease manifesting? If so, how much? Is there a threshold?

I think this was used in determining whether e. coli bacteria in water makes people sick. --Ed Poor 10:42, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Ed, all due respect, your understanding of the scientific method makes sense, and sounds good- but is off, whereas Gareth's is extremely sophisticated, and despite that-(or maybe because of it) sounds wrong. Everything you are saying is smart and well written, - but at least after "Logically, it works like this:", it is also completely incorrect. (Ouch!! sorry, I mean it with a giggle, but still, it's true) In fact, the lack of the ability to confirm that the spectral analysis of green cheese matches that of moonlight in no way proves that the moon is not made out of green cheese. It could be that the spectrographer was inexperienced and read the machine incorectly. It could be that some artiifact interefered with the reading. It could be that the type of green cheese that the moon is made out of gives off a different wavelength than green cheese on earth. Negative evidence never is proof. The proof for a germ causing a disease that you list is also naive, and unfortunately has been used by many physicians to mistreat patients- despite good intentions. Please understand,I am not trying to put you down- I just think that this point is at the very heart of this article. You are presenting a common, perhaps even majority view, which is actually incorrect. In the scientific method, the logic has to be proveable- the proof has to be positive. Again, if a person is found with a disease and the germ and antibodies are not found, this in no way proves that the disease can be caused without the germ. What it shows is that the presence of the germ cannot be proven in that person with current methods. It actually happens all the time. Sometimes, with more sophisticated tests the person can be shown to have evidence of the germ. Of course, it may be that the person does not have the germ, but that cannot be proven by the lack of a positive result. Koch's postulates, that are used to prove infectious cause of disease work differently, by positive evidence. Anyway, it is really possible to have a false negaitive and sometimes, that will be found in every single case. For eaxmple, it is very hard to culture spirochetes, and so an attempt at culturing the organisms for syphilis and Lyme diseas will always, unless extremely special methods are used that are only avaiable in a couple of research labs, come up negative-even when only people who are infected are cultured. In other cases, a culture or antibody test to identify an organism will not be positive, but still the organism is there, and the negative result is due to some glitch in timing (the person was infected 3 days ago, and although most infectede people show antibodies, this person has not yet begun producing them) or the specific way the test was done (the culture is usually positive, but in this case the culture plate was left out of the incubator too long). I say patients have been mistreated because sometimes doctors have depended completely onthe results of lab tests without really thinking about the limits of proof, and in this way denied antibiotics to those with Anthrax, and transfused blood from high risk patients if the antibody test for HIV was negative. All these tests have limitations and no test that fails to show a result is proof, ever.PS-I made the same mistake in Pseudoscience when talking about narcotic drugs that are found to be "not addictive" and stood corrected, myself. Nancy Sculerati 10:43, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Bayesian inference

Somewhat ironically, I just stumbled across Probability yesterday, and today I just stumbled across this article. It seems that the familiar (and misleadling) truism that "you can't prove a negative" is causing a lot of (potentially) unnecessary angst. If you don't accept Kolmogorov's axioms or, at least, some axiomatization of probablitly, then any mathematical analysis is going to be meaningless. B ut if I observe that on 100 cloudless days it does not rain, I actually am collecting quantifiable information on the likelihood of rain on a cloudy day (assuming I also pay attention to how ofen it rains, and how often it is cloudy!) Of course, this doesn't really address the epistemologic issues raised here, but it does seem to me that arguments about "negative" evidence being unable to support positive assertions are basically fallacious. Greg Woodhouse 11:57, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Popper's attack on Bayes was founded in logic: a universal statement of the form "All swans are white" is logically equivalent to the statement "all non-white things are not swans". Thus if you accept that you can infer the truth of the first statement by mere observation of white swans, you must equally accept that you can infer its truth by sufficient observation of non-white things that aren't swans. As few will accept that observing that blades of grass are green would ever be good grounds for believing that all swans are white, Popper concluded that it is logically invalid to infer a universal from any finite set of observations. More generally, he declared that to do so is unwise because there may be any number of different possible explanations for any finite set of observations. Accordingly he argued that instead we propose a hypothesis and seek to disprove it, not to support it.

Medicine, as Nancy says, at its best proceeds in exactly this way: diagnosis is made not by observing symptoms, as many different diseases produce similar systems. Instead, diagnosis proceeds by a process of exclusion, by considering possible causes, and seeking by further tests to exclude them as actual causes. What survives this process is regarded as the most likely diagnosis.

In science generally, confirmatory evidence of the sort you describe is not looked on favourably. There are many reasons for this, but one is simply that we often see what we wish to see, and tend to report that which is consistent with what we would like to believe and disregard that which is consistent. Knowing this weakness in ourselves, we distrust it when we see it in others. Gareth Leng 13:00, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

But the point is- a negative test, by itself, does not exclude the diagnosis. Nancy Sculerati 13:05, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Indeed, doubt is eternal. (Well, until the pathologist gets there anyway).Gareth Leng 13:31, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

"Negative" evidence needs some defining I think. Negative evidence in the sense of the failure to observe an expected effect is generally considered weak for many reasons (lack of evidence is not evidence of lack being one reason). It is certainly not possible to show absolutely that there is no effect from any measurements, only that the effect may be smaller than the ability to detect it. However as Nancy says, science is full of examples of false negatives caused by a wide variety of factors.

However experiments to exclude a cause are not negative evidence in this sense. For example, if a child of otherwise normal proportions and in good health is growing only slowly, the physician might suspect a disorder in the endocrine regulation of bone growth. One cause of dwarfism is a congenital failure to synthesize growth hormone, and a blood sample may well reveal that growth hormone is absent. However this is now known to be unreliable, with a high incidence of false negatives, as growth hormone is secreted not continuously but intermittently. In fact this is not the only explanation - another is that it is the receptors for growth hormone that are absent, and a third is that the signal from the hypothalamus - the growth hormone releasing factor - is absent. So there are at least three plausible hypotheses for the failure to grow. The physician can begin by attempting to exclude each in turn. If you give the child an injection of GRF, then this should elicit a release of GH if GH is being made by the pituitary. In this case if there is an observed release then the hypothesis of a lack of GH production is excluded - excluded by positive demonstration. However again the failure to see GH secretion may be a false negative, in this case either because the defect may be a lack of GRF receptors, or an excess of somatostatin, which is an inhibitory factor that can override the actions of GRF. The first can be excluded by challenging with a different GH secretagogue, say ghrelin which acts through a separate receptors. A response to secretagogue will exclude a lack of GH production, leaving a specific defect in the GRF receptors as the remaining likely cause.

The point is in all this the logical process is to exclude plausible hypotheses systematically, rather than to try to verify one in particular.

Having said that, in science all paths are open and all are taken. Nevertheless many of the most influential experiments in science are designed in the following way: from a generally accepted theory and a given set of observations draw a conclusion A, find a different explanation for the set of observations, B. Design an experiment where A implies one outcome and B a different outcome. Do the experiment to disprove either A or B. The surviving hypothesis is not "proved", it merely survives while the other falls.Gareth Leng 03:27, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Gareth, I myself (let's stay in context and not read the last thing and jump to conclusions) am not given to philosophical discourse. Please read Ed's example of disproving the moon is made of green cheese, and my reply. If you disagree with my reply, please let me know. I know that I can learn from you. If you don't, you might say so- so as to avoid leaving that impression here. Nancy Sculerati 08:14, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Sorry to get sidetracked, I fully agree with your reply to Ed. The thread above was really addressed to Greg's comments on Bayesian inference and negative evidence, not a qualification of your response above.Gareth Leng 10:46, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

It's interesting that you use medicine as an example, too, because this seems to me to be the model par excellence of Bayesian inference. Think about it: a patient presents with difficulty breathing. Is he a smoker? No. Well, that decreases the likelihood of emphysema somewhat. does he have any (known) allergies? No. Well, that decreases the likelihood of an allergic reaction. Is he over 40? Yes. Well, that makes heart disease a more likely possibility. His blood pressure is 170/110. Oops. Now, that really does make heart disease looke more likely. You get the idea. (Caveat: I'm not a doctor, so I make no claim that this scenario is realistic.) Like Nancy(?), I'm really less interested in philosophical discussions than I am in a practical understanding of scientific inquiry, and Bayesian inference seems to me to have the advantage of plausibility (no one would go about testing the hypothesis that all swans are white by examining every non-white thing they can find to see if it is, in fact, not a swan) and the added advantage of being practical from an implementation standpoint (i.e., programs can be written to implement Bayesian networks). Greg Woodhouse 16:50, 16 May 2007 (CDT)