Talk:Scientific method/Draft
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)
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)
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)