We do not have a fixed scientific method to rally around and defend. Reference to the scientific method has also often been used to argue for the scientific nature or special status of a particular activity.
Philosophical positions that argue for a simple and unique scientific method as a criterion of demarcation, such as Popperian falsification, have often attracted practitioners who felt that they had a need to defend their domain of practice. For example, references to conjectures and refutation as the scientific method are abundant in much of the literature on complementary and alternative medicine CAM —alongside the competing position that CAM, as an alternative to conventional biomedicine, needs to develop its own methodology different from that of science.
Also within mainstream science, reference to the scientific method is used in arguments regarding the internal hierarchy of disciplines and domains.
A frequently seen argument is that research based on the H-D method is superior to research based on induction from observations because in deductive inferences the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
See, e. In some areas of science, scholarly publications are structured in a way that may convey the impression of a neat and linear process of inquiry from stating a question, devising the methods by which to answer it, collecting the data, to drawing a conclusion from the analysis of data.
However, scientific publications do not in general reflect the process by which the reported scientific results were produced. Publications of research results, they argue, are retrospective reconstructions of these activities that often do not preserve the temporal order or the logic of these activities, but are instead often constructed in order to screen off potential criticism see Schickore for a review of this work.
Philosophical positions on the scientific method have also made it into the court room, especially in the US where judges have drawn on philosophy of science in deciding when to confer special status to scientific expert testimony. Further, referring to works of Popper and Hempel the court stated that.
Justice Blackmun, Daubert v. The difficulties around identifying the methods of science are also reflected in the difficulties of identifying scientific misconduct in the form of improper application of the method or methods of science.
One of the first and most influential attempts at defining misconduct in science was the US definition from that defined misconduct as. Code of Federal Regulations, part 50, subpart A. For example, the National Academy of Science stated in their report Responsible Science that it. NAS: This clause was therefore later removed from the definition. The question of the source of the success of science has been at the core of philosophy since the beginning of modern science.
If viewed as a matter of epistemology more generally, scientific method is a part of the entire history of philosophy. Over that time, science and whatever methods its practitioners may employ have changed dramatically. Today, many philosophers have taken up the banners of pluralism or of practice to focus on what are, in effect, fine-grained and contextually limited examinations of scientific method.
Others hope to shift perspectives in order to provide a renewed general account of what characterizes the activity we call science. One such perspective has been offered recently by Hoyningen-Huene , , who argues from the history of philosophy of science that after three lengthy phases of characterizing science by its method, we are now in a phase where the belief in the existence of a positive scientific method has eroded and what has been left to characterize science is only its fallibility.
First was a phase from Plato and Aristotle up until the 17 th century where the specificity of scientific knowledge was seen in its absolute certainty established by proof from evident axioms; next was a phase up to the mid th century in which the means to establish the certainty of scientific knowledge had been generalized to include inductive procedures as well.
In the third phase, which lasted until the last decades of the 20 th century, it was recognized that empirical knowledge was fallible, but it was still granted a special status due to its distinctive mode of production.
For Hoyningen-Huene, this is too negative a stance, and he therefore urges the question about the nature of science anew. Systematicity can have several different dimensions: among them are more systematic descriptions, explanations, predictions, defense of knowledge claims, epistemic connectedness, ideal of completeness, knowledge generation, representation of knowledge and critical discourse. Hence, what characterizes science is the greater care in excluding possible alternative explanations, the more detailed elaboration with respect to data on which predictions are based, the greater care in detecting and eliminating sources of error, the more articulate connections to other pieces of knowledge, etc.
On this position, what characterizes science is not that the methods employed are unique to science, but that the methods are more carefully employed. Another, similar approach has been offered by Haack She sets off, similar to Hoyningen-Huene, from a dissatisfaction with the recent clash between what she calls Old Deferentialism and New Cynicism. The Old Deferentialist position is that science progressed inductively by accumulating true theories confirmed by empirical evidence or deductively by testing conjectures against basic statements; while the New Cynics position is that science has no epistemic authority and no uniquely rational method and is merely just politics.
Haack insists that contrary to the views of the New Cynics, there are objective epistemic standards, and there is something epistemologically special about science, even though the Old Deferentialists pictured this in a wrong way. Instead, she offers a new Critical Commonsensist account on which standards of good, strong, supportive evidence and well-conducted, honest, thorough and imaginative inquiry are not exclusive to the sciences, but the standards by which we judge all inquirers.
In this sense, science does not differ in kind from other kinds of inquiry, but it may differ in the degree to which it requires broad and detailed background knowledge and a familiarity with a technical vocabulary that only specialists may possess. Overview and organizing themes 2. Historical Review: Aristotle to Mill 3. Logic of method and critical responses 3. H-D as a logic of confirmation 3. Popper and falsificationism 3. Statistical methods for hypothesis testing 5. Method in Practice 5.
Discourse on scientific method 6. Overview and organizing themes This entry could have been given the title Scientific Methods and gone on to fill volumes, or it could have been extremely short, consisting of a brief summary rejection of the idea that there is any such thing as a unique Scientific Method at all.
Historical Review: Aristotle to Mill Attempting a history of scientific method compounds the vast scope of the topic. Logic of method and critical responses The quantum and relativistic revolutions in physics in the early 20 th century had a profound effect on methodology.
H-D as a logic of confirmation The standard starting point for a non-inductive analysis of the logic of confirmation is known as the Hypothetico-Deductive H-D method. Method may therefore be relative to discipline, time or place Feyerabend also identified the aims of science as progress, but argued that any methodological prescription would only stifle that progress Feyerabend Statistical methods for hypothesis testing Despite the many difficulties that philosophers encountered in trying to providing a clear methodology of conformation or refutation , still important progress has been made on understanding how observation can provide evidence for a given theory.
Method in Practice Attention to scientific practice, as we have seen, is not itself new. However, Nersessian also emphasizes that creative model-based reasoning cannot be applied as a simple recipe, is not always productive of solutions, and even its most exemplary usages can lead to incorrect solutions. Nersessian 11 Thus, while on the one hand she agrees with many previous philosophers that there is no logic of discovery, discoveries can derive from reasoned processes, such that a large and integral part of scientific practice is the creation of concepts through which to comprehend, structure, and communicate about physical phenomena ….
Discourse on scientific method Despite philosophical disagreements, the idea of the scientific method still figures prominently in contemporary discourse on many different topics, both within science and in society at large. Further, referring to works of Popper and Hempel the court stated that ordinarily, a key question to be answered in determining whether a theory or technique is scientific knowledge … is whether it can be and has been tested. One of the first and most influential attempts at defining misconduct in science was the US definition from that defined misconduct as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community.
For example, the National Academy of Science stated in their report Responsible Science that it wishes to discourage the possibility that a misconduct complaint could be lodged against scientists based solely on their use of novel or unorthodox research methods. NAS: 27 This clause was therefore later removed from the definition. Conclusion The question of the source of the success of science has been at the core of philosophy since the beginning of modern science.
Bibliography Aikenhead, G. Allchin, D. Andersen and K. Anderson, C. Schickore and F. Steinle eds. Barnes, J.
Barnes, B. Hollis and S. Lukes eds. Bauer, H. Bechtel, W. Berkeley, G. Jesseph trans. Blachowicz, J. Bloor, D. Boyle, R. Bridgman, P. Burian, R. Carnap, R. Carrol, S. Churchman, C. Cooper, J. Darden, L. Douglas, H. Elliott, K. Richards eds. Feyerabend, P. Fisher, R. Series B Methodological , 17 1 : 69— Foster, K. Huber, , Judging Science. Fox Keller, E. Radder ed.
Gilbert, G. Gimbel, S. Goodman, N. Haack, S. Hangel, N. Hempel, C. Holmes, F. Howard, D. Richardson eds. Hoyningen-Huene, P. Howie, D. Hughes, R. Morgan and M. Morrison eds. Fate Norton and M. Norton eds. Humphreys, P.
Kaufmann, W. Knorr-Cetina, K. Krohs, U. Kuhn, T. Laudan, L. Lenhard, J. Leonelli, S. Levi, I. Lipton, P. Marks, H. Mazzochi, F. Mayo, D. McComas, W. Medawar, P. Mill, J. Robson ed. Nersessian, N. Nersessian ed. Newton, I. Cohen and A. Whitman trans. Neyman, J. Series B Methodological , — Nickles, T. Pitt ed. Nicod, J. Nola, R. Norton, S. Miller and P. Edwards eds.
Haufe, K. Elliot, and R. Oreskes, N. Shrader-Frechette, and K. Osborne, J. Simon, and S. Parascandola, M. Parker, W. Pearson, K. Dents and Sons, Pearson, E. Pickering, A. Popper, K. Rudner, R. Rudolph, J. Schickore, J. Shank, J. Shapin, S. Smith, G.
Cohen and G. Smith eds. Snyder, L. Sober, E. Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all the things in the universe. The word "science" is derived from the Latin word scientia , which is knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. True to this definition, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis.
Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. One important aspect of the scientific process is that it is focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California. Anything that is considered supernatural does not fit into the definition of science.
So the first step in identifying questions and generating possible answers hypotheses is also very important and is a creative process. Then once you collect the data you analyze it to see if your hypothesis is supported or not. The scientific method and science in general can be frustrating. A theory is almost never proven, though a few theories do become scientific laws. One example would be the laws of conservation of energy, which is the first law of thermodynamics.
Linda Boland, a neurobiologist and chairperson of the biology department at the University of Richmond, Virginia, told Live Science that this is her favorite scientific law. This law continually reminds me of the many forms of energy," she said. A hypothesis is a testable prediction that is arrived at logically from a theory.
Several types of studies exist within the scientific method— experiments, descriptive studies, case studies, surveys, and non-descriptive studies. In an experiment a researcher manipulates certain variables and measures their effect on other variables in a controlled environment. Descriptive studies describe the nature of the relationship between the intended variables, without looking at cause or effect. A case study covers one specific example in which something unusual has occurred.
This is often done in extreme or rare cases, usually with a single subject. Surveys are used with large groups of people who answer questions about specific subjects. Non-descriptive studies use correlational methods to predict the relationship between two or more intended variables. Verifiability means that an experiment must be replicable by another researcher. To achieve verifiability, researchers must make sure to document their methods and clearly explain how their experiment is structured and why it produces certain results.
Predictability in a scientific theory implies that the theory should enable us to make predictions about future events. The precision of these predictions is a measure of the strength of the theory. Falsifiability refers to whether a hypothesis can disproved. For a hypothesis to be falsifiable, it must be logically possible to make an observation or do a physical experiment that would show that there is no support for the hypothesis.
Even when a hypothesis cannot be shown to be false, that does not necessarily mean it is not valid. Future testing may disprove the hypothesis. This does not mean that a hypothesis has to be shown to be false, just that it can be tested. To determine whether a hypothesis is supported or not supported, psychological researchers must conduct hypothesis testing using statistics.
Hypothesis testing is a type of statistics that determines the probability of a hypothesis being true or false. Fairness implies that all data must be considered when evaluating a hypothesis. A researcher cannot pick and choose what data to keep and what to discard or focus specifically on data that support or do not support a particular hypothesis. All data must be accounted for, even if they invalidate the hypothesis.
0コメント