Well Tony - Steve appears to have leaped off that fence.

[okiemax]

I respectfully disagree. There are four basic steps to the scientific method:

1. Observe something.

2. Come up with an explanation (an hypothesis) to explain what you observed.

3. Use this explanation to predict new things you would see if the explanation is correct.

4. Put the explanation to the test by finding out if the things you predict will actually occur (through empirical testing).

You can wander in and out of those steps, as I tried to describe in my prior post. But sooner or latter you've got to pass the ultimate test - you must make it past step 4.

See:

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/ph...AppendixE.html

and

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics...00000000000000

Because "method" means procedure or process, the steps seem to imply a recipe or cookbook approach to science, which may be misleading. It ain't necessarily the way things happen, which may be what you mean by "wander in and out." According to William McComas, in his Ten Myths of Science , many pre-college texts are getting away from this list of steps approach in favor of discussions of methods of science:


"Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists


The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many precollege science texts. This myth has been part of the folklore of school science ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson (1937). The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include, a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient.


One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific method may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated.


Philosophers of science who have studied scientists at work have shown that no research method is applied universally (Carey, 1994; Gibbs & Lawson, 1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen, 1989). The notion of a single scientific method is so pervasive it seems certain that many students must be disappointed when they discover that scientists do not have a framed copy of the steps of the scientific method posted high above each laboratory workbench.


Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance. These, of course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers. The lesson to be learned is that science is no different from other human endeavors when puzzles are investigated. Fortunately, this is one myth that may eventually be displaced since many newer texts are abandoning or augmenting the list in favor of discussions of methods of science."

http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html

[skeptic]

"Because "method" means procedure or process, the steps seem to imply a recipe or cookbook approach to science, which may be misleading."

The method is not a cookbook recipe for experiments, it is a cookbook recipe for the logical process of developing, testing, and reformulating conclusions, theories, and ultimately understanding. And there is nothing wrong with it. In fact it is the only system that works. The alternative is religion, a blind faith or the willingness to draw conclusions in an illogical manner.

By demanding that for any conclusions this logical process be explained openly and fully to the greater scientific community, it is inherently exposed to the scrutiny of those who would shoot it down to see if it stands up to the logic claimed for it. And of course, all conclusions in science are tentative until better ones replace it. That is another difference between science and religion, there are NO absolutes.

When people ignore or reject this process, they are no longer scientists but partisan advocates with an emotional attachment for a particular theory. Among "scientists", it happens more often than we'd like to admit.

[okiemax]

"Because "method" means procedure or process, the steps seem to imply a recipe or cookbook approach to science, which may be misleading."

The method is not a cookbook recipe for experiments, it is a cookbook recipe for the logical process of developing, testing, and reformulating conclusions, theories, and ultimately understanding. And there is nothing wrong with it. In fact it is the only system that works. The alternative is religion, a blind faith or the willingness to draw conclusions in an illogical manner.

By demanding that for any conclusions this logical process be explained openly and fully to the greater scientific community, it is inherently exposed to the scrutiny of those who would shoot it down to see if it stands up to the logic claimed for it. And of course, all conclusions in science are tentative until better ones replace it. That is another difference between science and religion, there are NO absolutes.

When people ignore or reject this process, they are no longer scientists but partisan advocates with an emotional attachment for a particular theory. Among "scientists", it happens more often than we'd like to admit.

Albert Einstein could have used your connect-the-dots view of how science works. An orderly process would have kept him focused and saved a lot of time. When asked how he worked, Einstein is said to have replied "I grope." Maybe he thought groping was one of the methods of science.

[skeptic]

I think he meant that he groped for theories to explain the inconsistancies he observed and he groped for methods to test them. The formula for the scientific method as I said is not a cookbook for this. It is a formula for the process of deductive reasoning which relates the creation of theories explaining observations and the testing of those theories to verify or refute them thereby establishing better understaning. This is what gaining real knowledge is about.

One of the things so interesting about Einstein's special theory of relativity is that it flies directly in the face of everyday experience. Even after you understand it, there is still and instinctive disbelief that it could possibly be true. Yet today, 99 years after it was first published it is considered one of the very most secure bedrocks of our understanding of the physical universe having been verified in another test just a few months ago, I think by NASA. Still, like all scientific theories, it continues to be challenged periodically even if only as a mental exercise.

[pctower]

Because "method" means procedure or process, the steps seem to imply a recipe or cookbook approach to science, which may be misleading. It ain't necessarily the way things happen, which may be what you mean by "wander in and out." According to William McComas, in his Ten Myths of Science , many pre-college texts are getting away from this list of steps approach in favor of discussions of methods of science:


"Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists


The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many precollege science texts. This myth has been part of the folklore of school science ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson (1937). The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include, a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient.


One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific method may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated.


Philosophers of science who have studied scientists at work have shown that no research method is applied universally (Carey, 1994; Gibbs & Lawson, 1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen, 1989). The notion of a single scientific method is so pervasive it seems certain that many students must be disappointed when they discover that scientists do not have a framed copy of the steps of the scientific method posted high above each laboratory workbench.


Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance. These, of course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers. The lesson to be learned is that science is no different from other human endeavors when puzzles are investigated. Fortunately, this is one myth that may eventually be displaced since many newer texts are abandoning or augmenting the list in favor of discussions of methods of science."

http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html

I agree. What you say is what I was trying to say in my initial post from a slightly different angle.

NONETHELESS, ultimately the true scientist still must make it past step 4 (empirical testing and verification). Mtrycrafts and jneutron may disagree on the different byways and detours to take along the way, but both I'm sure agree that ultimately step 4 is the gate through which all true scientists must pass.

Step 4 is the defining feature of the scientific method. At least that's what that widely revered early 21st century philosopher, PCTOWER, is reported to have once told a small group of his on-line students.

[skeptic]

"Step 4 is the defining feature of the scientific method. At least that's what that widely revered early 21st century philosopher, PCTOWER, is reported to have once told a small group of his on-line students."

Does that include Jon Risch, John Curl, and Rod M.? I guess they flunked their finals.

[mtrycraft]

"Step 4 is the defining feature of the scientific method. At least that's what that widely revered early 21st century philosopher, PCTOWER, is reported to have once told a small group of his on-line students."

Does that include Jon Risch, John Curl, and Rod M.? I guess they flunked their finals.

They quit before finals. Too chicken.

[pctower]

"Step 4 is the defining feature of the scientific method. At least that's what that widely revered early 21st century philosopher, PCTOWER, is reported to have once told a small group of his on-line students."

Does that include Jon Risch, John Curl, and Rod M.? I guess they flunked their finals.

They never even found the room where the exam was being administered.

[mtrycraft]

Mtrycrafts and jneutron may disagree on the different byways and detours to take along the way, but both I'm sure agree that ultimately step 4 is the gate through which all true scientists must pass.

Step 4 is the defining feature of the scientific method. At least that's what that widely revered early 21st century philosopher, PCTOWER, is reported to have once told a small group of his on-line students.

Yes,
and

Yes

I must make note of knowing this philosopher, not in person but by communications and on his part, a picture