What the media presents as science often has little to do with actual science, and most people don't even notice.
>>17072802My personal gripe is people thinking "the scientific method" = "science." But we're all entitled to our pet peeves.
>>17072805Can you have science without the scientific method?
>>17072806The scientific method is only like 400 years old, dude.
>>17072808So you're saying that evaluating claims in modern physics, medicine, and other fields doesn't require scientific methodology? Is that what you're saying?
>>17072810Nahh he is just seething because his science is different.
>>17072810Often times they explicitly aren't using it.
Well, the majority of scientists don't understand it either, so I guess those 95% are in good company.
>>17072802Yep.They don't care either
>>17072808thats right. We should just use the older methods such as divination and common sense. The method of science should not be how science is done.
>>17072806Can you write code without following a style guide?
>>17072908So the scientific method is just a style? There is no functional value in it?
>>17072952>There is no functional value in it?If there are multiple methods that can reach the same conclusion, does that mean each method had no functional value of its own? By the way, the point of the scientific method is not to generate science, but to identify truths.
>>17072808When dod technological innovation takeoff?
the scientific method is pretty simple1 observe reality2 make prediction 3 test prediction4 replicate to eliminate chance and error5 conclusionsome people skip everything except 2 and 5
>>17072965Hilariously ironic. That is not the scientific method you dolt.
>>17072878>>17072961Are you retarded?My point is that the scientific method isn't literally synonymous with science. They aren't the same exact thing no matter how good the scientific method is as a tool for science.
>>17072802>the scientific methodSlop for public consumption. There are good and bad methods to do science but there is no "the".
>>17072969You clearly don't even know the scientific method if you can't actually correct that post instead of just nu-uh posting.
>>17072998Yes it is, you are confused because science isn't synonymous with truth, but it is synonymous with the scientific method for discerning truth.
>>17073006>it is synonymous with the scientific method for discerning truth.He's right and you're retarded. You can account for most of the non-reproducible, """peer-reviewed""" slop getting published in scientific journals these days in terms of "the" scientific method but not for most significant scientific discoveries throughout history.
>>17073006If your pet definition of science if the hill you're going to die on, then there isn't much to argue about. You're just using a definition that would make a lot of things classically classified as science no longer scientific. Modern physicists will straight up tell you they aren't following "the scientific method" a lot of the time and they don't consider it a flaw. And essentially every field makes use of exploratory studies where no real hypothesis is defined at all.
>>17073009You can't name a single one, but adding the qualifier "most significant" totally means you don't have to. Also those weren't scientific discoveries if they weren't backed by the scientific method, they were anecdotal experimental observations ready to be put to the method, at best.
>>17073035>You can't name a single oneI can name multiple with ease, just tell me what you think "the" scientific method is (every one of you retards has a slightly different idea) and I'll give you examples of it being done differently.
>>17073012>lot of things classically classified as science no longer scientific.Such as? You don't think accepted old theories have been put through the method in contemporary times?>Modern physicists will straight up tell you they aren't following "the scientific method" a lot of the time and they don't consider it a flawNo you are thinking of theoretical physics and yes that is pseudoscience until it actually passes through all the steps of the method which is why things like string theory and m-theory are still fringe.>And essentially every field makes use of exploratory studies where no real hypothesis is defined at all.Do you have any examples where that is done for forming scientific theories, not just for discovering new ways to collect data to support existing or emerging scientific theories?
>>17073004You don't need to provide alternatives to point out things are incorrect. Try educating yourself.
>>17073036You already named your own terms.>most significant scientific discoveries throughout history.and the scientific method has already been loosely defined >>17072965Are you saying
>>17073037>t. quadrivaxxed and peer-reviewed
>>17073038Nu-uh, you are wrong, you should have gotten a paid education instead of the free public nonsense that trained you wrong on purpose as a joke.
>>17073039>the scientific method has already been loosely definedThat? That's the most profoundly retarded post in the entire thread. If that's a "scientific method", then everyone, including onga bonga deep jungle tribes, is doing science every day.
fags
>>17073037Again, if you're just gonna play definitions games then there's nothing to argue about. Theoretical physics is still science under any definition that doesn't presuppose the primacy of "the scientific method." So if that's the hill you're gonna die on then you're at odds with how most people, scientists included, actually use the word.Likewise, case reports are scientific. Just because they aren't "forming a theory" and are simply observing a rare phenomenon doesn't change that unless you, again, presuppose the primacy of the scientific method.
>>17073042I accept your concession, congrats on realizing conforming to the scientific method is actually much simpler than you assumed in your paralyzing fear of authority that makes you less capable than jungle tribesmen.
>>17073045Sure. If your "method" is so vague that it includes everything from scientific reasoning to intuiting the basic patterns of your environment, then I have nothing to add. The argument you should be having is with other mongoloids who have different ideas of what "THE" method is.
>>17073044>Theoretical physics is still scienceNope, skipping steps of the method reduces your attempt at truth to pseudoscience.>doesn't presuppose the primacy of "the scientific method."Not true, all those theories are attempting to satisfy the rest of the steps, they just can't because the trials result in more error than conformity to the hypothesized outcomes.>Just because they aren't "forming a theory" and are simply observing a rare phenomenon doesn't change that unless you, again, presuppose the primacy of the scientific method.No, it means you have started your journey and have satisfied some of the steps, but can't quite complete the method to call your idea a bona fide scientific truth.>case reports are scientific. They can be, but not necessarily.>Just because they aren't "forming a theory" and are simply observing a rare phenomenon doesn't change that In that case, it is potential evidence in someone else's theory, but its not a science unto its own.
>>17073049>intuiting the basic patterns of your environmentThe scientific method labels that hypothesizing.>scientific reasoningThis just means to apply the other steps to whatever hypothesis you formed.>The argument you should be having is with otherAll I asked was for you to give examples to support your claim and you started coping and shifting the burden to me to come up with significant scientific discoveries throughout history that still haven't been put through the scientific method, but are accepted as legitimate science. Just don't try to bring up psychology or social science because everyone knows that is pseudoscience backed by expert feelings instead of objective evidence.
>>17073052>The scientific method labels that hypothesizing.Ok, it's clear at this point that you're mentally ill and incoherent because >>17072965 doesn't mention hypothesizing at all and now you're just labeling your entire shopping list as "hypothesizing".
>>17073050Unless you bring something actually substantive, then this is gonna be my last reply to you. Your entire argument boils down to asserting that "science" = "the scientific method" when that is precisely the notion we were debating. Either ime up with a valid argument or acept that you're just relying on pet definitions which scientists themselves do not use.
>>17073042It's also implying literally babies and toddlers utilize the scientific method. It's like some kid listened to a summary from a pop science YouTube educator then synthesized his own distillation of it. It's so awful it's not even wrong.
>>17073057>It's also implying literally babies and toddlers utilize the scientific methodThat's my point. His vague description fits implicit learning as well as it does Newton's attempts at alchemy. It's useless.
>>17073053It does, you just don't understand that hypothesizing is just a fancy word for making predictions.
>>17073054I am the one who asked you for examples of scientific discoveries that haven't been backed up with the scientific method and you are the one who couldn't provide any, though, but good job trying to turn the tables.
>>17073067Everyone is making predictions every moment of their lives. Look, you're hopelessly retarded. There's no chance of you ever seeing the problem with your take. That's my scientific hypothesis. I guess the next step in my scientific study is to wait for you to reply with more dumb shit.
>>17073057Babies don't even have language, how can they be conforming to the method he outlined?
>Babies don't even have language, how can they predict things?Why can't they just rangeban the entire Third World?
>>17073069>Everyone is making predictions every moment of their livesNot really and they definitely aren't following the other steps on top of that. Most people just follow general patterns and trends they were taught, they don't actually think about it or put any meta-cognition into why they are behaving the way they are.
>>17073072>more retarded shitAh! I've just completed step 3 of my scientific study. On to step 4!
>>17073071>You are going to say some dumb shit>meanwhile posts basedjack nonsense and makes vague seething reply about some unrelated boogieman
>>17073075>posts even more dumb shitI guess that technically counts for:>4 replicate to eliminate chance and errorLet's see... what's next?>5 conclusionMy conclusion is that you're a fucking retard. Done. I just did a science, as per your method.
>>17073068>I am the one who asked you for examples of scientific discoveries that haven't been backed up with the scientific methodYou did not ask for that. What you asked for was this: >>17073037>Do you have any examples where that is done for forming scientific theories,Since we're on the topic, this new deman of yours is a non-sequitur. The discussion is whether science *is* the scientific method. Whether a discovery is later "valudated by" the scientific method is irrelevant. You are shifting goalposts and doing it poorly.
>>17073077NTA but can you explain why >>17073076's science is invalid? by reference to your original criteria only. no extra ad hoc requirements
It's sort of funny how OP got obliterated because he didn't know what scientific method was.
>>17073078I am not saying the scientific method is not a valid approach and that shitpost isn't even responding to me.
>>17073080yeah that wasn't intended for you. my bad
In my experience, the brainlets who keep namedropping the Scientific Method(tm) invariably mean some variation of pic related. The problem with that pic (and variants thereof) is that it covers, at best, the discovery of empirical laws. A scientific theory is not a collection of empirical laws. A scientic theory unifies an assortment of empirical laws by working backwards towards a set of axioms that logically implies them. That process it not empirical. It's driven by factors like intuition and philosophical/aesthetic preferences and there's no method for it. It's an underdetermined problem in principle.Once you have a theory, you have to test it empirically, but that's only the last step and least of the scientific thinking that went into deriving the theory in the first place. And it doesn't even fit the picture because the hypothesis is logically derived from the framework's premises, not inductively inferred from observations.
>>17073098This is a better one (pic rel). Additionally I found a quick link from Berkeley by actual scientists for funsies which BTFOs some idiotic posters here. https://undsci.berkeley.edu/understanding-science-101/how-science-works/
