There are lots of interesting things in this month's issue of SEED magazine. One of them is a survey of scientists in the USA, UK, France and Germany.
SEED magazine conducted a survey where it asked the following question of 1000 scientists in the USA, UK, France, and Germany: "Does the scientific method describe how you do science?" [SEED: State of Science].
81% said "yes."
I would answer "no" but my answer depends very much on what I think the question means. I think it's fair to use the common understanding of the "scientific method," the one that's taught in fifth grade.
Here's the simple version that's described on the Wikipedia site [Scientific Method].
- Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
- Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
- Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
- Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
If you are a scientist, how would you have answered the SEED question and what definition of "scientific method" do you have in mind?
I would answer "yes" and this can be based on both the Wikipedia outline of it and the most generic take which I'd formulate as "observe things and try to make sense of them using experiments if you can".
ReplyDeleteNow, to the gist of it:
"Scientific method" is something like "biological species". Everyone knows it exists but defining it 100% reliably is pretty much impossible.
My take on it is "practicality rules". In his critique of Popperian idealism, Paul Feyrabend showed that the scientific progress of the past had little to do with whatever prescriptive formalism and formulated "anything goes" description of de facto science.
When one looks at the total mess that is cell biology today - where people build sand castles that are based more on "models" and "makes sense" than on the actual data and where easily 75% of published data/conclusions turn out to be total crap - and contrasts it with a tremendous overall success in our understanding of how cells work, the only reasonable concusion is, indeed, anything goes.
I'd include peer review as a critical part of the scientific method. Experimental testing is critical, but so is excluding nonsense. Peer review gives science coherence and universality at the expense of occasionally (often?) excluding useful information.
ReplyDeleteDK says,
ReplyDeleteI would answer "yes" and this can be based on both the Wikipedia outline of it and the most generic take which I'd formulate as "observe things and try to make sense of them using experiments if you can".
That's a definition that I can relate to much better than the standard "scientific method."
Throughout much of my scientific career, my work consisted of collecting data in order to see if there was a "problem." I characterize it as "exploring" and not as "considering a problem," which is what Wikipedia says the first step should be.
Most people's perception of the "scientific method" does not include the "exploring" and "discovery" steps that take up most of the effort of basic scientists.
When one looks at the total mess that is cell biology today - where people build sand castles that are based more on "models" and "makes sense" than on the actual data and where easily 75% of published data/conclusions turn out to be total crap ...
So, you agree that most scientists don't seem to be following any reasonable sort of "scientific method"? :-)
So, you agree that most scientists don't seem to be following any reasonable sort of "scientific method"? :-)
ReplyDeleteMore or less. To be sure, all follow some set of rules, but the precise content of that set is diffuse and cannot be distilled into a single rigid "scientific method".
We use whatever works. Astrology isn't science not because it does not use scientific method but simply because it does not work.
This survey really bothered me for its failure to define "scientist." This term has different meanings at different places within this article, at one time being those with a PhD, and at others, anyone with a bachelor's degree and working for industry/pharma/academia. So which was used for the survey? It makes a large difference in interpreting the results.
ReplyDelete