The Scientific Method

[A Troubled Man]

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary representation of the world.

Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory.


The scientific method has four steps:


1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.


The expectation for formulating a hypothesis is to follow these steps accordingly, although the last step, performing experiments may very well be the most difficult and impractical, although many theories have a number of alternatives to validate or falsify them.

For example, the speed of light can be measured using a microwave oven.

Please remember, falsifiability is tantamount for a hypothesis to be credible.

[marke]

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary representation of the world.

Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory.


The scientific method has four steps:


1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

Scientific observations are limited by the lack of any ability to observe so much of what exists or once existed in the universe. Furthermore, observed scientific data can be and has often been tainted by erroneous interpretations, conclusions and assumptions.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

Hypotheses are not irrefutable scientific facts and can be wrong.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

Results predicted by hypotheses do not prove hypotheses are irrefutable scientific facts.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Experiments are only as good and accurate as the design and conduct of the experiments and do not prove assumptions and conclusions about hypotheses are irrefutable scientific facts.


The expectation for formulating a hypothesis is to follow these steps accordingly, although the last step, performing experiments may very well be the most difficult and impractical, although many theories have a number of alternatives to validate or falsify them.

The fact of viable alternatives prove that hypotheses are not irrefutably settled science.

For example, the speed of light can be measured using a microwave oven.

Please remember, falsifiability is tantamount for a hypothesis to be credible.

All

These are results for limitations of falsifiability
Search instead for limitations of falsibility

AI Overview
Learn more
Falsifiability, the idea that a hypothesis can be proven false through evidence, has some limitations, including:
Falsification is not definitive
Falsification attempts can't be definitive, but multiple attempts can help guide the direction of science.
Falsification can't remove human error
Falsification can't remove human error, systematic errors, or noise from the scientific process.
Falsification can't isolate a hypothesis
The Duhem problem states that an experiment can only condemn an entire theoretical group, not an isolated hypothesis.
Falsification can indicate refutation of logic
W.v.O. Quine argued that falsification could indicate a refutation of logic laws instead of the hypothesis.
Falsification is not applicable to all sciences
Some argue that Popper's philosophy of falsifiability is only applicable to quantum physics and not to other sciences like biology, chemistry, or Newtonian physics.
Falsification is not applicable to complex theories
Some theories are difficult to falsify because they are complex and involve interactions between multiple factors. For example, it's difficult to directly test the idea that genes determine complex human behaviors.

[The Barbarian]

Scientific observations are limited by the lack of any ability to observe so much of what exists or once existed in the universe. Furthermore, observed scientific data can be and has often been tainted by erroneous interpretations, conclusions and assumptions.

Hence, there can be no theories about things that are not observed. Gravity is a theory because we see it happening. Evolution is a theory because we see it happening. Can we observe things that happened in the past? Sure. For example, the Crab Nebula is a phenomenon from a star that exploded long before humans had civilization. But the evidence of that explosion remained and was observed in the Middle Ages by astronomers.

Hypotheses are not irrefutable scientific facts and can be wrong.


They must be so. If an hypothesis is not testable, it is useless to science.

Results predicted by hypotheses do not prove hypotheses are irrefutable scientific facts.


Repeated verifications of the predictions of hypotheses is what makes them theories. Logical certainty is not part of science. We merely verify the predictions sufficiently well to make disagreement unreasonable.

The fact of viable alternatives prove that hypotheses are not irrefutably settled science.

The lack of viable alternatives make things like evolution and gravity settled science.

[marke]

Scientific observations are limited by the lack of any ability to observe so much of what exists or once existed in the universe. Furthermore, observed scientific data can be and has often been tainted by erroneous interpretations, conclusions and assumptions.

Hence, there can be no theories about things that are not observed. Gravity is a theory because we see it happening. Evolution is a theory because we see it happening. Can we observe things that happened in the past? Sure. For example, the Crab Nebula is a phenomenon from a star that exploded long before humans had civilization. But the evidence of that explosion remained and was observed in the Middle Ages by astronomers.

Marke: There is insufficient evidence to assume that nothing can exist that cannot be seen.