The Myth of the Scientific Method

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Swami
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:07 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 14 times

The Myth of the Scientific Method

Post #1

Post by Swami »

If there is a prevailing myth of the scientific method it is that a group of rational philosophers discovered a list of scientific methods consisting of 4 or 5 principles. This list came down to them fully formed, infallible, unable to be added to or taken away from. Do you believe this myth?

The reality is that there is no uniform scientific method that is shared across all science branches. The scientific method was "developed", it does not lead to some infallible truth, and it is not closed. New methods are often added, especially with the increase of specialized sciences.

Why is it when I propose Eastern practices as part of the scientific method there seems to be close-mindedness? This happens even after showing how these approaches lead to an objective reality. Is there a myth of the scientific method? Is it cultural bias?

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The Myth of the Scientific Method

Post #11

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to post 1 by Swami]

Let me try and get at the meat of your post. It is sounding very much to me like you are challenging methodological naturalism, as most beautifully stated by Richard Lewontin, highlight by me:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
"

Are the bolded bits the kind of thing you were referring to as principles "fully formed, infallible, unable to be added to or taken away from?" If so then it is no myth. You cannot take any that away and still call it science. Any new methods or approaches added for "specialized sciences" as you called it, have to conform to this commitment to materialism.

Gracchus
Apprentice
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:09 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 22 times

The Essence of the Scientific Method

Post #12

Post by Gracchus »

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe anything because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept and live up to it.� --- Buddha Siddhartha Gautama Shakyamuni

User avatar
elphidium55
Student
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:37 pm
Location: Champaign, IL
Been thanked: 16 times

Best Arguments

Post #13

Post by elphidium55 »

I infer it from the smug comments of many Western thinkers and scientists.

There are lots of poor arguments for positions for which better arguments exist. Going back and forth over the latest fallacious reasoning committed by your conversation partner is like going down a rabbit hole. This is especially true of ad hominem arguments.

Here's what I think is a better approach. Argue for and against an idea based on the best version of the idea under discussion. If your interlocutor presents a weak argument,
re-phrase it, if possible, in a way which is more analytically valid. You are "ironman-ing" his/her argument (as opposed to strawman-ing it.) Construe your interlocutors argument as charitably as possible. In other words, model the behavior you wish to promote.

Post Reply