The Myth of the Scientific Method

[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?

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by Swami]

Let's start by saying something about it:
Like the standard of science these days, Hypothetico-deductive model (HDM), scientific method, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheti ... tive_model.

What do you mean by more scientific methods? The way I see it, HDM goes for all science, but not the logically closed like mathematics, linguistics, etc. as they have no experiment to come up with.

Religion, either way, is not deemed to submit to science with the claim of God although lately, people may actually experience Heaven and have it confirmed by (f)MRI later, after out-of-body experience or before reincarnation. No contradiction, but religion may place itself under the microscope of science and to a large extent or all, actually, get confirmed as well.

I see no shortcomings of the HDM scientific method as it stands today.

Do you mind elaborating?

[Swami]

[Replying to post 1 by Swami]

Let's start by saying something about it:
Like the standard of science these days, Hypothetico-deductive model (HDM), scientific method, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheti ... tive_model.

What do you mean by more scientific methods? The way I see it, HDM goes for all science, but not the logically closed like mathematics, linguistics, etc. as they have no experiment to come up with.

Religion, either way, is not deemed to submit to science with the claim of God although lately, people may actually experience Heaven and have it confirmed by (f)MRI later, after out-of-body experience or before reincarnation. No contradiction, but religion may place itself under the microscope of science and to a large extent or all, actually, get confirmed as well.

I see no shortcomings of the HDM scientific method as it stands today.

Do you mind elaborating?

At a core or fundamental level of science, your point is correct. In general, the HDM was settled on in contrast to other methods like the 'inductive approach'. Your article says that it is "proposed" which says to me even this can be subject to change.

My point is about how science is applied beyond the core points that you brought up. At the level I refer to there is not uniformity across all fields. There are a number of scientific tools/approaches used to gather information and analysis methods to analyze the data. Field research and statistical analysis are some of the more modern methods of science. There is no field research in physics so this is example of methods not being the same across all fields. If you want examples of recent scientific tools, then there is the fMRI and of course it is not used in all scientific branches.

[Clownboat]

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?

No, as I have never heard this claim before. Did you invent it, or can you show that you speak the truth?

The reality is that there is no uniform scientific method that is shared across all science branches.

There is also not one flavor of donut that is shared across all donuts. What is the point of either of these facts though is what I'm wondering.
You should not expect historical science to be the same as theoretical for example. If you do, please stop.

Why is it when I propose Eastern practices as part of the scientific method there seems to be close-mindedness?

Because meditation is not part of the scientific method. I assume that is the Eastern practice you mean... If that is not what you mean, you will need to be more specific.

Is there a myth of the scientific method?

Not that I'm aware of. You would need to elaborate.

Is it cultural bias?

Is what a cultural bias? The scientific method being myth?

[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?

No, as I have never heard this claim before. Did you invent it, or can you show that you speak the truth?

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

Why is it when I propose Eastern practices as part of the scientific method there seems to be close-mindedness?

Because meditation is not part of the scientific method. I assume that is the Eastern practice you mean... If that is not what you mean, you will need to be more specific.

The scientific method is not closed. If it allowed fMRI at some point then it should also allow meditation. Meditation is already allowed for medicine but it should also be used as a tool of knowledge.

Also, think of how introspection was a scientific method but it stopped being that, or it was reduced in status at some point.

s there a myth of the scientific method?

Not that I'm aware of. You would need to elaborate.

Is it cultural bias?

Is what a cultural bias? The scientific method being myth?

Correct. Scientists, like DrNoGod have no real interest in exploring the issue. In their minds it is only about "relaxation" and they don't want to do the field research that would show otherwise.

[Divine Insight]

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?

An untrue claim on your part. No scientist thinks that the list of scientific principles used in science are fully formed, infallible, unable to be added to or taken away from.

No scientist believe in that "myth".

For you to even make such a claim only reveals that you do not understand what science is all about.

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.

And every scientist will agree with this. The only criteria is that when anything is added to science it must be verifiable. You can't just add things on a whim that you have no compelling evidence for.

Also, you are probably misunderstanding the difference between known science (i.e. scientific fact) and various hypotheses and theories that many scientists are working on.

For example science DOES NOT say that String Theory is correct or that stings even exist. String theory is not yet science. However, it is a model that many scientists have compelling reasons to believe may pan out eventually. But they also realize that it could turn out to be wrong. So String Theory is not yet science. On the other hand Biological Evolution is science as the credible evidence for it is overwhelming.

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?

Again, all you are doing here is revealing that you don't even know what scientists have studied. Many scientists have looked into Eastern practices, and have tried to incorporate them into the scientific methods, but they have all failed to produce any credible or productive results.

By the way, science is "World Wide".

You do understand this do you not?

It's not just western cultures using the proven methods of science. The western cultures have not been cut-off and isolated from the rest of the world. Eastern scientists also recognize that the methods of science actually work, and that Eastern practices do not pan out.

You seem to think that you are talking about some alien world that scientists never heard of. Scientists have been aware of the Eastern beliefs and practices for centuries. And even the Eastern scientists recognize that those methods do not produce credible results.

So all you've done here is reveal that you do not understand the scientific methods, and that you are apparently unaware (or unwilling to acknowledge) that even the scientists in Eastern Cultures recognize that there is no credible value in mediation in terms of revealing any truths about our reality.

Allow different people to mediate and they'll return from their meditative experiences with totally different ideas and views. There simply isn't anything there of any substance. If there was scientists would have already been employing it.

Not only this, but there are scientists who actually study meditation on a scientific level, and they are actually able to say much about it based on the facts of reality. They actually have credible hypotheses for what goes on in the human brain to cause these experience.

In fact, some scientists are able to recreate those experiences by simply stimulating various parts of the brain:

[YouTube][/YouTube]

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

Science is way ahead of you.

[Divine Insight]

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

Smug Western thinkers and scientists?

Sorry, Swami but this is the 21st century and the world is now a global community. You can no longer make a meaningful argument that singles out "Western thinkers and scientists".

Thinkers and scientists from all over the globe are in agreement that the scientific method of inquiry provides credible results while other methods do not.

So you're quite a few centuries too late to be making your clearly false accusations about Western thinkers and scientist being 'smug'. Even the Eastern thinkers have recognized that science is the only credible way to go.

You act like nobody is aware of Eastern mystical thinking but you. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Willum]

Myth, you keep using that word, I donna think is means what you think it means.

The scientific method it an iterative process of observation, measurement and some kind of feedback.
No way 'myth' can be stretched to this definition.

[William]

Some Scientists do "Get It"

[yt]ds-7sMfJDUw[/yt]

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 9 by William]

I'm getting back to the statistics because they are a kind of discoveries or meta-studies of experiments. They should be alright to explain in terms of HDM as well.

However, from the video, there is an experiment against string theory and it is as follows, I have deviced it:
A laser beam, red or green(?), next to a concrete wall inside a strong electro-magnetic field that's strong enough to bend the laser beam in a flood-lit room.
Now, the result should be that only the laser beam gets bent by the magnetic field and not (the light) of the concrete wall and thus string theory is refuted! "Hurray!"

So there! Sure, please question everything as you like, but with scientific method in hand (HDM)!