"The data set included 533 Nobel Prize-winning discoveries and 228 other major discoveries recognized in scientific literature.
... 25% of these discoveries did not employ the full scientific method. Specifically, 6% of these discoveries did not involve observation, 23% did not include experimentation, and 17% did not test a hypothesis."
“Empirical evidence thus challenges the common view of the scientific method,” Krauss writes, and “adhering to it as a guiding principle would constrain us in developing many new scientific ideas and breakthroughs.”
Certainly. It's been well known at least since Kuhn[1] that the scientific method is an idealization, not what scientists actually do.
The paper cites that 75% of studies did qualify as "scientific method", but that's a byproduct of the paper-writing process. You're expected to present your science as if you did it that way, but it almost never actually does.
When your first gels came out all wonky, you didn't declare that you'd disproven electrophoresis. You assumed you did it wrong, and you didn't even mention it in the paper.
The scientific method is a fig leaf, used to try to work around the Demarcation Problem. We prefer that to Epistemological Anarchy, which is philosophically better grounded but utterly unworkable in practice.
It's good to have an understanding of that, and to gradually improve it. But we're going to keep teaching the "scientific method" to high schoolers, just as we continue to teach them Newtonian gravity, and I don't expect that to ever change.
So the scientific method is aspirational, a model to inspire. Like democracy, or fair markets: nice in theory, but rarely achieved (or achievable) in actual life. In that sense I guess it's good to teach kids about the idealized model.
4 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 20.1 ms ] thread... 25% of these discoveries did not employ the full scientific method. Specifically, 6% of these discoveries did not involve observation, 23% did not include experimentation, and 17% did not test a hypothesis."
“Empirical evidence thus challenges the common view of the scientific method,” Krauss writes, and “adhering to it as a guiding principle would constrain us in developing many new scientific ideas and breakthroughs.”
What on earth is going on in the scientific community?
Science needs to take a serious look at itself.
I have noticed research paper quality declining over the years.
We need better rules to force researchers to release all the data they use so peer reviewers can duplicate the outcomes.
retractions are increasing every year.
Paper fraud is on the increase
Career scientist not bothered about quality and exacting standards
dodgy editors allowing this rubbish into the public realm
https://footnote.co/fake-papers-a-symptom-of-more-serious-pr...
https://retractionwatch.com/
The paper cites that 75% of studies did qualify as "scientific method", but that's a byproduct of the paper-writing process. You're expected to present your science as if you did it that way, but it almost never actually does.
When your first gels came out all wonky, you didn't declare that you'd disproven electrophoresis. You assumed you did it wrong, and you didn't even mention it in the paper.
The scientific method is a fig leaf, used to try to work around the Demarcation Problem. We prefer that to Epistemological Anarchy, which is philosophically better grounded but utterly unworkable in practice.
It's good to have an understanding of that, and to gradually improve it. But we're going to keep teaching the "scientific method" to high schoolers, just as we continue to teach them Newtonian gravity, and I don't expect that to ever change.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...