Talk:Scientific method
Long term stability of this article seems to indicate that there were no one had any outstanding critism - save the last poster.
Over 90 articles and more than 30 other pages link here. That is one pretty important article. It is my opinion (and therefore it is philosophically defensible) that this constitutes the most important article in the entire wikipedia:
- All scientific matters are connected to it
- It's great choice for "what authoritative encyclopedia article would you take with you to a desert island ?"
- It played nursemaid to Quantum Mechanics, the most powerful theory every developed.
- It's all about the logic (and the limitations therein).
- more than any single thing proper scientific reasoning by wikipedians will free us all to write good text.
I would like this article to become authoritative, so that it would give aid and guidance to us wikipedians, concentrate the kooks for easier management, and become an inspiration for all cooperative endevour. Two16
I would like to remove, or at leats rewrite, the following paragraph:
- Another criticism of the scientific method (as here presented) is that it fails to acknowledge the incalculable impact that mathematics has had on scientific research and direction. A hypothesis about the physical world that is based solely on implications derived from mathematical analysis can hardly be said to be in accordance with the "observational" phase of the scientific method (a purely mathematical property cannot properly be called a "fact" about the physical universe)...
As written, this is incorrect! No scientist I have ever met has failed to acknowledge the incalculable impact that mathematics has had! The above text sounds more like a disagreement with the way that science textbooks explain the scientific method, which may be a very valid criticism. However, working scientists (at least, in the hard sciences) are themselves aware of the value of math. RK 14:06 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- The idea that the physical world can and should be described mathematically is generally attributed to Descartes. It is a philosophical concept every bit as important to the scientific method as the empiricism popularised by Bacon. Saying that science doesn't acknowlege mathematics is like saying fish don't acknowledge water. Perhaps biologists are less aware of mathematics than other scientists, but other than that minor caveat, I say rewrite away. -- Tim Starling 04:34 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
RK, when you say this text reads more like..., I think that's what it was supposed to be. It is not a criticism of the scientific method as practiced, but a criticism of the scientific method as here presented. That is to say, it is warning that the list of steps given is overly simplistic and does not reflect the beliefs of actual scientists.
a criticism of the scientific method as present here, i.e. the description given not just in textbooks but also on this page.