Anyone have any ideas about the future of the scientific method, or is it stuck in place after Poppers "falsifiability" idea? Can we develop a better model to advance science? Some newer model that allows more interaction between scientists and amateurs or something? I know we already have that big time in science blogs but can some newer formal structure come about"?
Originally posted by sonhouseno
Anyone have any ideas about the future of the scientific method, or is it stuck in place after Poppers "falsifiability" idea? Can we develop a better model to advance science? Some newer model that allows more interaction between scientists and amateurs or something? I know we already have that big time in science blogs but can some newer formal structure come about"?
ok, discussion. amateur scientists abound. amateur scientists make discoveries, advance the body of knowledge, contribute to the development of theories, and test hypotheses.
So, maybe we should make sure that our words mean the same thing. Regular garden variety professional scientists do it for a living in lofty institutions for money. Amateur scientists have day jobs (other forms of income), maybe don't have PhD's, research scientist-professor titles, and long lists of published papers.
The question is, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong: Is there a barrier to accepting the contributions from amateurs? Is there some form of guild or "clubhouse" that divides the amateurs from the "elite?" Is that what you mean? If that's what you meant, then sure, no further discussion. That's scientific politics and a different discussion than I understood you were proposing. My mistake. I took your question to be about 25 levels deeper though, and I don't have a different answer at that fundamental level of hypothesis testing and the scientific method: "no"
Originally posted by sonhouseYou're making my head hurt.
Anyone have any ideas about the future of the scientific method, or is it stuck in place after Poppers "falsifiability" idea? Can we develop a better model to advance science? Some newer model that allows more interaction between scientists and amateurs or something? I know we already have that big time in science blogs but can some newer formal structure come about"?
Originally posted by sonhouseThat's a very important question. I don't think we can remove the principle of falsifiability, as of yet, no alternatives exist which protect scientific reasoning from becoming almost faith based.
Anyone have any ideas about the future of the scientific method, or is it stuck in place after Poppers "falsifiability" idea? Can we develop a better model to advance science? Some newer model that allows more interaction between scientists and amateurs or something? I know we already have that big time in science blogs but can some newer formal structure come about"?
There is nothing to stop it from being amended however. There is an unfortunate "glass ceiling" which prevents the amateur scientist from having full access to the body of scientific articles (peer reviewed journals tend to be quite expensive unless you're willing to limit yourself to just one or two highly specialised ones)
Peer review is incredibly important to filter out bad science, but is possibly too blunt, preventing the amateur from disseminating their ideas and experiments.
Personally I believe that science has had two streams for the best part of two centuries now, the academic and the industrial streams. There is fundamental research done primarily by academic institutions, and more application based work done in industrial research (though there is a large area of overlap)
Where has this left the amateur scientist?
Up shi* creek without a paddle really.
It is possible for research to be conducted by those outside of "the fold" but is much harder. I think that is the real problem, not the concept of falsifiability.
Originally posted by agrysonIt depends on the field. Experimental high energy physics research is out for amateurs for obvious reasons, theoretical work is possible, but it is unlikely that the professionals are going to listen because for every good amateur idea there are about 999 pieces of nonsense. One field where amateurs can make, and have made, valuable contributions is in astronomy - for example the comet Hale-Bopp was an amateur discovery.
That's a very important question. I don't think we can remove the principle of falsifiability, as of yet, no alternatives exist which protect scientific reasoning from becoming almost faith based.
There is nothing to stop it from being amended however. There is an unfortunate "glass ceiling" which prevents the amateur scientist from having full access to t ...[text shortened]... but is much harder. I think that is the real problem, not the concept of falsifiability.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtTrue, for simply practical reasons there are branches of science which cannot be explored by amateurs (particle physics, aeronautics, nanotech etc.), and without experimental proof, very few theories will be given credence, but in my field of bubble research, as well as other areas of research such as soft matter physics, complex systems (of which bubbles are a part) etc. the most complicated piece of equipment needed is a signal generator, which most home keyboards can suffice as. After that all that's needed is washing up liquid, water, and a good idea.
It depends on the field. Experimental high energy physics research is out for amateurs for obvious reasons, theoretical work is possible, but it is unlikely that the professionals are going to listen because for every good amateur idea there are about 999 pieces of nonsense. One field where amateurs can make, and have made, valuable contributions is in astronomy - for example the comet Hale-Bopp was an amateur discovery.
Yet, I've never heard of or read an article by someone who isn't a professional researcher, which lends credence to the idea that there is some kind of glass ceiling.
Here's an experiment for you all...
Get some dish-washing fluid (about 2% fluid, 98% water)
A bowl
Tubing
Syringe needle or similar small opening for the tubing
small air pump (or design one that will give constant flow, say a small motor from a kids electronics set, rigged to a syringe)
Put the solution in the bowl, tubing under the water, and set the pump going. bubbles, all the same size will be formed, rise and then spontaneously self organise into crystal like structures.
Now, come up with a plausible theory as to why they self organise. It's not surface tension alone, or any kind of known attractive force, no one in the field knows the fundamental reason (lots of theories have been put forward and modelled but htey don't work like the real system) they self organise. It's a little annoying actually.
Now see how far you get with your theory without being part of the "establishment". Equipment is a problem in some fields, but not all.
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm not sure we can develop a better model as long as people are people.
Anyone have any ideas about the future of the scientific method, or is it stuck in place after Poppers "falsifiability" idea? Can we develop a better model to advance science? Some newer model that allows more interaction between scientists and amateurs or something? I know we already have that big time in science blogs but can some newer formal structure come about"?
Some may describe the scientific method as follows:
1. Observe, measure, think...
2. Develop a hypothesis
3. Plan an experiment to test the hypothesis.
4. Do the experiment
5. Evaluate results, possibly rejecting or revising the hypothesis.
But as even stauch advocates of the scientifc method will admit, observations and experiments can be very expensive, and often need to be run by people without a "day-job" so to speak.
So somewhere along the lines of the first 3 steps there must be a step of securing funding, often millions of dollars, for observations and experiments. And when hypothesis have political implications, funds can be either very scarce or overly abundant. There are just some possible scientific conclusions that any particular generation will not easily reach because of the political climate, and there can be some invalid conclusions that will not be challenged for a long time because the political climate at the time likes the status quo and doesn't want to rock the boat.
Eventually, the scientific method will sort things out, but needless years can go by with false beliefs because the people of the time may like the delusion for whatever reason.
Originally posted by agrysonHere is another one you may have seen, the microwave grape plasma:
True, for simply practical reasons there are branches of science which cannot be explored by amateurs (particle physics, aeronautics, nanotech etc.), and without experimental proof, very few theories will be given credence, but in my field of bubble research, as well as other areas of research such as soft matter physics, complex systems (of which bubbles ar is a problem in some fields, but not all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXO7-Lajxdg
&NR=1
This one is better in that it talks about putting the grape in the hot spot of the microwave beam, it didn't work at all in my micro, have to try their method!
Originally posted by sonhouseSir Karl Popper's 'falsifiability' criterion to distinguish scientfiic theories from metaphysical ones was a step forward as compared with the 'verifiable' criterion advanced by thr positivists who consigned all metaphysics to the dustbin.
Anyone have any ideas about the future of the scientific method, or is it stuck in place after Poppers "falsifiability" idea? Can we develop a better model to advance science? Some newer model that allows more interaction between scientists and amateurs or something? I know we already have that big time in science blogs but can some newer formal structure come about"?
But one of its consequenses, the denial of scientific status to general existential statements, has shown that it is not tenable.
I'd certainly say that peer review ought to be more rigorous to keep the dud papers out
As put by realclimate.com
Peer review is supposed to weed out poor science. However, it is not foolproof — a deeply flawed paper can end up being published under a number of different potential circumstances: (i) the work is submitted to a journal outside the relevant field (e.g. a paper on paleoclimate submitted to a social science journal) where the reviewers are likely to be chosen from a pool of individuals lacking the expertise to properly review the paper, (ii) too few or too unqualified a set of reviewers are chosen by the editor, (iii) the reviewers or editor (or both) have agendas, and overlook flaws that invalidate the paper's conclusions, and (iv) the journal may process and publish so many papers that individual manuscripts occasionally do not get the editorial attention they deserve.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/
This will result in a shaky paper being published which can be jumped on by the media and/or politicians. Science, unfortunately isn't watertight.
Originally posted by mrstabbyIt seems that nobody is interested in pursuing the question posed by the author of this thread,
I'd certainly say that peer review ought to be more rigorous to keep the dud papers out
As put by realclimate.com
[i]Peer review is supposed to weed out poor science. However, it is not foolproof — a deeply flawed paper can end up being published under a number of different potential circumstances: (i) the work is submitted to a journal outside the rele ...[text shortened]... h can be jumped on by the media and/or politicians. Science, unfortunately isn't watertight.
Originally posted by AlcibiadesI guess what I was saying is that the scientific field should be restricted to people who know what they're on about, not the average blogger. It depends on the field as deepthought said. If people want credit for their work then they need to go through the peer review process to get their work published.
It seems that nobody is interested in pursuing the question posed by the author of this thread,