RE: "Trust THE Science", "Do you believe in science", "The Science says...", "The science is settled" - If you know the scientific method these things should have you appalled.
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Everything i learned in college science class, i later learned was wrong. EVERYTHING!!
This includes the vaunted scientific method.
You would think that scientific people would be able to held to the scientific method.
A: "The Theory of Relativity is a solid theory that has been well tested"
B: "A benchtop experiment caused a force that exceeded the speed of light"
A: "Well bollox to that theory then"
but nooooooo....
What i get is, that is only one part of the theory, what of this and this and this and this...
or
You don't know what you are talking about / You aren't smart enough to understand the Theory of Relativity.
0
0
0.000
You are wrong.
The scientific method is a simple set of steps. Your example has ZERO to do with that being wrong.
It has everything to do with humans who used it, then got too invested in the results and stopped using it when it was convenient to their desires.
It wasn't the method that was wrong. It was the people.
The scientific method is just a tool. Pretty simple. If you follow it, it does exactly what it is supposed to do. If you don't then it is not the tool that was the problem.
People will also say things don't exist because they haven't or can't observe them. That is not following the scientific method.
The scientific method only applies to things you can actually observe and observe with repetition.
If you can't observe it then you can't use the scientific method on it.
People will often claim science has not detected X. That is not part of the scientific method.
The scientific method only applies to what they have and can detect, not what they cannot.
So it is not the scientific method that is at fault. It is people.
Non-detection, not observing...
Not much room for that in the scientific method unless you have a hypothesis. In which case it only proves your hypothesis wrong.
At one point we couldn't see Atoms.
By the method some people use today they didn't exist because we couldn't observe them.
Yet you and I know that is not the case. They were always there.
Sadly the scientific method is useless in cases that cannot be reliable observed. That doesn't prove of disprove anything. It simply does not apply in such cases. It's like try to use a hammer as a saw.
Drat, it is obvious here that i should have written a post... but i cut corners. (and i probably already wrote the post)
The double slit experiment proves that observing a phenomena changes the phenomena.
Thus, the scientific method has to be changed.
And that is not the only piece. Many quantum experiments are such that they HAVE TO remove the observer.
With an observer there, they get 1 of 4 outcomes. Not the 32 they surmised.
Remove the observer, and they got 1 of 32.
Further, we do not work in the order we have shown in the linear definition of the scientific method.
We actually work both ends toward the middle.
A new model of scientific constraints should be developed that actually works with humans instead of against them.
We still can't see atoms.
They are only a theoretical model of the observed phenomena.
Case in point, the Cern Supercolider.
Imagine if you will, you had a car, and you wanted to understand what made it go fast.
Would you rip a piece of it off and then fire it out of a cannon to see what happens?
Of course you wouldn't. By doing so you destroy exactly what you are trying to study.
Cern will soon be the most expensive museum ever built.
Again you are wrong. You are blaming the tool for the outcome.
The double slit experiment disproved existing theories. It told us due to observing that that we were wrong about something in our models (ideas). We asked questions like "How is this happening?"
We said well "maybe it is this" which is called a hypothesis. Then we went on to try to come up with ways to test that.
If the test proves the hypothesis wrong we might have observed some things to give us a better hypothesis.
Eventually if our hypothesis matches what we can observe at the time it becomes a THEORY.
It remains there but we make other observations. If those observations show a hole in the theory we start asking questions again.
That is the scientific method. Simple. Nothing more. Nothing less.
We can with electron microscopes... The smaller things we can't really see.
What is in question though is what those atoms ultimately are. :) That changes.
We observe, we ask questions, we make hypothesis, we test the hypothesis, if it survives it is a theory until we observe new things.
Yet we also don't ditch theories until we have something to replace them with.
For example: Newtonian physics as a model works great for a lot of terrestrial things. It has been something we've used to solve a lot of problems. Yet it is flawed.
Relativity solved some problems we had observed (three body problem). Yet even relativity has it's flaws and Einstein was aware of them and trying to solve it.
We didn't just say "Newtonian physics is flawed" let's stop building things based upon it. Same with relativity.
We observe... that doesn't mean we instantly have the ability to explain the observations.
The only thing the scientific method absolutely cannot be used on is things we haven't determined how to reliably observe.
Though people calling themselves scientist will often claim things don't exist because they can't measure it. That isn't using the scientific method at all and thus really is not science no matter how many pieces of paper that person may have saying they are a scientist.
And all of these are OBSERVATIONS. :) By observation I am not referring only to that which you can see with your naked idea. I am referring to it as DATA collected.
If you can collect data you can use the scientific method. If you cannot then the method is useless.
The scientific method is not a solution. It is a tool.
It is only a set of steps we go through (processes) to try to keep our own biases out of the results.
Nothing you've stated refutes that. In fact, the simple facts that you are aware of any of that stuff at all is an example of it working. :) It was through the scientific method we observed and discovered those things.
Without it when it is inconvenient they'd simply ignore it.
Which they do with a lot of things these days when they do so they are NOT using the scientific method.
Yes this would matter if the scientific method were only referring to observation as using your own eyes and senses. We collect data with our tools.
The only reason we know that the physical observer observing the experiment impacted things at a quantum level is due to collecting data when they were NOT physically observing it.
So if you are hung up on OBSERVATION as being a person with their native senses you would be correct.
That is not what it means in the scientific method. You can use other tools to observe. Sometimes the method doesn't say observation it simply says COLLECT DATA.
I tend to use observation because usually it is someone noticing something with their own senses that makes them ask a question...
As we get deeper into things beyond our senses this is less often the way it occurs.
And you are missing the other half.
What i am hung up on is that the observer can completely change the experiment outcome,
not just by observation, but also because of their desire for a specific outcome.
In the future, we will have to include data collectors mood, expected outcomes, biases (and yes this will be a moving target) and many other things that affect the outcome as part of the data collection.
The human is part of the experiment.
And cannot be separated.
The scientific method will have to be reworked to include this.
Nah. It works just fine. It isn't a solution. It is a process. It isn't an answer. It is a process.
It's only job is to try to keep our bias out of the end results. By bias I am not referring to the quantum nature of the observer.
The fact that happened was new data, new observations.
Scientific Method didn't care. It's a tool. A process. All it meant is we needed to come up with some new hypothesis.
In fact as a tool. The scientific method is purely a mental recipe we follow to try to keep us from pushing our speculations as fact.
The examples you described don't break that in any way.
They simply break some earlier theories. Which is what is supposed to happen.
Yep. By the scientific method you'd need to change your hypothesis and try to come up with an experiment that takes that into consideration.
Then test it. If you can't test it then you can't really move forward on that subject until you find a way.
Scientific method works just fine there. It does it's job. People don't then get to speculate on the answer and then start pushing it as truth/fact without testing and proving it.