A problem that I have with the scientific method

Rauffenburg

Member
Jun 18, 2004
79
5
39
Germany
✟15,228.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Others
the fact is not hidden in the way "it is presented to the general public".

I believe in fact, that it is more or less hidden. The public is commonly not informed about the controversies behind certain findings. Scientific findings get presented with a somewhat authoritarian attitude - scientists "show", "proof" or whatever. In general the public representation of scientific findings is much stronger - due to scientific journalism - than the results mostly are.

Btw. science does not only not communicate this uncertain nature of its own findings towards the layperson, but also not towards its own students. The Philosopher of Science and medial scientist Ludwik Fleck called this the difference between "exoteric" and "esoteric" science. Esoteric science is controversial, but it remains rather unaccessable from the outside and is practised by a small group of experts - which Fleck called the "thought-collective". Exoteric science on the other hand is broadly accessible but presents it self as a coherent, unified bodý of knowledge. You just have to look at a standard textbook to get exactly this impression. Textbooks normally do not present the controversial nature of their own statements but instead present their statements a more or less certain body of facts.

Therefore I think his critcism is more or less correct. But his example is misleading. It is not about the sameness of conditions in the repetition of experiments. It is the inner drive of scientific theories to form collective social instituions that present and defend certain findings as fact towards outsider which in their nature are controversial. The problematic thing about this tendency is that relvant alternatives remain unseen or surpressed.

I think one has to see the two sides of science. Its ideal-type of rational inquiriy which only limits itself through experiment and its social reality with its rational-conservatism that is utterly hostile twoards innovation insofar as innovation is not absolutly necessary.
 
Upvote 0

MorkandMindy

Andrew Yang's Forward Party
Supporter
Dec 16, 2006
7,401
785
New Mexico
✟220,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It isn't difficult to get into the controversy of scientific inquiry, the Internet started for exchanging scientific data, and new data and new theories and challenges to the less established theories come along all the time.

It all depends on how confused you want to be
 
Upvote 0

Kalimar

Everything is Math
Sep 27, 2008
42
2
Tampa, FL
✟7,672.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Imagine a simple experiment with a noise-making device in an enclosed space and the air being sucked out of that space. Gradually the sound from that noise-making device fades. Eventually the sound is gone.

Wiki "The Problem of Induction" -- I'm not allowed to post links yet.

Read David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and you'll realize that scientists too recognize that what they can only do is work in theory. There is still a theory of gravity. Objects do not necessarily gravitate toward objects of larger mass. The only reason we believe so is that it has been observed in distant galaxies and on Earth for many, many, many years.

Stochastically speaking, it's a good model. We accept that future conditions do not always follow necessarily in the future, but we also accept probabilistic "laws".
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
I believe in fact, that it is more or less hidden. The public is commonly not informed about the controversies behind certain findings. Scientific findings get presented with a somewhat authoritarian attitude - scientists "show", "proof" or whatever. In general the public representation of scientific findings is much stronger - due to scientific journalism - than the results mostly are.

Btw. science does not only not communicate this uncertain nature of its own findings towards the layperson, but also not towards its own students. The Philosopher of Science and medial scientist Ludwik Fleck called this the difference between "exoteric" and "esoteric" science. Esoteric science is controversial, but it remains rather unaccessable from the outside and is practised by a small group of experts - which Fleck called the "thought-collective". Exoteric science on the other hand is broadly accessible but presents it self as a coherent, unified bodý of knowledge. You just have to look at a standard textbook to get exactly this impression. Textbooks normally do not present the controversial nature of their own statements but instead present their statements a more or less certain body of facts.

Therefore I think his critcism is more or less correct. But his example is misleading. It is not about the sameness of conditions in the repetition of experiments. It is the inner drive of scientific theories to form collective social instituions that present and defend certain findings as fact towards outsider which in their nature are controversial. The problematic thing about this tendency is that relvant alternatives remain unseen or surpressed.

I think one has to see the two sides of science. Its ideal-type of rational inquiriy which only limits itself through experiment and its social reality with its rational-conservatism that is utterly hostile twoards innovation insofar as innovation is not absolutly necessary.
Thanks for your reply!

I still think his criticism incorrect - unless (despite the clearly described topic in the thread title and the OP) the point of this thread was a general "there are things that are problematic with science and its presentation".

Your points are completely different than that of the OP, and they don´t refer to the scientific method, but its faulty application and inaccurate description.

I am not a scientist nor in the science business. Thus I can not adequately determine whether your points of criticism are accurate.
Nonetheless, allow me to summarize your points as I have understood them and make a few remarks.
I´d also like to point out that during my education I have never been made believe that science is inerrant, can not be subject to corruption or that its purpose is to proclaim EternalTruths.

Argument 1:

The self-correcting mechanisms of science do not function properly or not as good as expected.

If this is so (which I am not in the position to tell, and on top am not sure what criteria to apply in order to come to a verdict of that kind), this is a valid concern, and I would be all for finding ways to improve it. (However, attacking the scientific method itself is certainly not the way to do it).

Argument 2:

There is a conspiracy of an incrowd scientific community that purposely and intentionally suppresses findings that are not to their liking.

Again, if this is so (which I can´t tell), this is inacceptable and needs to be changed, but it doesn´t discredit the scientific method itself.
Like with any established circle of persons, such developments are certainly possible (if not even likely). Nonetheless I would expect more than the mere claim that there is such a conspiracy.
(On another note, usually I see this criticism popping up when demonstrably non-scientific ideas - e.g. "creationism" - aren´t taken seriously by scientists. But, of course, that doesn´t mean that there isn´t such a conspiracy. [The fact that I´m paranoid doesn´t mean they aren´t out to get me. :)]).

Argument 3:

The media present scientific findings as something they aren´t (cut in stone truths, uncontradicted facts) and doesn´t mention possible or factual limitations of their validity. They don´t inform the public in a way that allows the public to skeptically investigate the findings and the validity of the way they were gained.

I am, practically and pragmatically, wondering what alternative you have in mind. Personally (and maybe I am a bit too naive there) I used to think that if I wanted to investigate scientific processes and finding I could do that quite fine. First thing would be to buy myself scientific journals, and from there I could follow the references to the respective studies.
Only thing is: I don´t do it (I don´t even make the first step), and pretty much everyone I know doesn´t do it. Scientific journals aren´t best sellers, after all. And a second thing is: I wouldn´t even have the knowledge required to understand most of them, lest investigate their validity. (Heck, even if it affects me personally, I usually don´t go to the sources. If my doctor prescribes a medication, I´ll at best try to find some articles about it on the internet, and then usually take it and be done with it).
Of course my newspaper usually just says "Scientists have found that..."(and adds a bit of information). Do you expect newspapers and TV news to exhaustively discuss the details of every scientific process? Leaving aside for a moment that the TVnews (even if they were broadcasted 24/7) wouldn´t have the time to do that and that your daily newspaper probably would have the dimensions of the bible, and also leaving aside that nobody would read this stuff, anyways: Who should write all those articles?
Scientists? (Which would only take the same problem to another level)
Independent non-scientists (Where do we get an armada of non-scientists who have the scientific knowledge to judge the process and results from?

On another note, I tend to think that the presentation of scientific results is often misunderstood because people don´t even have a clue what words like "hypothesis", "theory", "fact" and "proof" mean in scientific method and terminology.

Bottom line: If there is indeed no way for an interested person to investigate the studies that led to scientific results (which, again, I am not in the position to tell), this is indeed a problem. The fact that these discussions don´t take place in public media is not really a problem.
 
Upvote 0

MorkandMindy

Andrew Yang's Forward Party
Supporter
Dec 16, 2006
7,401
785
New Mexico
✟220,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Imagine a simple experiment with a noise-making device in an enclosed space and the air being sucked out of that space. Gradually the sound from that noise-making device fades. Eventually the sound is gone.

That describes the experiment. Even in your own words you have left out the irrelevancies.
 
Upvote 0

MorkandMindy

Andrew Yang's Forward Party
Supporter
Dec 16, 2006
7,401
785
New Mexico
✟220,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Let's say that somebody in Ohio conducted that experiment in November.

Now imagine somebody in New Mexico conducting the same experiment in July. Then somebody in South Africa conducting the same experiment ten years later in February.

The results are the same every time somebody conducts the experiment. Everybody agrees that the experiment confirms that sound cannot travel through a vacuum.

The general public is then told that the same experiment has been conducted by many different researchers and the results overwhelmingly support the idea that sound cannot travel through a vacuum.

Telling the public something is not usually the aim of scientific work.

In the distant past Universities paid salaries and some of those paid did scientific work. 150 years ago it became fashionable for wealthy gentlemen to conduct scientific work out of curiosity. And increasingly from the second half of the 1800s onward industry then found benefits from science were sufficient to justify paying for industrial research labs. Edison and the Bell Laboratories is one example.

I am aware that various scientists in the military and industrial sectors keep new discoveries secret, more the specifics than the basic science. And publicly funded work is usually not revealed until it has been published so the researcher has gained acknowledgement.

Of a conspiracy to mislead the public about levels of certainty in scientific results I am totally unaware of one by scientists.

But science publications for the general public gain readership by being the latest and most sensational so I certainly can’t vouch for them.

I hope this answers your question.
 
Upvote 0

paug

Regular Member
Aug 11, 2008
273
11
Finland
✟7,969.00
Faith
Atheist
But I think that it is a valid criticism for a critical listener/reader to respond to science as it is presented to the general public with, "Yeah, but the conditions were not completely the same any two times that experiment was repeated".

But doing that would allow us to say only that: "Under conditions X, at time Y and location Z, A occurred as a result of B." That is all we could say after that one experiment. You are right.

But that's not what the scientific method concerns itself with. By modifying the different parameters, i.e. keeping the others controlled and varying one (e.g. location Z), we can come to a theory which says "A occurs not only under XYZ and after B, but also under completely different parameters for time, location and conditions."

This has been stated many times in the thread by many posters. The problem with the situation is that your OP is a bit strange. Just think about it, and you might understand what everyone is trying to tell you.
 
Upvote 0

Nightson

Take two snuggles and call me in the morning
Jul 11, 2005
4,470
235
California
✟5,839.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
All knowledge in science is provisional. Every scientific fact and theorem is open to falsification by repeating the experiment and getting different results. I mean as long as you accept induction as a valid form of logical reasoning (which you do, because you can't really live without it), then science doesn't have any problems.
 
Upvote 0

LOVEthroughINTELLECT

The courage to be human
Jul 30, 2005
7,825
403
✟25,873.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
But that's not what the scientific method concerns itself with. By modifying the different parameters, i.e. keeping the others controlled and varying one (e.g. location Z), we can come to a theory which says "A occurs not only under XYZ and after B, but also under completely different parameters for time, location and conditions."

This has been stated many times in the thread by many posters...




Almost every reply in this thread seems to confirm what I said in the first place: an experiment is never really repeated.

Scientists--both in the hard sciences and the social sciences--should just say so.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LOVEthroughINTELLECT

The courage to be human
Jul 30, 2005
7,825
403
✟25,873.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Rather, it reveals a thorough misunderstanding of what science does and what the scientific method tries to accomplish...




Well, that is not my fault.

I just go by what scientists tell me in academic settings and through the media.

If science and its aims are distorted in the way that they are presented to the general public then the scientific community needs to speak up and set the record straight.

But I do not really think that anything is being distorted. I think that scientists either do not care what the general public thinks (and judging from the tone of many of the responses in this thread, that is apparently the case) or they communicate poorly with the general public.

It is not my responsibility to know what scientists really mean when they say that an experiment has been "repeated". It is their responsibility to communicate to me what they really mean.

This is a philosophy forum. Therefore, I brought up a philosophical problem that I have with science as it is presented to me.

The burden of proof is on the people who are making a claim, not on the people who are being presented a claim.

If experiments are never really "repeated" in the conventional sense of the word then scientists should simply say so.
 
Upvote 0

MorkandMindy

Andrew Yang's Forward Party
Supporter
Dec 16, 2006
7,401
785
New Mexico
✟220,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Wouldn't repeating the experiment really be like this:


1.) Somebody manipulates variables to certain conditions at X degrees latitude and Y degrees longitude at 1:05 P.M. local time on November 9, 2008.

2.) Another person manipulates the same variables to the same conditions at X degrees latitude and Y degrees longitude at 1:05 P.M. local time on November 9, 2008.


To repeat an experiment wouldn't everybody have to travel back in time? To repeate an experiment wouldn't everybody have to be at exactly the same point in space?

Does any experiment really tell us anything more than "At X point in time at Y point in space under Z conditions sound did not travel through a vacuum"?

Well, that is not my fault.

If experiments are never really "repeated" in the conventional sense of the word then scientists should simply say so.

If you do the same experiment again then that means it was done later at the very least. The meaning of the word 'repeat' is - to say again or do again at a later time.


Only one experiment is possible using the same apparatus at the same place and the same time. I don't think scientists are failing the public or misleading the public by not doing what is logically impossible, undesirable, and contrary to the meaning of the word 'repeat' anyway.

.
 
Upvote 0
N

Nathan45

Guest
If experiments are never really "repeated" in the conventional sense of the word then scientists should simply say so.

I don't really want to argue about a stringent definition of "repeated", but I will be the first one to tell you that science is based on inductive reasoning not deductive reasoning. Nothing can be known with absolute certainty.

However, it is a reasonable assumption that sound waves and vacuums should function the same in Ohio as they do in New Mexico or anywhere else. If they didn't, we might notice things sound differently in different places, and they clearly don't, both anecdotal and non-anecdotal evidence shows that sound is the same everywhere.

Morover, i can't prove absolutely that ever single scientist who ever did an experiment related to this isn't a liar, but what we need to do is invoke Ockham's razor, here, "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", that is to say "The simplest solution is usually correct". The simplest solution in this case, is 1) the scientists are not all lying to you,

and 2) Sound cannot travel through a vacuum, because sound has never been observed to travel through a vacuum and the working theoretical model of sound, uncontradicted by all research, requires particles to transmit such sound.

Other scenarios should be considered absurdly unlikely.

Science is not capable of producing "Absolute truth", however it can come pretty damn close.
 
Upvote 0

LOVEthroughINTELLECT

The courage to be human
Jul 30, 2005
7,825
403
✟25,873.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I don't really want to argue about a stringent definition of "repeated", but I will be the first one to tell you that science is based on inductive reasoning not deductive reasoning. Nothing can be known with absolute certainty.

However, it is a reasonable assumption that sound waves and vacuums should function the same in Ohio as they do in New Mexico or anywhere else. If they didn't, we might notice things sound differently in different places, and they clearly don't, both anecdotal and non-anecdotal evidence shows that sound is the same everywhere.

Morover, i can't prove absolutely that ever single scientist who ever did an experiment related to this isn't a liar, but what we need to do is invoke Ockham's razor, here, "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", that is to say "The simplest solution is usually correct". The simplest solution in this case, is 1) the scientists are not all lying to you,

and 2) Sound cannot travel through a vacuum, because sound has never been observed to travel through a vacuum and the working theoretical model of sound, uncontradicted by all research, requires particles to transmit such sound.

Other scenarios should be considered absurdly unlikely.

Science is not capable of producing "Absolute truth", however it can come pretty damn close.




I never said anything about anybody being a liar or anything about "absolute truth".

I have simply pointed out what I see as an inconsistency in the way that science is presented to the general public (and even the way that its basics are presented in academic settings to students not specializing in science) and some realities of scientific research.

All of this stuff about "approximations", "the simplest solution is usually correct", "we all do this--it is how we keep our sanity", etc., completely misses the point--and straw man, red herring, tangent, etc. could probably be used to describe all of it as well.

The point is that scientists claim--at least in their discourse with the general public--to peer review each other's experiments by doing the same experiment.

The fact that the experiments are not the same--that they are done, say, at different points in space--is, as far as I can tell, never acknowledged. That, to me, presents a philosophical problem.

People can nitpick about semantics all that they want to--do things like go off on tangents about the definition of "repeat" all that they want to--but the inconsistency remains.
 
Upvote 0

SiderealExalt

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2007
2,344
165
42
✟3,309.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I never said anything about anybody being a liar or anything about "absolute truth".

I have simply pointed out what I see as an inconsistency in the way that science is presented to the general public (and even the way that its basics are presented in academic settings to students not specializing in science) and some realities of scientific research.

All of this stuff about "approximations", "the simplest solution is usually correct", "we all do this--it is how we keep our sanity", etc., completely misses the point--and straw man, red herring, tangent, etc. could probably be used to describe all of it as well.

The point is that scientists claim--at least in their discourse with the general public--to peer review each other's experiments by doing the same experiment.

The fact that the experiments are not the same--that they are done, say, at different points in space--is, as far as I can tell, never acknowledged. That, to me, presents a philosophical problem.

People can nitpick about semantics all that they want to--do things like go off on tangents about the definition of "repeat" all that they want to--but the inconsistency remains.

I have to question this use of the word inconsistency. Particularly because not all experiments, and I bet most don't, are dependent on the location they are done at.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DarkProphet

Veteran
Apr 16, 2007
2,093
65
✟17,826.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Imagine a simple experiment with a noise-making device in an enclosed space and the air being sucked out of that space. Gradually the sound from that noise-making device fades. Eventually the sound is gone.

Let's say that somebody in Ohio conducted that experiment in November.

Now imagine somebody in New Mexico conducting the same experiment in July. Then somebody in South Africa conducting the same experiment ten years later in February.

The results are the same every time somebody conducts the experiment. Everybody agrees that the experiment confirms that sound cannot travel through a vacuum.

The general public is then told that the same experiment has been conducted by many different researchers and the results overwhelmingly support the idea that sound cannot travel through a vacuum. The general public is told that the same conditions were re-created each time.

But did everybody really conduct the same experiment? Were the same conditions really recreated every time?

One person did it in Ohio. Another person did it in South Africa. One person did it in July. Another person did it ten years later. Different points in space. Different points in time.

Wouldn't repeating the experiment really be like this:


1.) Somebody manipulates variables to certain conditions at X degrees latitude and Y degrees longitude at 1:05 P.M. local time on November 9, 2008.

2.) Another person manipulates the same variables to the same conditions at X degrees latitude and Y degrees longitude at 1:05 P.M. local time on November 9, 2008.


To repeat an experiment wouldn't everybody have to travel back in time? To repeate an experiment wouldn't everybody have to be at exactly the same point in space?

Does any experiment really tell us anything more than "At X point in time at Y point in space under Z conditions sound did not travel through a vacuum"?

You bring up a valid point in that the experiment cannot be duplicated EXACTLY but the thing is, it doesn't have to be duplicated exactly. Only the parts that interact with what is being tested have to be duplicated. One could argue that not all variables are known and that something could be interacting with the experiment that wasn't duplicated but then that would be reflected in the results.
 
Upvote 0
K

Kharak

Guest
I never said anything about anybody being a liar or anything about "absolute truth".

I have simply pointed out what I see as an inconsistency in the way that science is presented to the general public (and even the way that its basics are presented in academic settings to students not specializing in science) and some realities of scientific research.

All of this stuff about "approximations", "the simplest solution is usually correct", "we all do this--it is how we keep our sanity", etc., completely misses the point--and straw man, red herring, tangent, etc. could probably be used to describe all of it as well.

The point is that scientists claim--at least in their discourse with the general public--to peer review each other's experiments by doing the same experiment.

The fact that the experiments are not the same--that they are done, say, at different points in space--is, as far as I can tell, never acknowledged. That, to me, presents a philosophical problem.

People can nitpick about semantics all that they want to--do things like go off on tangents about the definition of "repeat" all that they want to--but the inconsistency remains.

It is unreasonable to expect all experiments or observations would be the same. The underlying philosophy is that the model created from observations are generally consistent. As the others have remarked, an experiment repeated exactly as the last down to violation of Heisenberg uncertainty would be useless.

The topic you are presenting is no more than an accusation of dishonesty that does simply not occur because the scientific method has never been discussed as or aim towards exact repeatability. The most that science can generate is theories or models of how the universe works, and absolute truth is never even fathomed because it is beyond the material limits of science. That is of course, unless you can imagine the simple phrase: Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether the public has no idea what a theory is, or indeed what repeatable observations mean in science, is hardly the fault of the scientific community (which isn't publishing its works for the general public, as a rule). Rather, I would contest that it's the lack of elementary scientific education that's caused the debacle.
 
Upvote 0

OphidiaPhile

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2008
2,919
188
56
Northern California
✟3,947.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The problem is that the conditions are never the same when an experiment is repeated and scientists do not seem to acknowledge that fact.

Maybe it is enough within the scientific community to say that the "relevant" variables were controlled, but in the bigger picture a lot of things are not accounted for and with respect to certainty an experiment--the way that I see it, anyway--at the most tells us that at point W in space at point X in time under Y conditions Z was observed.

So you are saying that the laws of physics change by month, day, year and time of day. If that is not what you are saying then your argument is not relevant since the laws do not change and as long as the experiment is verifiable it proves the original hypothesis.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OphidiaPhile

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2008
2,919
188
56
Northern California
✟3,947.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I guess my point is that the scientific community does not communicate to the layperson the tentative, uncertain, imperfect nature of science and its findings.

Instead of, "Based on these details we know this" the public is told, "See this experiment. It has been repeated several times with the same results. Therefore, sound cannot travel through a vacuum".

Maybe scientists with a lot of training in science know that scientific knowledge takes into account all of the details that you describe.

But I think that it is a valid criticism for a critical listener/reader to respond to science as it is presented to the general public with, "Yeah, but the conditions were not completely the same any two times that experiment was repeated".

Only criteria relevant to the experiment are necessary to be repeated. Time of day nor latitude and longitude will affect the experiment. That the experiment can be repeated time and again by scientists wanting to prove the hypothesis wrong is validation that the hypothesis is correct
 
Upvote 0