home
 
 
 
Improve Scientific Method
© Lloyd

ADVANCED 5-STEP SCIENTIFIC METHOD:
-- 1. Observe; 2. Experiment; 3. Replicate; 4. Publish; 5. Use (for good)

(Scientific Method is a process by which to improve understanding of reality for humane purposes. Each step can be performed independently by individuals or groups, or can be performed cooperatively. The Advanced Scientific Method includes checking for & removing errors at all 5 stages.)

1. OBSERVE — Make and publish accurate observations of a subject.

2. EXPERIMENT —
a. Make a hypothesis that may explain the observations.
b. Experiment to test and improve the hypothesis, taking accurate and relevant measurements, using logic and perhaps math, and taking relevant, accurate notes of all procedures involved.
c. Publish the experiment.

3. REPLICATE — Two or more unaffiliated parties independently replicate the experiment.

4. PUBLISH — Publish the experimental results as a scientific discovery, if all experiments are successful.

5. USE FOR GOOD — Use the finding humanely as determined by local unanimous agreement among morally mature people.

-----

COMMON ERRORS THAT UNDERMINE SCIENTIFIC METHOD ARE:
(Re 1:) making inaccurate observations;
(re 2:) making an untestable hypothesis, or misusing logic or math in the experiment, or recording or publishing a false or inaccurate record or suppressing it;
(re 3:) failing to replicate an experiment by unaffiliated parties or failing to debate it properly;
(re 4:) publishing false or misleading statements about experiments or experimenters; and
(re 5:) using the finding inhumanely or without local unanimous agreement among morally mature people.

-----

PROPOSED METHOD FOR SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION
1. Choose a theory & state what is the most crucial statement of the theory.
2. Other participants then choose to:
a) agree with the statement;
b1) request explanation, or proof;
b2) someone give explanation, or proof;
b3) others choose (a or b); or
c1) propose a modification of the statement
c2) others choose (a or b) for the modified statement.
3. Step 2 is used for all subsidiary statements.
4. The theory is then organized & published.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(7/11/13 Version)

(Scientific Method — It is a process by which to improve understanding of reality for humane purposes. Each step can be performed independently by individuals or groups, or can be performed cooperatively.)

5 Steps of Scientific Method:
1. Observe; 2. Experiment; 3. Replicate; 4. Publish; 5. Use

1. Make and publish accurate observations of a subject.

2. Experiment.
a. Make a hypothesis that may explain the observations.
b. Experiment to test and improve the hypothesis, taking accurate and relevant measurements, using logic and perhaps math, and taking relevant, accurate notes of all procedures involved.
c. Publish the experiment.

3. Two or more unaffiliated parties independently replicate the experiment.

4. Publish the experimental results as a scientific discovery, if all experiments are successful.

5. Use the finding humanely as determined by local unanimous agreement.

Common errors that undermine the Scientific Method are:

(Re 1:) making inaccurate observations;
(re 2:) making an untestable hypothesis, or misusing logic or math in the experiment, or recording or publishing a false or inaccurate record or suppressing it;
(re 3:) failing to replicate an experiment by unaffiliated parties or failing to debate it properly;
(re 4:) publishing false or misleading statements about experiments or experimenters; and
(re 5:) using the finding inhumanely or without local unanimous agreement.

Proposed Method for Scientific Discussion for Publication

1. Anyone, whom we'll refer to here as P1, invites a second party, P2, to suggest an important scientific theory to discuss.

2. P2 suggests a theory that P1 accepts.

3. P2 then states the most crucial statement of the theory.

4. P1 then accepts the statement, or requests an explanation or proof, or proposes a modification of P2's statement.

5. P2 and P1 may continue proposing modifications of each other's proposed statement until they agree on or table it.

6. As each statement is agreed to, P2's next most important statement is discussed in the same way (alwasy seeking accuracy, scope and simplicity). This process repeats until a complete theory is drafted with both parties agreeing to all of the statements.

7. The theory is then published from the draft.

(Previous Version) The Scientific Method involves:

  1. choosing a subject matter and making accurate observations of it;
  2. making a hypothesis that may explain the observations;
  3. testing the hypothesis by experiment, using accurate and relevant measurements, logic and, if needed, math as well, to determine if the hypothesis is contradicted; and revising the hypothesis and the experiment, if contradicted;
  4. making an accurate record of the experiment and the evaluation and publishing them;
  5. getting 2 or more unaffiliated parties to replicate a successful experiment;
  6. explaining and publishing the hypothesis as a probable fact and a scientific discovery, if all experiments are successful; and
  7. using the discovery to humanely increase control over nature for the purpose of improving the conditions of society and the biosphere, all as determined by local unanimous adult rule. (Words underlined are recent additions.)
Page: 1  2   3 
 
'13-06-25, 11:04
 
Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
 
 
I'd like to suggest that we start with some definitions of what a good theory is supposed to be. I subscribe to the view that there are three metrics for estimating the "cash value" theory:
  • Accuracy
    • The "cash value" of a scientific theory is quite obviously rooted in the practical utility of being able to predict future events, insofar as this gives us the ability to arrange things to our advantage. If it were not for this value, there wouldn't be any, in any intellectual enterprise.
    • This does not negate the value of being able to explain things after the fact (sometimes called "postdiction"). No hypothesis that can successfully predict future events would fail to "postdict" past events. And since the existing data are free, the first test of an hypothesis should always be whether or not it accurately explains the known data (i.e., would the hypothesis actually have predicted those data had they not already existed). If the hypothesis fails at that, any successful prediction is surely just coincidence.
  • Scope
    • This is just a "cash value" multiplier. A single hypothesis that can accurately explain & predict 10 times more stuff is worth 10 times more, just as a universal wrench is worth more than an entire toolbox full of standard wrenches (assuming that it performs as well on each individual bolt).
  • Simplicity
    • All other factors being the same, the simpler theory is just easier to use, so that's the one we'll consider to be "correct."
By using objective metrics such as these, we can get past the most common problem in pseudo-scientific thinking. A lot of people seem to think that if they can get people to believe what they're saying, then it's just as good as any other hypothesis out there. In other words, they think that hypotheses are social activities, which don't actually have to be about anything (except the people who are proposing the hypotheses). People who think this way will then engage in all kinds of tactics to bring people around to their way of seeing things. But there isn't any intrinsic merit to such an enterprise, and with objective metrics, we can easily see this. The value of science isn't that somebody won an argument — it's that we became better masters of our destinies.
'13-06-25, 16:15
 
Lloyd
St. Louis area

I revised my opening post above and included accuracy, scope and simplicity as part of my proposed method of scientific discussion.

I request that any of you guys propose a scientific theory to practice discuss with me, using the method described in the opening post after the description of the Scientific Method.

Along with the theory you want to propose discussing, please also post the most crucial statement of the theory.

'13-06-26, 20:05
 
brant

I disagree with #7.

Control over nature is not part of the scientific method and really has nothing to do with the end result or goals.

Science is done or should be for knowledge, or for sciences sake.... Let the discovery guide you to the next step.

Currently science is done for "societies sake right now.... See Global Warming or vaccines" -  And look at the mess its made... Its politicized...

Personally I think working with nature is more beneficial to humans than trying to control it....

'13-06-28, 19:12
 
Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
 
 
Brant,
 
I'll have a hard time arguing against the point that science has become political, and that this is bad for science, politics, and society. And if we should err here, it should be on the side of pure science, just for the sake of increasing our understanding. Nothing keeps politicians honest, and keeps technology from destroying the environment and poisoning the people, like a thorough understanding of the whole thing, and how we relate to nature. The more we know, the more cautious we become, and the more immune we are to fads and scams.
 
But I still agree with the definition of science as being something that benefits society. The difference is all in the connotations. Does benefiting society mean raping the environment for a quick buck (or to get campaign contributions from big business), or does benefiting society mean coming to understand how we relate to nature? I think we would all go with the latter. :) So I think that the definition is a good one, but perhaps we have to spell out more of what we mean by it.
'13-06-30, 07:41
 
brant

The problem is now you have defined the goals of science depending on whether your doing the right kind of "good", and who your doing good for..
Which leads us to the reason we are having our discussion in the first place...

If we were doing science for sciences sake we would have access to the same funding that the universities have by the virtue of being able to put together a scientific proposal.

If we were doing science for sciences sake the sun would be solved because we would have equal time acess to telescopes and other tools.

We wouldnt have to wait several years for data products that tax payers paid for.
Instead because science is supposed to benefit society its turned to false time wasters like global warming or what ever fraud is big at the moment in the name of "saving the world(society).

In my view science is a tool. Does a gun benefit society? Depends on who you ask and whos life is at stake at that moment in time.

The moment you add "Benefit to society to the equation" you have colored your notion as to what should be your next step and I believe that science would actually be more of a benefit to societ because the "free energy technology or backengineered UFOs that the controllers of the world hold onto." would be in use.

To all of a sudden add in a subjective arbitrary qualification to the definition of science I believe renders science a less than useful tool, like saying you can only use a hammer to hit nails that are used for building houses...


'13-06-30, 11:41
 
Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
 
 
@brant:
 
Well said. OK, I'll go along with that. So then it would be science just for the sake of understanding. The moral issues can then be taken up by the philosophers. ;)
 
Lloyd, what do you think?
'13-06-30, 15:01
 
Lloyd
St. Louis area

I'd call scientific method without step 7 incomplete or immature science, or recreation, or, if it's for evil purposes, antiscience. I think the only part of nature that should not be controlled is that which has free will, such as humans, or those with imminently potential free will, such as fetuses. If all of nature comes to have free will, then I'd agree that it should only be collaborated with rather than controlled.

What is currently called science is partly science, partly recreation and partly antiscience. Antiscience is immoral and real science needs to be used to help show that antiscience isn't science, i.e. conventional science that endangers society is antiscience. Using subliminal manipulation, peer pressure, ridicule, force, forced taxation, unfair discrimination, or any other trick is abuse, which is antiscience.

Is there any reason the 7 step scientific method I outlined above would not be able to reveal which supposed sciences are actually antiscience? And isn't the failure to identify antiscience what has allowed conventional science to become largely antiscience? Sociocracy can likely help improve scientific method to distinguish between science and antiscience. Right?

'13-06-30, 16:06
 
Charles Chandler
Baltimore, MD
 
Lloyd said:
Is there any reason the 7 step scientific method I outlined above would not be able to reveal which supposed sciences are actually antiscience?
The problem is that we don't have a clear definition of what is good/bad for society. I think that part of what Brant doesn't like is that ambiguity — if it's open to interpretation, then a global warming scam can be considered a benefit to society (in some sort of rationalized political way), while under no circumstances could a scam be considered true science.
 
But I think that there is actually more to it than that.
 
brant said:
In my view science is a tool. Does a gun benefit society? Depends on who you ask and whose life is at stake at that moment in time.
This is true, but science is the kind of tool that encourages good use. Recall Alexander Pope's words, "A little learning is a dangerous thing — drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring, where shallow draft intoxicates the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." So it's not that any science could be used for good or for bad. It's that the more you know, the more likely you are to put your knowledge to good use.
 
Furthermore, if we were to wonder what might benefit society, we could only answer if we already had a full understanding of ourselves and the world in which we live. Is anthropomorphic global warming good or bad (if it is real)? It's presented as bad, but the Earth is presently still cooler that the Medieval Optimum (which is now being called just the "Medieval Warm Period" so it doesn't conflict with the political agenda of global warming being bad). Only a far more mature science could answer whether or not the world is actually warming up now, and if so, if people had anything to do with it, and either way, whether it is good or bad. So science is not only the tool, but also the measuring instrument by which we determine its proper use. You can't have good applications of science until you have a mature science to apply. Then it will tell you how to do it. ;)
'13-07-01, 05:33
 
brant

To use the hammer analogy again. Do you think there is such a thing as a anti hammer?? How long could you keep a hammer made out of anti matter stable??
Partly recreation? I hope so... Thats how I come up with some of my best work..

The part I think you missed is how science is treated like a religion. Actions are carried out in faith(based on  a paper written by one of the accepted members of the faith) which is totally anti science. I am always questioning the basic tenants of science. It takes more time but you never become comfortable which leads to better discoveries and more pure science...

Is it necessary that science have the human element to it?? I think that Vulcans would do great science.... Do they do science for sciences sake or because it benefits them...

Here is something people rarely talk about.. I think that the information from the Nazi war experiments should be available...
Now who is to determine if its morally wrong and who is to determine if its good for society.. Which one overrides which one? Dont they always say in the movies" Dont let his death be in vain!".

The idea that intelligence breeds goodness is a great idea but then you have to ask where does evil come from? Because intelligent people do bad things with science... Is it that too much knowledge is a bad thing??

I maintain that you have to seperate the philosophy of science from the actions of science - that is the part where you go this data fits my model vs the part where you say this is interesting data that shows this physical principle and it belongs here in the order of what we know.

Take for example my current investigation into MDI and HMI. They use the absorption line for neutral iron and nickle for magnetograms. This  supposedly oscillates around a 100-250 mile center. Based on solar models this is a layed of neutral plasma dense enough to give accurate helioseismology readings. Based on physical principles you would have to say there is a nickle/iron surface there... I am kinda stuck right because nothing obvious is presenting itself. I have to come up with a more compelling physical reason than the standard model.
Its more a collection notes right now but I believe the data locates the physical surface...
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-5079-9484-9454-9840-8919-6961-9927-9914

A benefit to society presupposes you have godlike powers and can see the future, however you could say that understanding every physical principle of the universe would be a benefit to society because you would now have space travel and limitless energy. Its not necessary to add this into the definition of science thereby eliminating the chance that someone would use the definition for nefarious purposes.  It is very important to understand these two different ways of speaking. One is a physical realization of the other.  The less knobs available for government to turn, they being one of the major funders of science, the less trouble they can get into....

How come you dont have a spell checker... i'm lazy...

'13-07-01, 16:16
 
Lloyd
St. Louis area

Evil is simply making immature decisions that threaten the well-being of self or others. I think that's about as clear a definition as we can get. Some studies seem to have found that about 6% of people in any society are psychopaths, having little or no conscience, which I take to mean not caring about others' well-being. Another 12% of people are sociopaths, meaning people who have conscience but suppress it, often under pressure from psychopaths. One scientist who studied psychopaths accidentally found that he had psychopathic personality himself, but the condition can be minimized or prevented from manifesting.

I did not say that the first 6 steps of my proposed scientific method are not science. I said they're incomplete or immature if step 7 is not taken. As it is, psychopaths tend to attain control of any institution, whether govt, science, religion, or any other, with sociopaths supporting them. I consider that a societal disease process or the like. I believe it's necessary for science to find ways to end such societal disease, or civilization is likely to be destroyed. Sociocracy is the most promising means I know of for fixing or healing science and society, although I've found that it can likely be considerably improved. Anyway, I believe science is the only method by which society can be healed or "saved" from "pathocracy", i.e. rule by psychopaths. And, if step 7 is not made part of an improved scientific method, there's likely never to be a cure for pathocracy.

By the way, government in our system is defined as all of the people. The govt officials are our public servants. Servants are not defined as rulers. But pathocracy has infected our system like parasites.

I hope to get a chance to read your answers to the questions about your iron sun model soon.

 
Page: 1  2   3 

← PREV Powered by Quick Disclosure Lite®
© 2010~2020 SCS-INC.US
UP ↑