Is the Scientific Method all there is to Science ?

[studiot]

The thread was inspired by mention of the Scientific Method (SM) in another thread, where detailed discussion of the method would be off topic.

Additionally it was inspired by the observation that the SM is all too often introduced as representing all of Science.

Hence the title question here.

Is the Scientific Method all there is to Science ?

 

13 hours ago, beecee said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

 

As a discussion starter example is the synthesis of this compound nothing to do with Science as it is clearly not part of the SM as outlined above.

Or is it some other pat of Science?

[swansont]

The order might be different in some cases, but you have hypothesis/theory, experiment/observation, and reporting, so I'm not sure what's missing.

[studiot]

I don't see where research, hypothesis, data analysis, observation, report, or testing come into it.

Either you know how to synthesise this compound or you learn some Chemistry and find out.

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, studiot said:

I don't see where research, hypothesis, data analysis, observation, report, or testing come into it.

Either you know how to synthesise this compound or you learn some Chemistry and find out.

How were those techniques developed, if not by methods that fall under experimentation?

How does learning e.g. chemistry not fall under reporting? You're the recipient of that reporting. 

[studiot]

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

How does learning e.g. chemistry not fall under reporting? You're the recipient of that reporting. 

This would be the first time I have ever heard of learning as equivalent to reporting.

That is stretching meanings and definitions too far in my opinion, just as before someone can experiment he must be born, get out of bed and so on.

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

How were those techniques developed, if not by methods that fall under experimentation?

So by the above logic all these activities this must be included under experimentation.

[swansont]

19 minutes ago, studiot said:

This would be the first time I have ever heard of learning as equivalent to reporting.

I would argue that writing a textbook is.

And is learning science the same as doing science?

to wit

Quote

That is stretching meanings and definitions too far in my opinion, just as before someone can experiment he must be born, get out of bed and so on.

Before they can do science they must learn science.

[studiot]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

Before they can do science they must learn science.

How did the first man to 'do' the very first bit of Science learn Science ?

I have already noted that I consider the very first bit of Science was likely to have been materials science.

Edited September 8, 2021 by studiot

[swansont]

I would expect a lot of trial and error was involved, and some happy accidents along the way. I think the SM was developed over time and refined along the way. I don't think there would a be a sharp demarcation between non-science and science while that was happening.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I would expect a lot of trial and error was involved, and some happy accidents along the way. I think the SM was developed over time and refined along the way. I don't think there would a be a sharp demarcation between non-science and science while that was happening.

I agree there.

Sharp being the operative word as I think that hardening a sharpened stick in a fire might have been one of the first scientific discoveries.

[beecee]

I'll sit back at this stage and keep my "philosophisng" to myself, and let you two knowledgable scientists debate it. 😊

[beecee]

The problem [if it is a problem] with the scientific method, is that  "one size fits all" aspect isn't a fixed, constant postulate, and doesn't reflect that in realty [I hate that word! 😉] science and the approach to science, varies significantly across the many disciplines. I see that variability as rather minor anyway, and even if significant in any one of the steps involved, is not that important imvho.

 

The part about science and the scientific method, that many don't realize, that in the sometimes lengthy road to a final result, many times mistakes are common, and this in essence, are blessings in disguise.Science is full of mistakes, serindipitous results and controversy. And yet in the end, generally comes out on top.

Edited September 8, 2021 by beecee