http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5164417-111414,00.html

 

Interesting article. Over 250 scientists were asked and they hand-picked the best responses

I'd say how to apply the scientific method.

 

There are definatley some interesting responses there.

Bluenoise is correct, except that it would take something the size of the Encyclopaedia Britannica to do it justice.

 

May I suggest, that the one most vital thing is the core principle behind the scientific method, which is the need for empirical evidence.

May I suggest, that the one most vital thing is the core principle behind the scientific method, which is the need for empirical evidence.

 

I don't know what scientific method you're using, but the one I'm familiar with is concerned with things like "testable predictions" and "falsifiability"

Everyone should know that the term "scientific fact" is mostly used by people who know nothing about science. Unfortunately most people can't be bothered by detailed research histories and gathered data so they fall prey when someone backs up their totally bogus assertions with the phrase, "It's a scientific fact!"

Bascule said :

 

I don't know what scientific method you're using, but the one I'm familiar with is concerned with things like "testable predictions" and "falsifiability"

 

These are important aspects of modern scientific method. I am relating back to the beginnings of modern science, when Sir Francis Bacon wrote down the essential principles that broke science free of the ridiculous anchors holding it back, as a result of the ideas of the old Greek philosophers. Bacon emphasized empirical evidence. It is a debatable argument, but I feel that this central principle still holds true.

Everyone should know that the term "scientific fact" is mostly used by people who know nothing about science.

 

I've heard Dawkins use it, but that's only to get across the idea of what a scientific theory actually means to people who seem to confuse the idea of theory with hypothesis.

 

These are important aspects of modern scientific method. I am relating back to the beginnings of modern science, when Sir Francis Bacon wrote down the essential principles that broke science free of the ridiculous anchors holding it back, as a result of the ideas of the old Greek philosophers. Bacon emphasized empirical evidence. It is a debatable argument, but I feel that this central principle still holds true.

 

Testable predictions should give a real-world result. That's where empiricism comes in.

I've heard Dawkins use it, but that's only to get across the idea of what a scientific theory actually means to people who seem to confuse the idea of theory with hypothesis.

That's another good one everybody should learn, that in science "theory" does not mean "idea" (ala, "What's your theory?"). The popular sound byte "conspiracy theory" has also harmed science tremendously by equating theory with wacky paranoia.