31 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
31 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
title: "Scientific method"
|
||
chunk: 12/13
|
||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method"
|
||
category: "reference"
|
||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:43:09.265477+00:00"
|
||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
==== Thought collectives ====
|
||
A perhaps accessible lead into what is claimed is Fleck's thought, echoed in Kuhn's concept of normal science. According to Fleck, scientists' work is based on a thought-style, that cannot be rationally reconstructed. It gets instilled through the experience of learning, and science is then advanced based on a tradition of shared assumptions held by what he called thought collectives. Fleck also claims this phenomenon to be largely invisible to members of the group.
|
||
Comparably, following the field research in an academic scientific laboratory by Latour and Woolgar, Karin Knorr Cetina has conducted a comparative study of two scientific fields (namely high energy physics and molecular biology) to conclude that the epistemic practices and reasonings within both scientific communities are different enough to introduce the concept of "epistemic cultures", in contradiction with the idea that a so-called "scientific method" is unique and a unifying concept.
|
||
|
||
==== Situated cognition and relativism ====
|
||
|
||
On the idea of Fleck's thought collectives sociologists built the concept of situated cognition: that the perspective of the researcher fundamentally affects their work; and, too, more radical views.
|
||
Norwood Russell Hanson, alongside Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend, extensively explored the theory-laden nature of observation in science. Hanson introduced the concept in 1958, emphasizing that observation is influenced by the observer's conceptual framework. He used the concept of gestalt to show how preconceptions can affect both observation and description, and illustrated this with examples like the initial rejection of Golgi bodies as an artefact of staining technique, and the differing interpretations of the same sunrise by Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler. Intersubjectivity led to different conclusions.
|
||
Kuhn and Feyerabend acknowledged Hanson's pioneering work, although Feyerabend's views on methodological pluralism were more radical. Criticisms like those from Kuhn and Feyerabend prompted discussions leading to the development of the strong programme, a sociological approach that seeks to explain scientific knowledge without recourse to the truth or validity of scientific theories. It examines how scientific beliefs are shaped by social factors such as power, ideology, and interests.
|
||
The postmodernist critiques of science have themselves been the subject of intense controversy. This ongoing debate, known as the science wars, is the result of conflicting values and assumptions between postmodernist and realist perspectives. Postmodernists argue that scientific knowledge is merely a discourse, devoid of any claim to fundamental truth. In contrast, realists within the scientific community maintain that science uncovers real and fundamental truths about reality. Many books have been written by scientists which take on this problem and challenge the assertions of the postmodernists while defending science as a legitimate way of deriving truth.
|
||
|
||
== Limits of method ==
|
||
|
||
=== Role of chance in discovery ===
|
||
|
||
Somewhere between 33% and 50% of all scientific discoveries are estimated to have been stumbled upon, rather than sought out. This may explain why scientists so often express that they were lucky. Scientists themselves in the 19th and 20th century acknowledged the role of fortunate luck or serendipity in discoveries. Louis Pasteur is credited with the famous saying that "Luck favours the prepared mind", but some psychologists have begun to study what it means to be 'prepared for luck' in the scientific context. Research is showing that scientists are taught various heuristics that tend to harness chance and the unexpected. This is what Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls "Anti-fragility"; while some systems of investigation are fragile in the face of human error, human bias, and randomness, the scientific method is more than resistant or tough – it actually benefits from such randomness in many ways (it is anti-fragile). Taleb believes that the more anti-fragile the system, the more it will flourish in the real world.
|
||
Psychologist Kevin Dunbar says the process of discovery often starts with researchers finding bugs in their experiments. These unexpected results lead researchers to try to fix what they think is an error in their method. Eventually, the researcher decides the error is too persistent and systematic to be a coincidence. The highly controlled, cautious, and curious aspects of the scientific method are thus what make it well suited for identifying such persistent systematic errors. At this point, the researcher will begin to think of theoretical explanations for the error, often seeking the help of colleagues across different domains of expertise.
|
||
|
||
=== Relationship with statistics ===
|
||
When the scientific method employs statistics as a key part of its arsenal, there are mathematical and practical issues that can have a deleterious effect on the reliability of the output of scientific methods. This is described in a popular 2005 scientific paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by John Ioannidis, which is considered foundational to the field of metascience. Much research in metascience seeks to identify poor use of statistics and improve its use, an example being the misuse of p-values.
|
||
The points raised are both statistical and economical. Statistically, research findings are less likely to be true when studies are small and when there is significant flexibility in study design, definitions, outcomes, and analytical approaches. Economically, the reliability of findings decreases in fields with greater financial interests, biases, and a high level of competition among research teams. As a result, most research findings are considered false across various designs and scientific fields, particularly in modern biomedical research, which often operates in areas with very low pre- and post-study probabilities of yielding true findings. Nevertheless, despite these challenges, most new discoveries will continue to arise from hypothesis-generating research that begins with low or very low pre-study odds. This suggests that expanding the frontiers of knowledge will depend on investigating areas outside the mainstream, where the chances of success may initially appear slim. |