The scientific method usually refers to either a series or a collection of processes that are considered characteristic of scientific investigation and of the acquisition of new scientific knowledge.
Philosophers, historians and sociologists have found many ways to describe the scientific process. Often when someone describes how they think science is done, they are describing how they think science may be best or most reliably done. As a result, discussions of scientific method are frequently partisan. Indeed, there are perhaps as many methods of doing science as there are methodologists.
Introduction
The enunciation of a scientific method by Roger Bacon in the thirteenth century described a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation and the need for independent verification. This view, itself inspired by an arab alchemical tradition not endorsed by christian ecclesiastical authority, led to Francis Bacon (in 1620 with the New Organon) laying down some methods for identifying causation between phenomena. With these articulations, unfounded speculation and analogical arguments began to be replaced by consistent and logical methods of investigation.
It is common to speak as if a single approach of this type were how scientists operate literally and all the time. Most historians, philosophers and sociologists regard this perspective as naïve, and view the actual progress of science as more complicated and haphazard. The actual course of scientific progress is inseparable from the politics and culture of science; a single, formal process cannot suffice either to explain or prescribe scientific progress.
The question of how science operates is important well beyond the academic community. In the judicial system and in policy debates, for example, a study’s deviation from accepted scientific practice is grounds to reject it as “junk science.” Whether strictly formularizable or not, science represents a standard of proficiency and reliability, and this is due at least in part to the way scientists work.
Other aspects of method
There are no definitive guidelines for the production of new hypotheses. The history of science is filled with stories of scientists describing a “flash of inspiration”, or a hunch, which then motivated them to look for evidence to support or refute their idea. Michael Polanyi made such creativity the centrepiece of his methodology.
The anecdote that an apple falling on Isaac Newton’s head inspired his theory of gravity is a popular example of this (there is no evidence that the apple fell on his head; all Newton said was that his ideas were inspired “by the fall of an apple.”) Kekule’s account of the inspiration for his hypothesis of the structure of the benzene-ring (dreaming of snakes biting their own tails) is better attested.
Scientists tend to look for theories that are “elegant” or “beautiful”; in contrast to the usual English use of these terms, scientists have a more specific meaning in mind. “Elegance” (or “beauty”) refers to the ability of a theory to neatly explain all known facts as simply as possible, or in a manner consistent with Occam’s Razor.
The Ptolemaic model of the universe suggested that the earth is the centre of a pristine, perfect universe, and all motions in such a universe must be circular. The model explained the apparent retrograde motion of the planets, by introducing epicycles. Nicolaus Copernicus’ model placed the sun at the centre of planetary motion, but also assumed that the planets moved in perfect circles. It also found it necessary to make use of epicycles, and was as complex as, yet less accurate than the heliocentric model. Improvement in the accuracy of the model depended not only on developing the mathematics of elliptical orbits, but a conceptual change in the way in which motion was understood. Tycho Brahe made unprecedentedly accurate observations, but did not reject the geocentric model. It took Kepler 20 years to formulate equations which explained Tycho Brahe’s observations in heliocentric terms.
Isaac Newton’s System of the World unified Kepler’s laws and Galileo’s mechanical studies of acceleration, which re-integrated modern science into a comprehensible world model.
Dogged adherence to method can be counterproductive.
History is replete with examples of accurate theories ignored by peers, and inaccurate ones propagated unduly.
Often it is the less accurate theory that eventually becomes accepted.
Licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses materials from the Wikipedia.
Leave a Reply