The Scientific Method is a Myth

By Daniel P. Thurs | October 28, 2015 12:25 pm

beakers and test tubes

It’s probably best to get the bad news out of the way first. The so-called scientific method is a myth. That is not to say that scientists don’t do things that can be described and are unique to their fields of study. But to squeeze a diverse set of practices that span cultural anthropology, paleobotany, and theoretical physics into a handful of steps is an inevitable distortion and, to be blunt, displays a serious poverty of imagination. Easy to grasp, pocket-guide versions of the scientific method usually reduce to critical thinking, checking facts, or letting “nature speak for itself,” none of which is really all that uniquely scientific. If typical formulations were accurate, the only location true science would be taking place in would be grade-school classrooms.

Scratch the surface of the scientific method and the messiness spills out. Even simplistic versions vary from three steps to eleven. Some start with hypothesis, others with observation. Some include imagination. Others confine themselves to facts. Question a simple linear recipe and the real fun begins. A website called Understanding Science offers an “interactive representation” of the scientific method that at first looks familiar. It includes circles labeled “Exploration and Discovery” and “Testing Ideas.” But there are others named “Benefits and Outcomes” and “Community Analysis and Feedback,” both rare birds in the world of the scientific method. To make matters worse, arrows point every which way. Mouse over each circle and you find another flowchart with multiple categories and a tangle of additional arrows.

It’s also telling where invocations of the scientific method usually appear. A broadly conceived method receives virtually no attention in scientific papers or specialized postsecondary scientific training. The more “internal” a discussion — that is, the more insulated from nonscientists —the more likely it is to involve procedures, protocols, or techniques of interest to close colleagues.

Meanwhile, the notion of a heavily abstracted scientific method has pulled public discussion of science into its orbit, like a rhetorical black hole. Educators, scientists, advertisers, popularizers, and journalists have all appealed to it. Its invocation has become routine in debates about topics that draw lay attention, from global warming to intelligent design. Standard formulations of the scientific method are important only insofar as nonscientists believe in them.

The Bright Side

Now for the good news. The scientific method is nothing but a piece of rhetoric. Granted, that may not appear to be good news at first, but it actually is. The scientific method as rhetoric is far more complex, interesting, and revealing than it is as a direct reflection of the ways scientists work. Rhetoric is not just words; rather, “just” words are powerful tools to help shape perception, manage the flow of resources and authority, and make certain kinds of actions or beliefs possible or impossible. That’s particularly true of what Raymond Williams called “keywords.” A list of modern-day keywords include “family,” “race,” “freedom,” and “science.” Such words are familiar, repeated again and again until it seems that everyone must know what they mean. At the same time, scratch their surface, and their meanings become full of messiness, variation, and contradiction.

test tube

Sound familiar? Scientific method is a keyword (or phrase) that has helped generations of people make sense of what science was, even if there was no clear agreement about its precise meaning— especially if there was no clear agreement about its precise meaning. The term could roll off the tongue and be met by heads nodding in knowing assent, and yet there could be a different conception within each mind. As long as no one asked too many questions, the flexibility of the term could be a force of cohesion and a tool for inspiring action among groups. A word with too exact a definition is brittle; its use will be limited to specific circumstances. A word too loosely defined will create confusion and appear to say nothing. A word balanced just so between precision and vagueness can change the world.

The Scientific Method, a Historical Perspective

This has been true of the scientific method for some time. As early as 1874, British economist Stanley Jevons (1835–1882) commented in his widely noted Principles of Science, “Physicists speak familiarly of scientific method, but they could not readily describe what they mean by that expression.” Half a century later, sociologist Stuart Rice (1889–1969) attempted an “inductive examination” of the definitions of the scientific method offered in social scientific literature. Ultimately, he complained about its “futility.” “The number of items in such an enumeration,” he wrote, “would be infinitely large.”

And yet the wide variation in possible meanings has made the scientific method a valuable rhetorical resource. Methodological pictures painted by practicing scientists have often been tailored to support their own position and undercut that of their adversaries, even if inconsistency results. As rhetoric, the scientific method has performed at least three functions: it has been a tool of boundary work, a bridge between the scientific and lay worlds, and a brand that represents science itself. It has typically fulfilled all these roles at once, but they also represent a rough chronology of its use. Early in the term’s history, the focus was on enforcing boundaries around scientific ideas and practices. Later, it was used more forcefully to show nonscientists how science could be made relevant. More or less coincidentally, its invocation assuaged any doubts that real science was present.

Timing is a crucial factor in understanding the scientific method. Discussion of the best methodology with which to approach the study of nature goes back to the ancient Greeks. Method also appeared as an important concern for natural philosophers during the Islamic and European Middle Ages, whereas many historians have seen the methodological shifts associated with the Scientific Revolution as crucial to the creation of modern science. Given all that, it’s even more remarkable that “scientific method” was rarely used before the mid-nineteenth century among English speakers, and only grew to widespread public prominence from the late nineteenth to the early twentieth centuries, peaking somewhere between the 1920s and 1940s. In short, the scientific method is a relatively recent invention.

scientific method in magazine articles

Percent of all magazine articles with the phrase “scientific method” in the title. (Source: Periodicals Content Index)

But it was not alone. Such now-familiar pieces of rhetoric as “science and religion,” “scientist,” and “pseudoscience” grew in prominence over the same period of time. In that sense, “scientific method” was part of what we might call a rhetorical package, a collection of important keywords that helped to make science comprehensible, to clarify its differences with other realms of thought, and to distinguish its devotees from other people. All of this paralleled a shift in popular notions of science from general systematized knowledge during the early 1800s to a special and unique sort of information by the early 1900s. These notions eclipsed habits of talk about the scientific method that opened the door to attestations of the authority of science in contrast with other human activities.

scientific method in book titles

Percent of all books published, by decade, with the phrase “scientific method” in the title. (Source: Library of Congress)

Such labor is the essence of what Thomas Gieryn (b. 1950) has called “boundary-work”— that is, exploiting variations and even apparent contradictions in potential definitions of science to enhance one’s own access to social and material resources while denying such benefits to others. During the late 1800s, the majority of public boundary-work around science was related to the raging debate over biological evolution and the emerging fault line between science and religion. Given that, we might expect the scientific method to have been a prominent weapon for the advocates of evolutionary ideas, such as John Tyndall (1820–1893) or Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–1895). But that wasn’t the case. The notion of a uniquely scientific methodology was still too new and lacked the rhetorical flexibility that made it useful. Instead, the loudest invocations of the scientific method were by those who hoped to limit the reach of science. An author in a magazine called Ladies’ Repository (1868) reflected that “every generation, as it accumulated fresh illustrations of the scientific method, is more and more embarrassed at how to piece them in with that far grander and nobler personal discipline of the soul which hears in every circumstance of life some new word of command from the living God.”

In Public Discourse

By the twentieth century, references to “scientific method” had become a common element of public discussion. The term had accumulated a variety of meanings that allowed it to become a useful rhetorical tool. Meanwhile, the actual content of science seemed to be receding behind increasingly technical barriers. In 1906, a columnist in the Nation lamented the greater complexity of scientific knowledge. “One may say,” the author observed, “not that the average cultivated man has given up on science, but that science has given up on him.” The scientific method remained the only stable bridge to make what happened in the lab relevant to the realm of ordinary life. It showed why science was important and provided an outlet for harnessing that importance, one open even to the average citizen otherwise bewildered by scientific information.

Under such conditions, it was no wonder when some people asserted that the “greatest gift of science is the scientific method.”

In his 1932 address to journalists in Washington, D.C., physicist Robert Millikan (1868–1953) informed his audience that the “main thing that the popularization of science can contribute to the progress of the world consists in the spreading of a knowledge of the method of science to the man in the street.” Educators especially promoted the scientific method as a way of bringing science into the classroom. Before the educational section of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1910, John Dewey (1859–1952) charged that “science has been taught too much as an accumulation of ready-made material with which students are to be made familiar and not enough as a method of thinking.” In 1947, the 47th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education declared that there “have been few points in educational discussions on which there has been greater agreement than that of the desirability of teaching the scientific method.”

test tube

As science became a more powerful force in modern society and culture, thanks in part to invocations of the scientific method, growing numbers sought to take advantage of its prestige. This was especially important for social scientists, who were often seen as scientific pretenders. John B. Watson (1878–1958), the central figure in the behaviorist program, agreed in 1926 that psychology’s methods “must be the methods of science in general.” That same year, the Social Science Research Council retooled one of its subgroups into the Committee on Scientific Method. A conference held under its auspices eventually generated the massive Methods in Social Science. Journalists who looked to social science as a guide during the 1920s and 1930s also turned to the scientific method. In 1928, George Gallup (1901–1984), the founder of the Gallup poll, completed a dissertation at the University of Iowa on “An Objective Method for Determining Reader- Interest.” Two years later, he presented an article called “A Scientific Method for Determining Reader-Interest.” In both cases, he advocated examining newspapers along with readers, noting their reactions.

During the early 1900s, references to scientific medicine, scientific engineering, scientific management, scientific advertising, and scientific motherhood all spread, often justified by adoption of the scientific method. Amid the spread of totalitarianism in the 1930s and 1940s, the ability of the scientific method to sustain a balance between an open and a critical mind foreshadowed a true “science of democracy.” Consumers in a new, advertising-driven marketplace encountered less high-minded examples in books such as Eby’s Complete Scientific Method for Saxophone (1922), Martin Henry Fenton’s Scientific Method of Raising Jumbo Bullfrogs (1932), and Arnold Ehret’s A Scientific Method of Eating Your Way to Health (1922). Eby, for one, never spelled out his complete scientific method. But he didn’t need to. Like the swoosh on a Nike shoe, the scientific method only needed to be displayed on the surface.

Lasting Value

After the middle of the twentieth century, the scientific method continued to be a valuable rhetorical resource, though it also lost some of its luster. Glancing back at the graphs of its rise in public discussion, we can see a fall as it became the subject of increased philosophical criticism. In 1975, Berkeley philosopher Paul Feyerabend (1924–1994) assaulted the very notion of a singular and definable scientific method in his Against Method, suggesting instead that scientists did whatever worked. Educators, too, began to express skepticism. The 1968 edition of Teaching Science in Today’s Secondary Schools lamented that “thousands of young people have memorized the steps” of the scientific method as they appeared in textbooks “and chanted them back to their teachers while probably doubting intuitively their appropriateness.” Such scrutiny cast the scientific method as narrow and brittle, depriving it of its rhetorical utility.

At the same time, the technological products of science, which had begun to invade everyday life, promised a more effective symbol of science and a bridge between the lab and the lay world. Now, instead of new scientific fields, we find biotechnology, information technology, and nanotechnology. Appeal to new technologies available in everything from electronic devices to hair products has also become a staple of advertising. Likewise, modern intellectuals routinely make use of technological metaphors, including allusions to “systems,” “platforms,” “constructions,” or “technologies” as general methods of working. “Technoscience” has achieved widespread popularity among sociologists of science to refer to the intertwined production of abstract knowledge and material devices.

Still, the scientific method did what keywords are supposed to do. It didn’t reflect reality — it helped create it. It helped to define a vision of science that was separate from other kinds of knowledge, justified the value of that science for those left on the outside, and served as a symbol of scientific prestige. It continues to accomplish those things, just not as effectively as it did during its heyday. If we return to a simplistic view, one in which the scientific method really is a recipe for producing scientific knowledge, we lose sight of a huge swath of history and the development of a pivotal touchstone on cultural maps. We deprive ourselves of a richer perspective in favor of one both narrow and contrary to the way things actually are.

 

Newton's Apple and Other Myths About ScienceExcerpted from NEWTON’S APPLE AND OTHER MYTHS ABOUT SCIENCE, edited by Ronald L. Numbers and Kostas Kampourakis, published by Harvard University Press. Copyright © 2015 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photos:Michal Ludwiczak/Shutterstock

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Living World
ADVERTISEMENT
  • thesafesurfer

    Social science isn’t science at all, it is Sophism, and Daniel is a typical relativist of that species.

    Sophist have always hated real science.

    • GMO Corn Fed

      Well the problem here with scientists is that they have always had a hard time keeping out their own personal social bias and prejudice out of their work. Hence, since the 100+ years of enlightenment hit the planet, the 19th century thinking has pretty much dismantled the natural world as it once functioned as a well oiled machine. But then again, I can see how this piece must have messed with your worldview.

      • thesafesurfer

        I suggest you read Thomas Kuhn. You can borrow my copy if your don’t know where a library is, or can’t afford one.

        • JohnH

          So you do like social science. You just like social science when the conclusions are the ones you like.

          • thesafesurfer

            Sure, I like history, but history isn’t a science. There is no such thing as social “science. “

          • CB

            “There is no such thing as social “science. ” “

            lol!

            According to you?

            Who the heck are you?

          • thesafesurfer

            Science produced verifiable, repeatable results.

            Social “science” produces arguments that have little if anything to do with science.
            In its current state social “science” is theology.

            Excellent piece in the New York Times today by Arthur Brooks on the sad state of social “science.”

          • CB

            “Science produced verifiable, repeatable results.”

            True!

            …and testable predictions.

            Given your avatar, I predict that you will describe yourself very specifically in the wrong person and/or babble incoherent word salad.

          • http://typhoidmikey.com/ TyphoidMikey

            “Social Science” is pseudo-science. Who are you?

          • GMO Corn Fed

            I have a sneaking feeling what he really values most is Socialistic Science

        • GMO Corn Fed

          Here you go Mate, Google my copy

          A Paradigm Shift (revolutionary science) or More of the Same ?

          • thesafesurfer

            Kuhn elucidates how social “science” is not science.

          • GMO Corn Fed

            What do I care ?? Social influences have always biased and prejudiced have infected sciences irrespective of what discipline somebody wishes to label it.

          • thesafesurfer

            Verifiable, repeatable findings are not “biased and prejudiced?”

          • GMO Corn Fed

            Yes of course, that’s why it’s imperative to have the same peers reviewing who have the same worldview. Thanks for sharing

          • thesafesurfer

            Verifiable and repeatable are concepts you don’t grasp.

          • GMO Corn Fed

            Oh I understand a heck of a lot more than you care to believe there Cupcake. Again, thanks for playing. Must be tough being a shut in

          • thesafesurfer

            I apologize for reducing you to this rant.

          • GMO Corn Fed

            Trust me, you don’t have that kind of power and influence over others. But I supposed only a Social Science experiment would be able to reveal to us all why you believe you have such powers over others..

          • thesafesurfer

            Just stating another fact. You remain uncomfortable with those.

          • GMO Corn Fed

            This is hilarious, you attempt to combat everyone encountered on the Net where article are posting through DISQUS commenting. Folks, this is a true sign of the inferiority complex experienced by people who are shut ins. Look at the number of retorts under his Stats. I mean, 8000 and that’s just in DISQUS, who has time wasting abilities like this in this day and age ?

            Go for it Cupcake, avoid discussion on science and say something witty !!!

          • thesafesurfer

            You are not “everyone on the net.”

            The fact that “social sciences” like economics, sociology, and psychology are not sciences is the dominant position held by biologists, physicists and mathematicians.

            Most of the people working in “social sciences” ended up there because they couldn’t make it in the sciences.

          • Tomas Zebulnski

            According to Quantum Physics ALL “experiments” will be influenced by the intentions of the people involved. Moreover, most variables are not even known, let alone controlled. Then we have the fact of outright fraud on top of it all. Yes, the scientific method is a myth. It has become like a religion…blindly believe and don’t question!

          • thesafesurfer

            You are the type of person who sees something undeniable right before your eyes and asks “I wonder if that would work in theory?”
            You have my pity.

          • Tomas Zebulnski

            Instead of reading the message you prefer to go after the messenger. You know nothing about me. I suppose you have actually studied Quantum physics and have undeniable proof that all the physicists are wrong and your matrix tied brain is “right”. You disagree with Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, and all the others?

          • thesafesurfer

            You talk about “undeniable proof” yet you completely ignore it.
            The scientific community began using the scientific method to guide research five centuries ago and you completely ignore the stunning record of achievement undeniably attributable to it.
            On top of that you shamefully claim victim status.

            I disagree with “YOUR” statement that the scientific method is a myth.
            I also rebuke your insinuation that you have anything at all in common with Einstein, Boh, or anyone else.

          • Tomas Zebulnski

            All you are doing is playing with words. I never said that science has not contributed anything, only that the scientific method is not as absolute as most pretend. The insinuation you see is only in your mind. You are confusing the message with the messenger. All I am doing is pointing to a huge body of science which you choose to disregard. If you DID regard Quantum physics as real, then your comments would be vastly different.

          • thesafesurfer

            The scientific method is the basis for the massive wave of scientific progress for the last four centuries from the 1700’s on.
            Keep making a fool of yourself.

          • Tomas Zebulnski

            Quantum Physics disagrees with you, but don’t let science get in the way of your religion

          • thesafesurfer

            Over 300 years of scientific advance based on the successful implementation of the scientific method contradicts your claims that the scientific method is invalid.

          • Sam Rinne Hooker

            No, it’s really NOT. The scientific method has provided alot of stagnation, while the peer review claims something that someone themselves has tested is wrong because previous research wont support. There are sometimes political reasons previous research washed out.
            The major advances were based not on a planned expansions of previous tests, but independent studies (Darwin) or accidents (vaccine, microwaves,etc). Scientific method is too rigid and has held science back!

          • thesafesurfer

            Yes, the scientific method is responsible for the stunning progress of innovation over the last three centuries.

    • JohnH

      This is a common sentiment, but it makes no sense on examination. There’s no reason we can’t gather data about the behavior of human beings and draw conclusions about it, as long as those conclusions are supported by data. If your argument is that social science is conducted badly, join it and conduct it the way you want it to be conducted. But saying that it isn’t definitionally science isn’t coherent.

      • thesafesurfer

        Sociology isn’t scientific in any way shape or form.

        One of the great works of sociology, Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, isn’t science at all. It is an argument not science.

        Science has predictive power. When will water boil can be accurately predicted.

        The Asch Conformity experiments can demonstrate the power of group pressure, but it isn’t predictive on specific individual in specific situations.

        • JohnH

          Sigh. You’re so depressingly stupid.

          Look, moron, you said “social science”, not “sociology”. You don’t seem to have come equipped to this conversion with enough information to distinguish the two terms.

          “Social science” embodies all sorts of disciplines, but since you don’t even seem to understand what the rubric means, you’re too stupid to bother with. We can all be grateful that people like you are almost never able to credential in any intelligent profession. If you were, you might actually f*** up civilization with your moronic ideology and ridiculous obsessions.

          Keep posting your illiterate comments on the internet while the intelligentsia ignores you. It’s what you’re best at. Tantrum impotently, little idiot.

          • thesafesurfer

            I apologize for reducing you to such a rant.

            So now sociology is not a social science?

          • thesafesurfer

            Here is a list of ” social sciences” from the University of California that aren’t sciences at all.

            Economics, Sociology, Anthropology, Linguistics, Political Science, Psychology, History, and a plethora of fill-in-the-blank studies.

            These are Humanities and in their modern manifestations pure Sophisms.

            Science produces repeatable, verifiable results. Sophisms such as the modern “social humanities” produce conjecture.

            Feel free to pick up your foul-mouthed, sophomoric rant.

        • DisentAgain

          “Science has predictive power” So does sociology.

          Next…

          • thesafesurfer

            Please make a sociological prediction.

          • CB

            “Please make a sociological prediction.”

            You will describe yourself very specifically in the wrong person.

          • cunudiun

            (Brilliant!)

          • thesafesurfer

            You missed.

          • CB

            “You missed.”

            Lol!

            See?

          • thesafesurfer

            In reference to CB you is correct.

          • CB

            “In reference to CB you is correct.”

            Lol!

            Is I?

          • thesafesurfer

            If you post it.

          • CB

            “If you post it.”

            If I post what?

          • thesafesurfer

            echo

          • CB

            “echo”

            If I post an echo then I is correct?

            What does that mean and what does it have to do with the sociological prediction that you will describe yourself very specifically in the wrong person based on the neofascist cultural subgroup you appear to belong to judging by your avatar?

            I could also have predicted you’d sit down to eat a big bowl of word salad, btw…. That’s probably the second most common behavioural trait of this group…

          • thesafesurfer

            You finally expressed a typical aspect of sociology,
            applying an unsupported generalization to an ambiguous group.

          • CB

            “You finally expressed a typical aspect of sociology, applying an unsupported generalization to an ambiguous group.”

            lol! More word salad? Delish!

            You are a member of a group that “doesn’t like liberals”, are you not?

            What’s ambiguous about that?

            Why don’t you define what the word liberal means, please…

          • GMO Corn Fed

            LOL

          • DisentAgain

            Sure – right off the top of my head… Conformity cascades predict exactly what we see in group dynamics (verified by data in courtrooms, board rooms, experiments) and explain social behaviors of extremist groups as well as mainstream political parties. Try Sunstien’s *Why societies need dissent* for citations, studies, methodology, etc…

            Shall I go on to other fields or is one example proving you utterly wrong sufficient?

            Were you going to back your claim with evidence now, or just keep pretending your opinion is rational?

          • thesafesurfer

            A prediction is specific.

          • DisentAgain

            Ha! Did you read the studies in the book? They *accurately* predict outcomes of multiple forms conformity experimentation, and accurately predict conformity rates in jury cases. So again – you mistake your opinion for fact.

            Since you seem to want to ignore evidence in behavioral psychology, lets try economics. Are you seriously going to suggest that economics and social economics has no accurate predictive modeling?

            We can accurately predict the response rates to incentive models (see the BART project in SF, toll roads in Norway, peak pricing, etc.), we can accurately predict the impact incarceration has on crime rates – specifically regarding the correlation of deterrence.

            Predicative data modeling has shown high probability success in shopping patterns, voting patterns, event attendance – it’s like you are intentionally ignoring entire fields of science.

            Climate science has less predictive power than most social science given the tools we have today – and yet you consider it to be “science”.

            Your entire thesis is broken –
            1) Social sciences are not predictive – Wrong. Many fields describe *and* predict accurately – just like any other science.
            2) Science must predict accurately to be considered science – also wrong. Models must accurately describe what we observe – the prediction strengthens the science, but does not negate the model entirely. Generally we simply tune the models with the new evidence and refine the prediction. We don’t give up and say “well, it’s not science” if a climate model isn’t working at 95%, for example.

            Someone somewhere told you this “social sciences are not science” myth, and you just keep repeating it. You forgot the basics of science – support your claim. You can not support this claim. Unless you have *new* evidence to consider, you don’t have anything other than wrongheaded opinion.

            You don;’t have any new evidence, do you? Please feel free to share it.

          • thesafesurfer

            Aerodynamics makes specific predictions with a degree of error so small people risk their lives on those predictions. Hours of verifiable, repeatable results verify form the basis of those predictions.

            Social “science” offers nothing resembling this predictive ability, and no type of verification process even capable of being mentioned as science.

            Economics isn’t a science in any way, shape, or form. It can neither predict or explain past events with any type of accuracy whatsoever.
            80 years after the Great Depression economists still can’t decide what caused it, when it ended, or what ended it.

            You mention conformity experimentation. The people who developed the theory reject is in practical application. See Arthur Brooks article in the Sunday New York Times yesterday.

          • DisentAgain

            “Social “science” offers nothing resembling this predictive ability”… You keep saying this as if it were true. Repeating your claim doesn’t make it so. I haven’t read Brook’s opinion piece yet… but I can predict he does not single-handedly debunk decades of disparate experiments across disciplines, methodologies, and findings.

            “Economics isn’t a science in any way, shape, or form.” It explains *and* predicts what we see. It uses the scientific method, and has verifiable, falsifiable results. How is that not science?

            You are just not getting traction here. Repeating your opinion is not the same as supporting your opinion with evidence.

            Predictive data analytics alone destroys this idea – even if you could debunk other examples. Statistical analysis of behavioral data is used *every day* to drive the engines of commerce and *accurately* predict social behaviors. I’m in the middle of a project to identify propensity to purchase drivers as I type. I’m literally modeling evidence that utterly proves you wrong – and it’s mundane, everyday, practice. Basic social science, with fundamental mathematics used to accurately model, and predict, buying patters.

          • thesafesurfer

            Economics has no coherent explanation for the causes of the Great Depression.
            Economics has no coherent explanation for the causes of the financial meltdown.

            It is a fact that Social “Science” has nothing resembling the predictive ability of the science of aerodynamics.

            Science offers verifiable, repeatable facts.

          • DisentAgain

            Ok… let’s apply your kooky method to some other fields to see if your logic holds up.

            Physics has no coherent explanation nor prediction for the seconds prior to the big bang. By your logic, this makes physics, “not a science”. Absurd result. We can discard your idea already… but lets’s try another….

            Biology has no testable mechanism for the origin of life, nor can it accurately predict evolution. By your logic, this renders biology “not a science”. Equally absurd. We are done here.

            Clearly, your acid test is a ridiculous measure that does not reflect what science is.

            So let’s look at your other criteria.

            “Science offers verifiable, repeatable facts.” Economics does this. Linguistics does this. Sociology does this. Anthropology does this… etc… Most social science do exactly this.

            Lets go one step further. What is a science? Let’s use the commonly accepted definition:
            “Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.”

            Now lets check economics vs. this definition:

            1) systematic enterprise – check
            2) builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations – check
            3) and predictions – check.

            The fact that you find economic models to have “nothing resembling the predictive ability of the science of aerodynamics” simply means you have no knowledge of those models. It says more about your like of scientific thinking that it does about economics.

            It’s ok to admit you don’t know enough about social science to judge them. In fact, in your case, it would be the first step towards rational discourse.

          • thesafesurfer

            The Big Bang is a theory. The Great Depression is a fact.
            I apologize for reducing you to such a state.

          • DisentAgain

            And we have models that describe the great depression – in detail. What’s your point there?

          • thesafesurfer

            The models conflict. Friedman’s classic blamed it on monetary policy and Krugman says he got it all wrong.

            Who knows what models you referred to.

          • DisentAgain

            So? We had conflicting models of gravity for centuries – does that mean physics isn’t a science?

          • thesafesurfer

            Thank you for admitting that Economics has produced no real understanding of what caused the Great Depression.

            Stand under an apple tree to find out the truth about gravity. There is no conflict.

          • DisentAgain

            I admitted no such thing. I said we had conflicting models. The understanding is complete – the theories as to causation are the only conflicts – and we improve our knowledge as new evidence is presented – just like any science.

            You on the other hand, have admitted basic scientific illiteracy as well as a complete misunderstanding of social sciences. You’ve managed to discredit your own approach in the process, and *still* haven’t presented any evidence to support your opinion. Keep it up! Science denial is adorable.

          • thesafesurfer

            No, you been a typical social “scientist.” You’ve never mention specific models at all that explain the Great Depression.

          • DisentAgain

            Because they are irrelevant to the topic at hand (there are three major models by the way, and several sub-classes that combine elements thereof feel free to look them up).

            You made a claim, “social sciences are not sciences”. The theories of the great depression don’t render linguistics or anthropology unscientific for example… you are deflecting and failing to back your claim.

            Try again.

          • thesafesurfer

            I named specific individuals with theories on the causes of the Great Depression. You keep posting the ambiguities typical of social science.

          • DisentAgain

            Again – how is the Depression relevant to your claim? At all? Even in the slightest? Even if we didn’t have answers about the Great Depression *that still doesn’t support your claim*.

            At least try the basics of logical discourse.

          • thesafesurfer

            I ask you to reference specific arguments and you don’t.

            Now the failure of the social science of economics to explain what caused the Great Depression is irrelevant in your post.

          • DisentAgain

            “What do you think science is? There’s nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?” – Steven Novella

            Keep not providing support for your argument though… You rock it.

          • thesafesurfer

            I keep waiting for you to leave the ambiguity of social science behind, and mention a specific explanation of what caused the Great Depression. I suspect I will wait forever.

          • DisentAgain

            It has nothing to do with the topic. Watch your crazy logic in action…

            “Biologists cab’t predict why cats purr – therefore biology is not a science”

            See? The depression is not the topic. Your inability to support your argument *is*. Still waiting.

          • thesafesurfer

            Still waiting for your to back up your statements citing specific studies on the Great Depression. I submitted mine to you, Friedman’s monetary theory and Krugman’s dismissal of same as evidence that “social science” can’t even explain the causes of the Great Depression.

            Science has explained the effects of gravity so well for the past century that we went to the moon.

            The economics of social science just failed to predict the latest economic downturn in 2009. You should read a description of the Panic of 1819 next to one of the financial meltdown and see if your can tell them apart given the reliance of economics on ambiguous, broad statements.

            This should be a softball for your given your incessant claims of the ability of social science to analyze data and predict human behavior on an individual, psychological basis, and a group level, conformity theory.

            I wonder why you don’t just do it?

          • DisentAgain

            Do what? You are not making any sense. You are literally ranting about a non-topic.

            *Physics* has explained gravity. Economics has explained the depression. Why is this hard for you to grasp? Use your search engine. Read. Get back to me.

            Even if you *could* prove economics missed on one event – it *doesn’t support your case* about it not being scientific. Macroeconomics may not be perfect at timed predictions – but the general theories hold up to predicted patterns(supply and demand, for elementary example).

            Again – climate science can not predict the weather accurately beyond a few days – this does not make it “not science”.

            “The economics of social science just failed to predict the latest economic downturn in 2009” No it didn’t. It accurately predicted it. We knew trading in self-valued, unregulated derivatives would cause the problems it did. It worked *exactly* as expected. The fact that we never said *when* is irrelevant.

            And it *was* predicted accurately by many:

            Housing Bubble Sitters – A warning by Dean Baker (August 25, 2005)

            US Economic Risks 2007-2017 – A warning by Med Jones (June 2, 2006)

            International Monetary Fund Seminar – A warning by Nouriel Roubini (Sept 13, 2007)

            Fox News Debate – A warning by Peter Schiff (Dec 16, 2006)

          • thesafesurfer

            Yes, Physics has explained gravity. We fly planes and have landed on the moon.
            No, economics has not explained the Great Depression. I keep waiting for you to provide a simple link to this explanation you claim.
            If economists understood the Great Depression why have we had over a half dozen recessions since. Where is the predictive power of social science that you claim?

          • DisentAgain

            “If economists understood the Great Depression why have we had over a half dozen recessions since.” Because economists don’t run the economy, genius – Wow.

            “Where is the predictive power of social science that you claim?” Sure, just ignore the examples and actual predictions I pointed out and stubbornly refuse all evidence. Keep it up!

          • thesafesurfer

            Every big business I can think of employs economists, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Facebook, the entire Fortune 500. The United States government is the largest employer of economists on the face of the earth.

            Yet you say “economists” aren’t running the economy. Please point out a government fiscal or monetary policy devoid of massive input and control by economists.

            The problem is that economists have no idea what they are doing at all. They have no predictive power. They barely have explanatory power after the fact.
            Economics like other social sciences aren’t sciences at all. They are theologies, religions ideologies.

          • thesafesurfer

            So now cats purring is the equivalent of the causes of the Great Depression. With all your purported scientific knowledge you never learned false equivalence.

          • DisentAgain

            It was your logic, genius. You are really bad at this.

          • thesafesurfer

            You made the false equivalence between cat purring and the Great Depression.
            I keep waiting for your to post the explanations of the Great Depression that you repeatedly refer to.

          • DisentAgain

            NO – I did not make a false equivalency. You used faulty logic, and I illustrated it.

            Now please tell me again how the random and unrelated example of the Great Depression proves all social science is not science… Still waiting.

          • thesafesurfer

            Yes, you made a clear false equivalence between the study of cats purring and the causes of the Great Depression.

          • thesafesurfer

            Asking you to name the individuals from your posted claim that “we have models that describe the great depression – in detail” is not an argument it is a question.

            Why you have consistently refused to do this is beyond me. Don’t they exist? Did you make a false claim? Are you just lazy?

          • DisentAgain

            What are you talking about? Are you drunk, or just stupid? Is your Google finger broken? This argument was never about the depression. You made a claim. You failed to back it up. Keep serving all this irrelevant red herring, it doesn’t change the fact that you have no rational support for your position. *NOTHING* about the depression makes your point.

            Take a deep breath, calm down, and remember – *you* have to support *your* claim – I can’t do that for you.

            Your claim: “Social sciences are not science.” No evidence to support this claim has been provided.
            On the contrary – I have demonstrated several examples about how social sciences use the scientific method, make predictions, and meet *your own* definition of science.

            Now, are you going to bother to logically back up your position, or just squirt more random statements that have nothing to do with the topic again?

          • thesafesurfer

            The ambiguity of social science is the issue.

          • DisentAgain

            Some of it is ambiguous. Some of it is not You said it wasn’t *science*. I demonstrated clear cases where it is.

          • thesafesurfer

            So please point out what is no ambiguous. You keep posting totally unsubstantiated statements like this.

            I’m not backing off anything. I’m trying to get your to respond to anything with something resembling specificity.

          • DisentAgain

            You are not *saying* anything remotely logically connected to your point. You just keep foaming at the mouth.

            You quit, I get it. It’s ok to admit you don’t understand science. Try reading before talking next time.

          • thesafesurfer

            Please post the explanations of the Great Depression you only ambiguously refer to.

          • thesafesurfer

            Science is not ambiguous. It produces verifiable, repeatable results with predictive power.
            Social science is ambiguous in its claims and does not possess predictive power.

          • DisentAgain

            Except for all of the cases where is does, of course. Repeating your claim doesn’t make it more true.

          • thesafesurfer

            Where are all the cases where it does that you claim? You keep refusing to provide specific statements, typical of a social scientist, endless ambiguity and hollow rhetoric.

          • DisentAgain

            Dude. Read. A. Book.

            You made the claim. Back it up, or sit down.

          • thesafesurfer

            I already presented two economists with rival arguments of the causes of the Great Depression. You’ve mentioned not one.

          • DisentAgain

            So you are lazy *and* ignorant. Keep it up.

          • thesafesurfer

            I’ve looked at your five comments in the thread, and its obvious all you have left to defend your position is ad hominem.

            Good luck to you and good bye.

          • DisentAgain

            It’s not ad hominem to call you a disingenuous kook, when the evidence actually supports you being a disingenuous kook. Ad hominem would be me attacking you *instead* of your argument. This is me attacking you *and* your lack of argument – with evidence you yourself present.

            Again – it’s simple. You have never bothered to support the claim “social science is not science”. The minute you do so, in any rational way, I’ll consider your argument.

            If you don’t want to be called an irrational kook – try making a rational argument. Just one.

    • DisentAgain

      “Social science isn’t science at all” Interesting claim. Wait…. nope, just utterly baseless ignorance.

      Anthropology and linguistics alone prove you wrong.

      • thesafesurfer

        You seem to mistake conjecture and unverifiable results for science.

        • DisentAgain

          You seem to mistake unsupported claims for facts. How is building models that accurately describe *and* predict what we see in society *not* science? Peer review? Check. Verifiable evidence? Check. Predictive models? Check…. etc..

          Please back your claim with evidence, or be prepared to be dismissed as baseless opinion.

          • thesafesurfer

            Verifiable, repeatable results are facts.

            Models are theories not facts. A meteorologist has a model that makes a prediction that has an unacceptable margin of error to be a fact.

            Your social science models have less accuracy than a weather report.

            Real science doesn’t have that type of error, real science is verifiable and repeatable.

  • Magenta Bernoulli

    “Easy to grasp, pocket-guide versions of the scientific method usually
    reduce to critical thinking, checking facts, or letting “nature speak
    for itself,” none of which is really all that uniquely scientific”

    Now that you’ve begun with this stupid straw man, why should one read on?

  • Bennie The Bouncer

    This article is, by turns:

    Wrong; silly; misguided; confused; and bewildered.

    But hey, don’t let that stop you.

    • GMO Corn Fed

      screwed or messed with your worldview huh ? nice!

      • Sal Volatile

        Wow. How many times are you going to respond with that same comment?

        • GMO Corn Fed

          To as many kood-aid sucking ideologues as it takes who are incapable of independent thought separate from the secular collective. Thanks for illustrating Mate!

  • Martin Forde

    “The scientific method is nothing but a piece of rhetoric.” False.

    • SixSixSix

      Don’t underestimate the power of rhetoric, see Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance which really should have been called Rhetoric and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance but that would not have sold as well back in the day, or maybe not even now.

  • Martin Forde

    In the hard sciences it quiet simply hypothesis testing. A theory is used to make testable predictions, you design experiments to test these predictions, collect resulting experimental data, then perform statistical analyses. You’re confusing testing methods with scientific method. Sure there are any number of methods you can use to test predictions (all of which vary in their complexity and even the type of data they produce), but the result is all the same, data which either supports of rebukes a theory. Thanks for wasting my time. – a scientist.

    • xavierandrade

      In physics is not that simple, a large fraction of physicist don’t even do experiments.

  • Alan_McIntire

    Simple scientific rule: If your hypothesis disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.

    • ejhaskins

      Unfortunately far too many researchers work on principle “If you don’t get the results you want, redesign the experiment.”
      Even scientists are human!

      • gda

        Or use “appropriate” statistical techniques to get the desired results.

    • GMO Corn Fed

      Here, let me fix this. Actually more often than not it is practice like, “If the results of the experiment messed with your worldview, then the experiment was flawed from the start.”

    • JohnH

      The world isn’t as simple as that. Sometimes the experimental methodology is wrong. Sometimes the effect is difficult to detect or intermittent. And so on…

    • Johnson

      Thats just not how it works and there are no simple rules other than know your methods. Different questions call for different methods. Depending on the data that is produced, different questions, hypotheses, or methods will be applied. Theory/Models are then applied as a narrative to explain those data.

      Many scientists work on principles of falsifiability and testability , not ‘I’m going to try to prove what I think is already correct’. In statististics, for example, there is a null hypothesis and possible other hypotheses that may be tested with certain sets of statistical methods. The null hypothesis is like a control measure. It cannot be proven true, but can be proven false (the basis of falsifiability). If it is true, then there must be a problem somewhere, which then calls for for more rigorous tests, questions, or methods.

      • http://www.thesiliconvalleystory.com/ The Silicon Valley Story

        It’s been a long time since my stat classes in grad school but these are the lessons I learned and remember. I remember a lot of emphasis on deconstructing journal articles and discussing the choice of tests used and how that might make a difference in influencing results.

        • Alan_McIntire

          Your reference to using statistics to analyze an experiment reminded me of a quote:
          “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to do a better experiment. (or: If you need to use statistics, then you should design a better experiment.)”Lord Ernest Rutherford

  • James Glidewell

    What drivel. I had decided to give Discover magazine’s flavor of “science” reporting one more chance. My renewal notice was sitting on the coffee table. It is now in the recycling bin.

    • John Canfield

      They will probably not say this (they’re too kind). So, BYE!

    • Leo Eris

      You made that up.

    • Loran Grant

      I agree 100%

  • SixSixSix

    Science is driven in no small part by the satisfying the ego quest for fame and to earn a living doing something that is tolerable to spend time on. Gee, that’s what being “professional” means. The greatest Scientist tend to have the biggest egos and legacy fixation. They leave their pictures all over hall ways, text books, and theories that their successor must memorize in their name ad infinitum, much like their first cousins the mathematicians do with mathematical systems and theories. They are a very social but querulous and highly competitive group who reach for reasonable high status in general society.

    Now with that out the way, because it also describes other intellectual life long pursuits like theology, politics, making vast sums of money and enjoying war as the greatest of all competitive sports, Science has a uniquely ruthless set of qualifications for accepting propositions. You can bend a religion with dent of personality and pervasive but unverifiable pitch. Line up a few unquestioning followers and you too can define the “authenticate” version of just about any religious proposition or practice. You can manipulate the emotional power of leadership to channel the actions of vast populations or spin ideologies out thin air or pseudo-sciences like astrology or economics. :-) Bending people’s minds experientially makes it so. But Science keeps coming back to all those egos having to more or less converge that apparent facts align with the current story being presented more strictly and more rigorously than any other human endeavor, even engineering which is another first cousin. But uniquely among such systems of thought, you can’t hold out indefinitely just because it doesn’t suit your biases, unlike religion or politics where you can just create a new cult. Science is actually quite amazing.

    • GMO Corn Fed

      Yeah, it’s that fame, glitter and glory thing that in the end colour all the results, or at least most of them.

      • SixSixSix

        Somewhat. The ego does motivate but largely washes out in the result. That is awesomely different from nearly if not every other human activity. It may bias what get studied, but other factors, nearly all related to economic, political, and military power, are far greater that way.

  • OWilson

    I have argued long and hard, that opinion by politically correct consensus, has replaced the Scientific Method.

    So successfully, one might add, that it’s very existence is now being denied.

    Which leaves the way for political and religious cults with their saints and doomsday scenarios to flourish without regard for reality.

    • JohnH

      its*

      • gda

        Some people are happy to let those in “authority” tell them what to think. When “authorities” wave a little science under their nose and then use the old 3-card monte coupled with false information and ginned up models to make unsubstantiated, ridiculous and needless policy recommendations, they are happy to be led by the nose into agreeing on how desperately these policies are needed, and how evil anyone who even disputes them must be.

        I bet you’re one of these.

        • JohnH

          I’m one of those with a science degree who despises politics because it means I regularly encounter Dunning-Kruger types on the left and right who rail against science that is dissonant with their f***ing moronic ideologies — ideologies they cherish more than reality.

          You’re certainly one of those, f***wit.

          • OWilson

            You obviously cannot carry on a normal discourse, which is part of the Scientific Method.

            You should demand a refund for your useless degree.

            And whatever they told you about grammar (its) was all screwed up too :)

          • JohnH

            I have a degree in biochemistry, and if you’re in the bottom 98%, I make more than you.

            And you edited your comment to put in the correct word, so you’re a liar as well as an ignoramus.

          • GMO Corn Fed

            It would seem the entire DISQUS system likes to edit comments or keep them pending as two of mine are. Mr Wilson’s only claim to fame is being a Book Smith

          • OWilson

            It’s possible I edited that comment AT THE TIME OF POSTING. Not after! – (Moderator?)

            That’s what the editing button is for.

            Seems you are a little too eager to let us know just how important you are.

            It’s all good. In my business we make a very comfortable living from folks like you :)

          • JohnH

            LOL. You liar. You changed it after I pointed out your ignorance.

            Well, you know what you did, and you have to live with yourself. That’s punishment enough.

            You’re done here, and this conversation is over.

          • OWilson

            You’re simply wrong :)

            The conversation IS over!

  • Ari Asulin

    lame article. You can find flaws in definition and implementation, and you can talk with that dismissive attitude the WHOLE article, but if you can’t make the case in a scientific way, you missed the point of your own article

    • Ari Asulin

      Science Religion I would say has a far bigger role in enabling our shoddy science and education. We still believe in black holes and Big Bang. We’re a god damn religion and always have been. It’s why we can’t follow the Scientific Method. It’s not a myth, it’s just not applied. Ever. We believe so much that isn’t verifiable just because some authority told us, and that’s not scientific.

  • Dtaylor379

    Bullshit, the scientific method gives you a pretty big box to fill with methodology, trial and validation. We have bastardized the process by not defining the process and the requirements during experimentation and then declaring success way to early or with highly suspect data. Don’t blame the arrow, blame the archer….

  • Ehtrak

    we’re all scientists in our own right so it’s not fair to label people
    differently just because of the school they went to

  • Full Name

    A discussion about the methods of physics would make this article about metaphysics.

    1) Are galaxies accelerating away from each other?

    2) If galaxies are accelerating away from each other
    and an acceleration requires a force since F=mA then which one of the
    four fundamental forces has a large enough range to change the velocity of galaxies?

    3) Is the electromagnetic force or the gravitational force stronger between two charged particles?

    4) If galaxies have magnetic fields then would we expect an outer negatively charged cloud of lighter electrons and an inner positively charged region of protons?

    5) If you were speeding would you tell the officer that the Doppler effect the police officer is measuring is not due to your velocity from
    forcing the pedal down but instead your speeding is due to the metric expansion of space-time?

    6) How is the metric-expansion of space-time different from a
    velocity and acceleration due to the electromagnetic force? How did
    scientists falsify the electromagnetic force as an explanation for
    galaxies expanding from each other?

    7) If the cosmic microwave background is 2.7K above absolute zero and it stays a constant temperature no matter how many stars are observed then is that the definition of the echo of a Big Bang or is that the definition of a thermal reservoir at maximum entropy?

    8) Is it possible given enough time for enough energy from the cosmic
    microwave background to be concentrated to create something like the
    particle showers observed in particle accelerators if energy and matter
    are interchangeable?

    9) As I understand it matter and anti-matter would be created equally
    otherwise conservation laws would be violated. If a neutron and
    anti-neutron were created and had a half-life of ten minutes then would
    the anti-neutron decay into a positron and anti-proton only at the exact
    same moment as the neutron decays into the proton? Would we find the anti-neutron and neutron decay around the same time but not exactly at the same moment?

    11) If a matter and anti-matter asteroid collided together would the
    matter and anti-matter be blown apart at high velocities in opposite
    directions before both asteroids can be completely annihilated?

    12) Given enough time would we find that there are regions of the universe made of mostly matter and anti-matter?

    13) If galaxies are traveling away from each other at relativistic
    speeds then would that mean that galaxies farthest away with the highest velocity would look younger to us due to relativistic time dilation? Would our galaxy look younger to an astronomer observing us from a distant galaxy too?

    14) If stars fuse elements up to the iron limit and heavier elements decay into iron then can we deduce the age of a galaxy by the amount of dark iron matter in the galaxy relative to other elements present in the galaxy?

    Now where can I get some of that grant money and tinker full time?

  • OWilson

    The scientific “community” operates within the context of current social society, and is very sensitive to market forces (publish or die) which have taken on a new significance in this internet information age.

    There were different markets for scientists at different times and places. Victorian class based anthropology, the race for the A bomb during war, genetic studies during the rise of national socialism. If the market is there, the scientific “community” will fill the need.

    Today there’s a huge market for the study of climate change, but only a ready market for those on one side of the equation. It’s not clarity they seek, only confirmation of a “community” consensus.

    As a poster below says. they are producing study after study to endlessly prove what they think they know already as “settled science”.

    The problem is the way science is done these days. You need large hadron colliders, and other prohibitively expensive equipment which can only be obtained under the auspices of some government or major funding agency.

    There are no truly “independent” scientists anymore and they all need to be employed. To gain employment they have to join “the union” so to speak.

  • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm Uncle Al

    My eloquent comment has been censored. Regarding this article: BULLŠIT.

    • zlop

      You are doing a good job. However, to not to appear to challenge
      those in control, .try to dumb it down.

  • http://rivr.sulekha.com/kk-arora_17586054 satyamhair

    However
    no escape other associated diseases such as lupus, syphilis, hormonal
    disturbances and cancer, which can then lead to abnormal hair loss agents.

  • P.Mathivanan

    Indeed! The key words such as methodology and method are still confusing: whether they mean the same thing or mean different things.

  • CB

    “Excellent article on the topic at hand.”

    Explain to me in your own words why you think the article you linked to is relevant to the scientific method.

    • thesafesurfer

      It’s relevant to social “science.”

  • zlop

      

  • Boris Borcic

    There is an evident core to the scientific method which is what escapes common sense when it takes “experiment” as just a fancy equivalent of “demo” to be used in the context of scientific enquiry. Experiments consist in varying an independent variable to measure the impact on a dependent variable. Demos is what high-school chemistry teachers do on tabletops to entertain their classes.

  • Zephir

    I’d rather say, the methods of contemporary science aren’t scientific
    enough. The ninety years standing ignorance of cold fusion finding
    speaks for itself. Apparently we have no method how to convince
    scientists into usage of scientific method, which makes scientific
    method toothless.

  • thesafesurfer

    You use “Wikipedia” as a source of your understanding of the world?

    The Phillip’s Curve is a “law” of economics that was completely discredited by the rise of both inflation and unemployment at the same time during the 1970’s.

    So must for the predictive power you claim for “every law of economics.”

    • DisentAgain

      Adorable. Still wrong. You point out one, that has been modified by new data to make it more accurate, and still think you prove all the rest wrong. Cute… delusional, and uneducated, but cute.

      • thesafesurfer

        The Phillips Curve fell into disrepute forty years ago. Yellen admits in her speeches.

        You are the typical social scientist-mistaking ambiguity as justification for obscene, overgeneralization.

        You intellectual dishonesty is on full display in this thread.

        Good luck to you and good bye.

        • DisentAgain

          Again, you have not proven your case – once law in one social science does not render all disciplines unscientific. We’ve repeatedly shown (both you and I) that you are wrong, *by your own standards*. So stop pretending you are doing anything more than deflecting from the fact that *you can’t support your argument rationally*.

          I accept your concession of the argument. Next time, try to take responsibility for your misstatements and misunderstanding of science.

  • Loran Grant

    This all became confusing when the evolution myth became popular.

  • William Wallace

    Nonsense. A totally uninformed look at a topic beyond the author’s ken.

  • http://www.topreviewstars.com/ essay services reviews

    This might be a good information for those people who wanted to learn some kind of idea which is actually useful for them in applying it on their work. Still, there are some proven facts that Scientific methods can give them the solution that they wanted to have.

  • Nunja Bidnuss

    What utter nonsense.

  • Sam Rinne Hooker

    In other words, this tjhought of a tight method to science is complete crap, and scientists are hacks like the rest of us.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

The Crux

A collection of bright and big ideas about timely and important science from a community of experts.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar
+