My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > Math Forums > Math

Math General Math Forum - For general math related discussion and news

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
October 24th, 2015, 01:09 PM   #1
Joined: Oct 2015
From: Arizona

Posts: 57
Thanks: 0

Math Focus: Analysis
Scientific Method, Groundless Guesswork – Same Thing?

Scientific Method, Groundless Guesswork – Same Thing?

Retraction Watch is doing a good thing by notifying us of papers that have been retracted because of fraud, plagiarism and other legerdemain. But the message is that the process itself is fundamentally sound if it were not subverted by these few bad apples.

I argue here that the process is unsound. Francis Bacon pulled off an advertising coup that would make Madison Avenue blush when he named his own methodology the “scientific” method, thus tacitly implying that everyone else is unscientific. In this paper I present an alternative to the scientific method.
Grozny is offline  
October 24th, 2015, 02:36 PM   #2
Math Team
topsquark's Avatar
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,070
Thanks: 838

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
I'm not patient right now so as to the article: tldr.

However I find nothing sacrosanct about the Scientific Method. It's just a research method after all.

topsquark is offline  
October 24th, 2015, 05:54 PM   #3
Math Team
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,614
Thanks: 2603

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
It seems that, as far as you are concerned, real scientists don't bother to verify their theories against reality.

I have never understood the scientific method to consist of repeatedly trying stuff out to see what works. Sometimes that is a starting point for a piece of research, but the true science starts by using some theory to generate a hypothesis that is then tested against reality.

Neither your method (which omits the testing of the hypothesis) nor Mr. Benson's method (which apparently has no theoretical basis) is the Scientific Method.

However, Mr. Benson's method does count as empirical process development. It implicitly acknowledges that in the real world (as opposed to the purely theoretical world of simplified axioms) things are rarely perfect. It is completely obvious that complete detonation would rarely be achieved due to environmental effects and the random movement of molecules. Empirical studies are necessary to build a body of evidence from which to form a theory as to why complete detonation is not achieved and whether there are conditions that influence the completeness of detonation (such as the presence of a catalyst).

Quite what all of that had to do with your complaints against publication bias, I don't really know.
v8archie is offline  
October 25th, 2015, 11:15 PM   #4
Senior Member
steveupson's Avatar
Joined: Jul 2015
From: Florida

Posts: 154
Thanks: 3

Math Focus: non-euclidean geometry

If your intent was to provoke a response from the scientific community, then you have succeeded. I hope to have some of my close associates weigh in on this, too, but for now, hear my wrath!

The question boils down to (imho) whether you "believe" that theology is a science or whether you "believe" that science is a theology.

The first rule of belonging to a discussion group is to NOT participate when your're drunk, so I want to reserve the right to amend and extend my remarks.

When we talk about "axiomatic" interpretations what we are actually talking about are "belief" systems.

Much of how we have been led astray by the propaganda machine is based on this fundamental distinction.

Dr. Mengele made this the focal point of his infamous "twins" experiments.

I defy any member of this board (or any future member) to challenge me on this assertion.

The bottom line is that people of "faith" will far exceed the ability of "normal" people in their ability to comprehend the mysteries of the universe.

I apologize for bringing the Nazis into this discussion, but it's my honest belief. After the Holocaust when "never again" was the zeitgeist, the big question was whether or not the inhuman doctor's discoveries would be published or not. They were not. They were, instead, stolen and used by the CIA.

The NSA is a small part of a very large propaganda machine that is corrupting science.

The only person I trust is "bill nye the science guy" because Asimov and Sagan are gone.

If you "believe" that the twin towers was NOT a controlled demolition then you are NOT a scientist and you are living in an imaginary "make believe" world.

If you believe that the 2012 Republican primaries were NOT altered by an algorithmic "vote flipping" function then you are living a fantasy.

It's about what you CHOOSE to believe.

Last edited by steveupson; October 25th, 2015 at 11:52 PM. Reason: doh
steveupson is offline  

  My Math Forum > Math Forums > Math

, groundless, guesswork, method, methodology, scientific, thing

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Scientific Notation mathkid Algebra 1 January 30th, 2013 10:39 AM
scientific notation Kinroh Physics 4 December 29th, 2012 08:39 AM
Scientific Notation boomer029 Algebra 1 August 26th, 2012 01:52 PM
Scientific Notation mathkid Calculus 0 December 31st, 1969 04:00 PM

Copyright © 2019 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.