Examine individual changes

'{{skiptotoctalk}} {{Outline of knowledge coverage|scientific method}} {{Tmbox |type = content |text = ''Note: this article has existed since the first year of the encylopedia and has had hundreds of editors with thousands of edits.'' Before making substantive changes to [[scientific method]], it may be prudent to read the archives first, and to discuss objections on this talk page (at the bottom, or foot of the page). It is customary to post new topics to the ''foot'' of this talk page, so that when this page is archived, the developments in the article can be read in the archives, in time-order, from oldest to newest. }} {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= {{WPMED|class=B|importance=High}} {{philosophy|class=Start}} {{Rational Skepticism|class=B|importance=top}} {{WikiProject Science|class=Start|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Sociology|class=Start|importance=Top}} {{WP1.0|class=Start|category=category|VA=yes}} }} {{oldpeerreview|archive=1}} {{Notice|Interested contributors may wish to add to the discussion at '''[[Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review]]''' by working scientists.}} {{archive box| * [[/Archive 1|January 2003]] * [[/Archive 2|June 2003]] * [[/Archive 3|August 2003]] * [[/Archive 4|November 1, 2003]] * [[/Archive 5|November 8, 2003]] * [[/Archive 6|February 2004]] * [[/Archive 7|April 2004]] * [[/Archive 8|June 2004]]b * [[/Archive 9|July 2004]] * [[/Archive 10|November 2004]] * [[/Archive 11|October 2005]] * [[/Archive 12|July 2006]] * [[/Archive 13|April 2007]] * [[/Archive 14|January 2008]] * [[/Archive 15|October 2008]] * [[/Archive 16|September 2009]] }} == The == :''(Please don't archive this section: it is a resurrecting issue, and a permanent pointer to discussion is useful)'' Shouldn't this article begin with a The? Has this debate already been had? Isn't it, "The Scientific method is a body of techniques..." [[User:Mathiastck|Mathiastck]] 06:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC) :Yes, right at the '''[[Talk:Scientific method/Archive 11#THE Scientific Method|top of Archive 11]]''', there is debate on the [[definite article]] [[The]]. --[[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] 08:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC) ::Ok well I vote to include "The" next time :) [[User:Mathiastck|Mathiastck]] 18:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC) At the outset of the discussion about this issue, User:Wjbeaty pointed out some of the published current discussion in the field per [[WP:VER]] and [[WP:RS]]. He said: "Many scientists object to ... the very concept ''The Scientific Method,'' and they fight to get it removed from grade-school textbooks. Examples: <ul><li>[http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scimeth.htm D. Simanek, physicist] <li>[http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm J. Denker, physicist] <li>[http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/bridgman.htm P. Bridgman, physicist] <li>[http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/what_is_science.html R. Feynman, physicist] <li>[http://amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html W. McComas] <li>[http://www.press.uillinois.edu/pre95/0-252-06436-4.html H. Baur, chemist]</ul> <p>Experience has taught that scientific method should be viewed as a cluster of techniques or body of techniques. When diagrammed it might look something like a sunflower with an identifiable core with a bunch of petals representing various fields of science. Add or remove a few petals, and it still looks like a sunflower. [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] 19:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC) :[Is this the same P. Bridgman who suggested we might see revolutions such as Einstein's relativity earlier if we changed our scientific method: if we payed closer attention to the operations used in measuring (or observing) a phenomenon: if we add operational to the objective and natural requirements of a definition? Bridgman is referring, in the article above, to philosophies of science (IMO), not methodology - on which he has written books and many papers. [[User:Bruce Bathurst|Geologist]] ([[User talk:Bruce Bathurst|talk]]) 01:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)] :My modest opinion: I disagree on "The". A laboratory experiment, a computer simulation, a theoretical model: all may be scientific but are far from using a unique and univocal method. One thing is to single out a body of criteria in order to define if a method of inquiry is scientific, and another is to say that there is only one such method. Also (but I might be wrong), I think there is an implicit usage in Wikipedia so as to use "The..." in reference to a book or a specific theory (e.g. "interpretation of dreams" and "The Interpretation of Dreams"). -- [[User:Typewritten|Typewritten]] 08:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC) :''"Experience has taught that scientific method should be viewed as a cluster of techniques"'' If this article is about a collection of methods, then the title should be ''Scientific methods''. [[User:Indil|indil]] ([[User talk:Indil|talk]]) 02:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC) :A redirect already exists. I personally oppose a page move. This article is referenced by thousands of other articles already, under its current title, and is well-known under its current name. A google search shows that the current title is referenced over 4 times more frequently than the plural. --[[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] ([[User talk:Ancheta Wis|talk]]) 11:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC) This is absurd. The [[rhythm method]] isn't specific either: some people use calendars, some people count days, others guess. We still follow correct English grammar. I am [[WP:BRD]]ing. [[User:MilesAgain|MilesAgain]] ([[User talk:MilesAgain|talk]]) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC) :OK, I have done the R so D rather more than you did. This is not an issue of grammar as either is OK from that respect. It is a fundamental question and the balance is on not have the "The" there. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] ([[User talk:Bduke|talk]]) 22:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC) ::I've changed it to "Scientific method refers to the body of techniques..."; perhaps this is a satisfactory solution? [[User:Andareed|Andareed]] ([[User talk:Andareed|talk]]) 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC) :::Yes; good. [[User:MilesAgain|MilesAgain]] ([[User talk:MilesAgain|talk]]) 12:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC) ::::I have looked at the Richard Feynman link given above. He does not use the phrase Scientific Mathod", and far from arguing that it should be removed from grade school textbooks, he seems to be arguing strongly that it ''should'' be taught. [[User:Rjm at sleepers|Rjm at sleepers]] ([[User talk:Rjm at sleepers|talk]]) 08:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC) *I'm confused. None of those pages seem to insinuate that the problem is the article "the". They seem to contest the idea of the scientific method itself. Then again, I'm very tired, and not at all that attentive to begin with. <small><span style="border: 1px solid">[[User:Aar|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:#003333"> &nbsp;Aar&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Aar|<span style="background-color:#003333; color:White">&nbsp;►&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 09:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC) *:The best discussion on 'the' that I have seen comes from [[The#Logic_of_definite_articles|Mark Twain]]. One could argue this is all a fine point for those who think in English. There are languages that get along without a 'the', after all. But there is a part of English, the [[subjunctive mood]], which is a good basis for the [[hypothesis]] and [[prediction]] steps of scientific method, and without which I believe it is hard to explain scientific method. --[[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] ([[User talk:Ancheta Wis|talk]]) 20:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC) == {{main|History of scientific method|Timeline of the history of scientific method}} == I've added the following to the "introduction section". [[User:Faro0485|Faro0485]] ([[User talk:Faro0485|talk]]) 02:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC) == request for unprotection and/or editprotected == {{[[Template:editsemiprotected|editsemiprotected]]}} This article is semiprotected but there is no reason stated on its talk page. Please either unprotect it or make the following changes: # there are little DNA icons used as bullets inconsistent with the Manual of Style # images are not properly staggered left-right-left-right, also contradicting the Manual # a laser light show is captioned with the name of an early scientist instead of beginning with the quote it is illustrating, followed by the name of the scientist, as is usual practice. [[Special:Contributions/99.27.132.16|99.27.132.16]] ([[User talk:99.27.132.16|talk]]) 02:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC) I started to try to take care of these issues, but it made me actually start reading the materiel in the article... wow. That's all I can say, really. Why is this article as long as it is, anyway? It's a Frankenstein of writing, for crying out loud! Those of you who have "contributed" to this beast ought to be ashamed of yourselves.<br/>— [[User:Ohms law|Ω]] ([[User talk:Ohms law|talk]]) 02:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC) :::I suggest that you start reading the archives for this article before you start casting stones. --[[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] ([[User talk:Ancheta Wis|talk]]) 12:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC) :::I actually agree with you that the article ought to be simple. However, it has a long edit history (it was actually started by the creator of the Mediawiki software) with lots of controversy. The bottom line is that everyone has studied this topic in school and has an opinion on it. Hence its length. --[[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] ([[User talk:Ancheta Wis|talk]]) 13:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC) :The article is protected due to "Heavy and persistent vandalism" in September last year. We could possibly try lifting the protection, if other editors would be willing to watchlist the article and keep an eye on it. &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 07:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC) ::With the number of contributors to this article, don't you think that there are enough to watch over it? I'm not sure why exactly, but it's been on my watchlist for a long time. With all of the pointless bickering occurring here I tend to ignore it though. ::It's possible that unprotecting it could lead to a better article. If people could "anonymously" IP edit it, that could help to disperse some of the ego-centric edit conflicts that seem to be occurring here. Sure, vandalism will occur, but it should be taken care of just like everywhere else.<br/>— [[User:Ohms law|Ω]] ([[User talk:Ohms law|talk]]) 16:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC) {{EP|?}} As it says in the template: ''"Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".'' &mdash; [[User:Deon555|Deon555]]^{<font color="purple">[[User_talk:Deon555|'''talk''']]</font>}_{<font color="brown">I'm [[User_talk:Deon555/Back|BACK!]]</font>} 09:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC) :Following on from [[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]]'s comments above - this is one of the oldest articles in WP and it has been a topic of minor dispute constantly. It has been edit-protected because history has shown that it has not benefited from anonymous editing over the years (which is in contrast to the general "article evolution" pattern at Wikipedia). There is an enormous volume of discussion about this topic available in the archives. [[User:Manning Bartlett|Manning]] ([[User talk:Manning Bartlett|talk]]) 03:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC) ::I strongly agree with Ancheta Wis and Manning Bartlett, and with their empirical approach. This article's history is a bit weird, and will probably continue that way insofar as no particular editor caused the weirdness. And the requirement for registration in order to edit the article is pretty minimal and reasonable. [[User:The Tetrast|The Tetrast]] ([[User talk:The Tetrast|talk]]) 06:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC). == Article name and Arbcom ruling == Out of interest, a [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ireland_article_names#Naming_conventions|recent ruling]] by Arbcom is relevant reading here. {{cquote|1=Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.}} [[User:Manning Bartlett|Manning]] ([[User talk:Manning Bartlett|talk]]) 09:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC) :Are you actually asserting that because "the scientific method" is still common usage among folks unfamiliar with the modern terminology, the article should therefore be so named? In fact, the transition to the use of the words "scientific method" (as a [[mass noun]] without the "the" in front) has been steadily gaining currency for decades. We also see increasingly the use of "'''a''' scientific method" (acknowledging both core commonalities among the various scientific disciplines and differences between them, but as a [[count noun]] when used in this fashion). Perhaps best to not put any [[article (grammar)]] at all in the opening sentence so as to be reasonably consistent with the [[WP:Reliable sources]] on the issue. Best case scenario, IMO, is that ultimately this issue should be explicitly noted somewhere in the body text of the article. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 15:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC) ::I'm not really sure what [[User:Manning Bartlett|Manning]] is trying to say, but [[WP:THE]] may be relevant here. —<small>[[User:DragonHawk|DragonHawk]] ([[User talk:DragonHawk|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/DragonHawk|hist]])</small> 16:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC) ::Kenosis/Dragonhawk - actually no, that's NOT what I was trying to say. I was commenting on the argument that the article should be called "Scientific methods" - ie. pluralised - which has been an ongoing issue here. [[User:Manning Bartlett|Manning]] ([[User talk:Manning Bartlett|talk]]) 23:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC) :::Thanks for the clarification (which could easily have been said at the outset, thus saving me some time and effort). It's an interesting proposal, IMO. I'd sure appreciate a referral to published reliable sources that refer to the topic in this way (as a plural [[count noun]]). Though somewhat original I think, it may be a fine way to lessen the many complaints about this admittedly complex issue that appears to often be confusing-to-the-less-than-highly-experienced reader. But in my observations and research to date, it's not the "lowest common denominator", so to speak, to which the arbcom ruling appears to me to refer w.r.t. naming topics. I'd sure be interested in hearing other opinions among WP editors familiar with the topic. Ancheta? Banno? Tetrast? Anyone else? ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 02:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC) :::Adding a bit to what I said just above, perhaps it would also be useful to take a few minutes to look at Hugh Gauch's modern classic ''Scientific Method in Practice'', diagram at page 2, easily viewable online, courtesy of the Amazon.com book preview made available [http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Method-Practice-Hugh-Gauch/dp/0521017084 here]. Gauch depicts scientific method as body of methodology with a nucleus and various branches depicted in a form somewhat resembling a sunflower. Add or take away a few leaves and it still looks like a sunflower. I'd definitely want to pose the question whether this rendering and that of other reliable sources is best represented as a plural noun. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 03:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC) ::::Since you asked... pedantic points about count nouns and arbitration rules aside, I don't see anything wrong with the existing title (Scientific method). <br/>— [[User:Ohms law|Ω]] ([[User talk:Ohms law|talk]]) 03:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC) :::::My apologies Kenosis. However I will note that this plural/singular argument currently occupies a substantial portion of this discussion page, as can be seen in sections 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 above. [[User:Manning Bartlett|Manning]] ([[User talk:Manning Bartlett|talk]]) 03:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC) :::::::I should point out that, AFAICT, every one of the sections just identified were brought to bear by one individual who also attempted to radically influence the article's content by using her/his own [[WP:OR|original research]] referenced directly to her/his somewhat anachronistic online thoughts about the topic. IIRC, I mentioned this several sections above. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 04:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC) ::::::The term ''scientific method'' is well defined and widely used. It refers to a specific methodology, not to all methods used by scientists. Other encyclopedias have articles with this title, in the singular. I have not seen articles with the title in the plural. This is a non-issue, notwithstanding the amount of discussion here. Wikipedians argue about everything. [[User:Finell|Finell]] [[User_talk:Finell|(Talk)]] 04:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC) :::::::Nicely put. [[User:Manning Bartlett|Manning]] ([[User talk:Manning Bartlett|talk]]) 04:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Indeed. While Manning raised a reasonable point IMO, I trust this very basic issue of the article's title is essentially "water under the bridge", so to speak-- for the present at least. This leaves, of course, Ohm's Law's observation about the [[Frankenstein]]ian article at present (though personally I'd liken it more to a [[Mr. Potato Head]] :). Admittedly this somewhat ''ad hoc'' synthesis of the [[WP:RS]]s is in the natural character of the various reliable sources that are very similarly divergent in POV as is this article,, without any reliable and clearly defined "sides" of POV in the [[WP:Reliable sources]] about the topic, but rather, might we say, "pretty much all over the map" to date. However, in my opinion the article--even at present-- is an extremely reasonable expression of what the [[WP:RS]]s say about the topic. No doubt it can be improved-- though in my personal opinion no contributer should, as Ohm's Law asserted, be the least bit ashamed of the present expression of this quite complex topic. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 08:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC) == Medical diagnosis and scientific method == How is medical diagnosis related to scientific method? Are there sources to support their relation? If so, this relation should be clarified in the article. [[User:Pgr94|pgr94]] ([[User talk:Pgr94|talk]]) 10:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC) :This topic is a subset of [[mission-oriented research]]; several researchers have noted that scientific method can be successfully applied to specific uses, such as business, medicine, etc. The knowledge can be quite extensive, for example in the use of [[concrete]], where the technology has actually been in use for thousands of years. One difference is in the [[competitive advantage]] which the use of scientific method might confer: on one hand, one might temporarily capture a market until the competition surpasses your advance; on the other, when one publishes the knowledge, then one has set a standard upon which everyone can build, which avoids re-invention of the wheel. :Governments have used this quite extensively: for example :#the invention of a usable [[chronometer]], which advanced world science as well as global commerce :#the [[space race]] and [[big science]] in general :#the [[Manhattan project]] is a poster child for the advantages and disadvantages of mission-oriented research :There are also privately funded researchers such as those funded by :#the [[Howard Hughes Medical Institute]] :#[[drug development]] :#[[History of poliomyelitis|war on polio]] :#The oil companies' [[expert systems]] are an example of research with a lifetime. When the limitations became known, the research withered as well :Nobel Memorial Laureate [[Paul Krugman]] has bemoaned the lack of sound financial and economic knowledge, especially among policy makers in government, where this lack has destabilized entire economies. :#Several authors in finance actually write about the need for scientific method in their field :#[[financial engineering]] has even found a home for its publications on [[arXiv.org]], originally for physicists :Just from this off-hand listing, I believe it is pretty clear an entire article would be needed. :However, it is not clear that applications of scientific method improve science. Would these applications make life better? Would these applications make ''us'' better? :I propose shifting the header to ''mission-oriented research'' --[[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] ([[User talk:Ancheta Wis|talk]]) 12:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC) ::[[Normative science]] addresses these issues, but it is a stub right now. --[[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] ([[User talk:Ancheta Wis|talk]]) 13:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC) :I'm afraid I don't understand your reply. By "sources" I meant [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]; could it be that you understood financial sources? Apologies for the confusion. [[User:Pgr94|pgr94]] ([[User talk:Pgr94|talk]]) 13:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC) This is the specific sentence in the article that I am referring to: <blockquote>The development of the scientific method is inseparable from the [[history of science]] itself. '''[[Ancient Egypt]]ian documents, such as early [[papyri]], describe methods of medical diagnosis'''. </blockquote> This sentence implies that medical diagnosis and scientific method are related. So are they related methods of inquiry, and if so, how are they related? [[User:Pgr94|pgr94]] ([[User talk:Pgr94|talk]]) 13:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC) :I have seen the sentence you are questioning in some introductory texts (personally I would have no problem if the sentence ''[[Ancient Egypt]]ian documents, such as early [[papyri]], describe methods of medical diagnosis'' were gone). Medical diagnosis is clearly mission-oriented: "what is the problem" and "how might this problem be solved". Scientific method is most useful when seeking new knowledge, so if a disease has no known cure, then scientific method is one way to get to it (but the timeline for the cure might still be unknown, so a mission-oriented approach might be [[palliative care]]). :Hope this helps; medical diagnosis and scientific curiosity are two different motivations for an inquiry. A method for satisfying that inquiry can be the same, but clearly can also be different depending on motivation. --[[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] ([[User talk:Ancheta Wis|talk]]) 15:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC) :Copyedited the offending sentence and placed Greek empiricism into context with Egypt's prior empirical (but pre-scientific) orientation. --[[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] ([[User talk:Ancheta Wis|talk]]) 14:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC) ::The changes look good to me. I would concur that the two modes of inquiry are related, and it would good to have a reliable source that covers the relationship in greater detail than just a passing sentence. [[User:Pgr94|pgr94]] ([[User talk:Pgr94|talk]]) 15:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC) ::I also raised the same issue for the [[History of scientific method]] article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_scientific_method#Medical_diagnosis_and_scientific_method here]. [[User:Pgr94|pgr94]] ([[User talk:Pgr94|talk]]) 11:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC) :::1911 Britannica notes that the practitioners of ancient Egyptian medicine were unclear about fundamental anatomy (i.e., the function of nerves, veins and arteries, organs, etc.). --[[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] ([[User talk:Ancheta Wis|talk]]) 12:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC) :::To reprise: Homer's Odyssey cites the ancient Egyptians as the most skilled in medicine, and the empirically-oriented Egyptian physicians preceded the Greeks by several thousand years. From the History talk page you had a professional historian of science give you a citation which states that Greek empiricism was an essential ingredient in the development of modern science. (From this article you see that reliance on a published medical diagnosis can be part of the first step of a scientific method, and that the other steps of scientific method can then be used to provisionally gain new knowledge, which can then be applied for the purposes of medicine.) --[[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] ([[User talk:Ancheta Wis|talk]]) 13:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC) == No "Criticism" section == I see there is still no Criticism section in Scientific Method. Why not? It would be the perfect place to give some balance to the article. Dare I suggest that it could also reduce the alleged vandalism (as mentioned by others) by giving "heretics" a suitable avenue to cite opposing views. Pretending that there are no opposing views is nothing more than censorship.<br /> For example:<br /> -The ongoing dispute over whether or not there really is such a thing as an all-encompassing Scientific Method (singular) should be cited and published, not hidden away.<br /> -Various other criticisms in the archives paint a picture of "Scientific Method" being little more than a Dogma - a strong emphasis on blind methodologies/mechanization of science to eliminate the need for reasoning.<br /> -What authority gets to decide what ''is'' or ''isn't'' classed as a valid ''scientific'' methodology? The Pope?<br /> PS: It seems a bit bloated. A few methodologies and links would be more than enough. --[[User:Guid123|Guid123]] ([[User talk:Guid123|talk]]) 08:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC) :It takes a special kind of person to understand the limits of his own knowledge. What one can state "is not true" or "is true" is particularly difficult for the vast majority of men. That is the reason that any method fails without the right person practicing it. Sagacity is still in short supply, even though Whewell identified the need for it in scientific work 200 years ago. It's not simply a matter of honesty. It's something else that is lacking for the vast majority of men. Hence a critique of method also needs to examine one's shortcomings. Alhazen said this 1000 years ago, and it still appears to be true. :This is a wiki. You can [[Wikipedia:be bold|be bold]]. --[[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] ([[User talk:Ancheta Wis|talk]]) 08:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)'