“It takes a fearless, unflinching love and deep humility to accept the universe as it is. The most effective way we know to accomplish that, the most powerful tool at our disposal, is The Scientific Method, which over time winnows out deception...” Ann Druyan

submitted by EndlessSunflowers from (self.quotes)

“It takes a fearless, unflinching love and deep humility to accept the universe as it is. The most effective way we know to accomplish that, the most powerful tool at our disposal, is the scientific method, which over time winnows out deception. It can't give you absolute truth because science is a permanent revolution, always subject to revision, but it can give you successive approximations of reality.” Ann Druyan

"The Scientific Method involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed,
given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation." Wikipedia

all 11 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]zyxzevn 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

It is a very good standard, but not perfect.

There are some problems with the scientific method, because some things are very hard to observe and some things do not want to be observed.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Does it have to be perfect?

Perhaps suggest an alternative to less than perfect scientific inquiry.

Sometimes the best one can hope for is the least refutable result of the inquiry, rather than assume there can be a process that seems perfect in the way it affirms an inquiry.

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sorry for the long story. ;-)

The main problem is not even the observations, but the divergence away from the actual solutions without observational feedback.
Like sailing with a ship without navigation.

Example 1: Quantum mechanics diverges in all kinds of hypothetical interpretations, while not reconsidering some of the fundamentals of the theory. You can get the same solutions to the experiments without any particles at all. So instead of weird behaving light "particles" we simply have electromagnetic waves. There is no reason to use particles in most (or even all) of the experiments.

Example 2: On the sun we see a lot of plasma ropes that behave like electrical currents. But the astronomers do not like electrical currents, so they falsely model them as magnetic field lines instead. This creates theories where magnetic field lines bump into each other with all kinds of side effects ("magnetic reconnection"). While this is impossible in all known physics. They also invented "frozen primordial magnetic fields" that do not exist either, to have a hypothetical origin for the existence of magnetic fields. With electrical currents this problem would not even exist, and science could start to investigate how they are created.

The observations are difficult to make. Example 1 is with small particles and Example 2 is in space.
But instead of reconsidering the basic theory or comparing alternatives, which would the best scientific way, we get all kinds of hypothetical extensions to the original theory. Probably because that is how the Human mind works: drifting off in fantasies.

So I promote the usage of a Null-hypothesis:
Is there a different possible theory to explain similar observations?
(Preferably a more basic theory, not "more beautiful")
Is there a possible experiment that can distinguish between both?
Have such experiments been tested thoroughly?
With the null-hypothesis we can strengthen or reconsider the basis for a theory (or its limitations).

In example 1 it would compare Einstein's Photo-electric effect with Planck's Loader theory: Discussed here

In example 2 It would compare "magnetic reconnection" with electrical currents in plasma.
The observations are easy to make in laboratories now. We see that reconnection does not exist, and that similar phenomena can be formed with electrical currents in plasma.
Yet, astronomers avoid this conclusions by pretending that it does exist on the sun.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

some things do not want to be observed

Like shadow people?

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Or voting machines.

[–]madcow-5 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's too bad the word science is typically used to describe blindly believing anyone in a suit on the television as opposed to the scientific method.

[–]BeautifuLusers 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah. It's "Their" scientific method. There's certainly not any room for anyone not in the cult to test their methods. You can't even purchase a real microscope anymore. If you try to but a high powered magnet, your name gets put on a list. Far cry from the science kits they used to sell to kids in the 50's.

[–]TokLwdSaNthg 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." - A. Einstein

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Excellent quote.

Essential for science, as well as early modern, medieval and ancient systematic studies:

1) Estimation (often starting with intuition)

2) Determination (what can be understood from #1)

More about Eistein's approach to the sacred gift of intuition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Intuition produces knowledge. The rational mind attempts to trace its path.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

fearless, unflinching love and deep humility? Doesn't sound like they typical labRat scientist to me. I wonder who this Ann Druyan is? I'd DDgo her but the interest is just not there.