The scientific method

Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 20 June 2013 at 05:14.
The [/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nebuchadnezzar&offset=20130620051405&lqt_mustshow=14625 highlighted comment] was created in this revision.

In the LW discussion about scientific method vs Bayesianism, you seem to be saying that there is basically no such thing as the scientific method. But is that really correct? If so, then how can science be distinguished from pseudoscience? Distinguishing real science from fake science is usually considered rather important.

I do understand that the exact methods will differ from field to field though.

    Baloney Detection (talk)21:03, 17 June 2013

    As I said, it exists only in an abstract sense. On the ground, research rarely looks like the model of the scientific method presented in the textbooks. In addition, the demarcation problem has never been solved. This doesn't mean, however, that there aren't clear-cut cases of science and pseudoscience. (Say, astronomy vs. astrology.) The real trick is in identifying what lies in the gray areas in between these cases. One way of conceptualizing scientific methods that I think is much closer to reality is Imre Lakatos' concept of research programmes. Each program is its own sort of mini-paradigm working with its own set of assumptions and empirical results.

      Nebuchadnezzar (talk)05:14, 20 June 2013
       
      Personal tools
      Namespaces

      Variants
      Actions
      Navigation
      Community
      Tools
      support