Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,213 Year: 5,470/9,624 Month: 495/323 Week: 135/204 Day: 5/4 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Scientific Method For Beginners
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 7 of 138 (514191)
07-04-2009 3:50 PM


Peer Review
You left out Peer Review and replication, the very heart of the process that gives it legitimacy.

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by greentwiga, posted 07-04-2009 5:54 PM AZPaul3 has not replied
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-04-2009 8:35 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 11 by CosmicChimp, posted 07-04-2009 8:40 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 12 of 138 (514214)
07-04-2009 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Adequate
07-04-2009 8:35 PM


Re: Peer Review
I will disagree with where the heart is but that is a quibble this thread does not need. You have started a good one and I do not want to fall into distraction.
Our stranded scientist could indeed follow the necessary processes you outline in your OP and could still be well off the mark because he does not have the community of information necessary to confirm his work. We all know of well qualified scientists doing rigorous scientific work who befall the trap of unconscious data mining or, being alone on a desert island, neglect to consider other explanations for the observations made.
And if this thread is intended for Peg and others as instruction then I feel the method must include the processes that give assurance that some particular finding meets the standards of scientific quality and that can only be done through Peer Review.
The replication aspect was not replication by the same team but a separate group trying to duplicate the results as part of the Peer Review process. Think Pons and Fleischmann.
In the absence of a peer review process, I contend our stranded scientist is capable of following a rigorous method but is incapable of calling it science until others have said grace over it.
Further, I contend that as instruction for beginners it is imparative they understand that scientists do not operate in a vacuum (nor a desert island) and their work, not matter how well they follow the other processes in the method, is not science until the rest of us say it is science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-04-2009 8:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2009 2:46 AM AZPaul3 has not replied
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2009 8:11 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 22 of 138 (514429)
07-07-2009 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Adequate
07-05-2009 8:11 AM


Re: Afterthought
I understand your point and I appreciate it.
I have said my piece.
You have more important places to go here and I will not drag your excellent thread into distraction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2009 8:11 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024