|
From
http://www.atheistlloyd.com/content/SciMethod.html
SML143
|
The Scientific Method
by Lloyd Harrison Whitling
 |
|
Many, many doctrinaire thought systems promote their most
advanced adherents as "scientists" and that their claims about reality, as
a result, were generated by "science". A few of them may be, but many do
it only for the unearned authority they seek for ideas they may be
attempting to raise to public acceptance. Various agendas get promoted
that bear little similarity to each other, or to actual science. Most of
we who call ourselves "regular folks" have little in the way of facts to
judge from, and end up either accepting or rejecting such schools of
thought based more on emotional appeal than on any awareness of the truth
about any of the claims.
Still, just
a little bit of schooling in the subject would arm us with an
understanding of how science works, and why many who claim their approach
is "scientific" are in error. We need to ask ourselves some
questions before adopting or rejecting programs or claims said to be
"scientific". That secular people can have a common term with which to
refer to such ideas as can pass scientific muster is why I have coined the
terms, 'colligious', 'colligion' and
'colligationism'.
-
Science
is mainly a natural process of discovery. Someone notices something
and it stirs him or her to wondering about the questions that begin
popping into his/her mind. Question: "Does it appear some phenomenon
was observed that stirred up questions?" —versus "Does it appear that,
instead, there may be a hidden agenda behind his/her claims?"
-
What
does the claimant stand to gain if a claim is accepted as true, versus
it turning out to be false? While the answer may have no bearing
on the truth of the claim, it does alert us to what may have
influenced the claimant and cause us to dig deeper for verifying data.
Doing that will have great impact upon the truth and our
awareness of it.
-
Does the
claim stand up to the tests proposed in
The Principles of
Atheism?
|
|
In itself, the Scientific Method is a well-established
procedure for ascertaining the truth and making it known about all kinds
of natural occurrences and conditions. The grand advancements humanity has
made in knowledge and security of living have all been rewards of the
diligent application of the Scientific Method in all areas of knowledge.
Only those common areas of thought that flounder with disagreements and
opposing viewpoints are those same areas where information gets generated
using other approaches.
Maybe it doesn't sound like much to read about, and those who discount it
as a hokey way to avoid religious input most certainly have never tried
putting it to work. The steps are simple, but each must lead to the next:
-
State your interest: What was it that caught your attention, and what do
you wish to learn about it? State as accurately as possible all the
conditions and events that led you to want to investigate it (more than
just because your boss assigned you to it or that it disagrees with your
beliefs). Why do you want to investigate it? What do you hope to learn
about it?
-
Make a prediction: What do you believe investigation might lead to? This
is the hypothesis that you hope to develop into a theory, or else to a
discovery that shows the hypothesis to be wrong, but that will provide
new information from which you can infer a new hypothesis.
-
Do research: What have others said about it? Is it even mentioned
anywhere? What are the facts, and purported facts, that you can gather
up to colligate? Does your hypothesis
appear sound, or do too many questions remain unanswered? Are there
enough coherent facts against it to make uncertainty an issue? Can you
paint a cogent enough picture of reality with it that will enable you to
make testable predictions?
-
Design an experiment: How will you prove if your hypothesis is true or
false? Can you verify any of your facts? What similarities show up in
those you can verify? What tests would provide convincing evidence
either way? If you find in either direction, what kind of data would
convince others your tests were accurate and honest? What new facts have
you uncovered?
-
Analyze your tests and experiments: What did you learn? How consistent
were the results? What can you expect as an outcome? Were there any
erratic results that might render the experiments inconclusive? How
would you describe this outcome so that others could learn from it? What
would be required to duplicate your results. What are the variables and
what effects will they have?
-
Conclusion: Is your hypothesis now a theory? Does it provide new
information that might somehow prove useful? What do you now believe as
a result of this procedure? Do you now confirm or reject your original
hypothesis? Either way, make a statement as to why.
That simple set of steps has led mankind off the tundra and out from
caves, and sent him stumbling along the pathway through the ages. We rose
from brutish ignorance, victimized by weather and predators, until now we
live in civilizations almost totally artificially constructed. Bound
by gravity to Earth's surface, we learned to fly and float by using the
simple steps by accident, until by observation we discovered how to make
them work. Technology exploded into prominence and preeminence, once we
learned how to apply the steps of the Scientific Method in an accurate and
repeatable way, and once we learned how to describe them to others so they
could verify what we had done. I have heard the scientific method
deprecated as "trial and error". Fine enough, thanks to the many times it
has succeeded as "trial and correct".
Secular Principles
What others say: (click on a chosen number)
(1)
Richard Carrier
(2)
About.com's page about the scientific method
(3) Richard Russell's excellent description of
the scientific method.
Do you have a favorite page about this that deserves to be known? Get my
eMail address from the bottom of this page, and tell me about it. Please?
|
Copyright ©2005
by Lloyd Harrison Whitling. All rights reserved.
![[Visit Johlee]](../images/DMjohlee_017_100x100[1].gif)
"To deny a right to the experience of pleasure
is immoral unless that denial can be justified by a valid presentation of
how pain will result from that experience in an amount that would render
the expected pleasure regrettable; or, if it can be shown that pain will
be induced in others innocent of any involvement. The role of science in
moral issues should be to test that, predict that, and find harmless ways
to demonstrate that."
— L. H. Whitling in the eBook,
Secular Morality — |
This page last edited on
02/05/2008
|
