Can be personal or external but what is something (you believe/see reflected so strongly in reality) AND (!(OR) the world of ideas)

AND but not OR

Please stick to that which you are confident about and holds to at least the spirit of the question

  • that_one_guy@lemmy.ml
    4·
    6 days ago

    Would you expand on how the scientific method is fundamentally flawed and any alternatives or improvements that you have in mind?

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1·
      6 days ago

      I’ll take a stab at this.

      The Scientific Method, as I was taught it from middle school to college:

      1. Observe a phenomenon.
      2. Raise a question about said phenomenon.
      3. Research the topic in question.
      4. Form a hypothesis as to the nature of the phenomenon.
      5. design an experiment to test that hypothesis against a control.
      6. Analyze the data yielded by experiment.
      7. Repeat the experiment to verify it isn’t a fluke.
      8. Publish all of the above in sufficient detail that other scientists may examine your work for flawed methodology and repeat your experiments to further verify it isn’t a fluke.
      9. Conclude whether your hypothesis is or is not supported by experimental evidence.

      THIS WORKS

      What is being done all over the world right now:

      1. Get hired by a multinational corporation traded on the Dow Jones.
      2. Be assigned a fact to prove, probably about an existing product.
      3. Research the topic in question.
      4. Design an experiment that will support the fact you’re looking to prove.
      5. Use a very small sample size.
      6. Conclude something wishy-washy like “there’s a statistically significant correlation”.
      7. Publish a densely written paper with a very convoluted title in some obscure sketchy journal somewhere.
      8. Cite that paper in your own press releases with headlines that blow the conclusion way out of proportion.
      9. No one ever follows up on any of this, the experiment is never really peer reviewed, or is reviewed by others engaged in similar nonsense, and the public only ever reads the headline.
      • folaht@lemmy.ml
        1·
        23 hours ago

        Yeah, so I have a problem with #1 and #2 as to what we were taught.
        Because what usually happens is…

        1. Observe a phenomenon
        2. Wonder how that works
        3. Search for information on wikipedia
        4. Gain knowledge

        You don’t need to raise questions then.
        The only time you raise questions is when there’s a lack of knowledge on the thing
        and I think it’s more often the case that your theory starts when there IS knowledge,
        it’s just that you think it’s either externally wrong (that’s not how the balls fall when I drop them from the leaning tower of Pisa)
        or internally wrong (This author is saying balls and objects in general fall due to air pressure, but in another book the author says balloons float due to air pressure, huh?!?)

      • that_one_guy@lemmy.ml
        1·
        6 days ago

        Ah okay. I was under the impression that the above poster was critical of the scientific method itself. But if we’re talking about the corruption of the method by corporations and capitalists then I wholly agree that the system is broken.

    • folaht@lemmy.ml
      11·
      6 days ago

      1. The ‘assumption as hypothesis’ should be replaced with a ‘picture gallery of relevant objects and dynamic object group concepts (tornado’s, fire), with a description and argumentation why you think these objects or concepts are relevant’ as hypothesis.

      2. Before hypothesis, an incubation phase should be added where you start with an event that led you to making a hypothesis for your new theory that either led to a (perceived) discovery of ‘a lack of information’, ‘an external error’ (the theory doesn’t match your observation) or ‘an internal error’ (the theory says A on page 28, but !A on page 76 in the author’s previous book without acknowledging the inconsistency).

      3. This also means that during the new method, the entire paper should be inspected for internal errors by going through a complete list of fallacies and checking each sentence for any internal inconsistencies, unaddressed external inconsistencies and any absences of information.

      4. And this means that a glossary should be added that’s similar to the hypothesis, except the terms are without argumentation for why it should be included the new theory.

      These might look like small nitpicks, but this ‘fallacy checking’ and ‘explain by picture’ method can turn into a philosophy of it’s own that’s more fundamental than ‘the laws of physics’.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        2·
        6 days ago

        A lot of this seems pretty reasonable, but I’m not sure I’m fully grasping what you mean by this:

        The ‘assumption as hypothesis’ should be replaced with a ‘picture gallery of relevant objects and dynamic object group concepts (tornado’s, fire), with a description and argumentation why you think these objects or concepts are relevant’ as hypothesis.

        • folaht@lemmy.ml
          1·
          23 hours ago

          I got that part and most of it from another person, though I added a bit here and there.
          So this part has been a bit confusing for me as well, but I think that once you have done your
          ‘perceived discovery of external error’ by dropping metal balls from where the author’s claim doesn’t match your observation,
          you will need to list all the things that you think are relevant to what led up to your discovery.

          Now I stole the above image from wikipedia, but it’s stuff like that that I assume you should have a gallery of,
          so that everyone and your grandmother knows what we’re talking about and don’t mistake it for anything else.

          So one’s list (the hypothesis) should at least consist of

          1. The leaning tower of Pisa (A nice little picture, where it’s located)
          2. A big metal ball (what it’s made of, where did you get it)
          3. A small metal ball
          4. Planet Earth
          5. The air (and why you think that’s relevant)
          6. The dropping mechanism (I’m assuming one’s hands)
          7. The exact section (book, page, paragraph) where it says that they should be falling at different speeds
          8. The above image showcasing what and a video of you dropping the balls

          And that’s for the observation that lead to the perceived discovery of external error.
          Then you will need to add to the list of what your experiments need.
          You know, a stopwatch, more objects, 3D models of those objects,
          a better dropping mechanism and a 3D model of that so that people can recreate your experiment,
          an air chamber, where you can increase and decrease the pressure.
          Stuff like that.