Comments about "Scientific method" in Wikipedia

This document contains comments about the article Scientific method in Wikipedia
In the last paragraph I explain my own opinion.

Contents

Reflection

Introduction

The article starts with the following sentence.

1. History

1.1 Modern use and critical thought

2. Elements of inquiry

2.1 Overview

2.1.1 Factors of scientific inquiry

The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity.[46] In this sense, it is not a mindless set of standards and procedures to follow but is rather an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate, and comprehensive models and methods. For example, when Einstein developed the Special and General Theories of Relativity, he did not in any way refute or discount Newton's Principia. On the contrary, if the astronomically massive, the feather-light, and the extremely fast are removed from Einstein's theories – all phenomena Newton could not have observed – Newton's equations are what remain. Einstein's theories are expansions and refinements of Newton's theories and, thus, increase confidence in Newton's work.
Nicely said. However, and this is strictly my opinion, Newton's mechanics is much more practical, Einstein's theory is in general too complex.
My experience is that it is rather easy to simulate (calculate, predict) the trajectories of all the planets in our system, based on a set of initial conditions and the masses of all the objects involved, using Newtont's Law in the far future. Such a simulation will fail, with the accuracy of the planet Mercury.
To do the same using Einsteins Field equations is extremely difficult.

2.2 Characterizations

2.2.1 Definition

The scientific definition of a term sometimes differs substantially from its natural language usage.
The most important is that all definitions should be clear.
What is also important that all definitions should be accompanied with an experiment to make the definition vissible.
For example, mass and weight overlap in meaning in common discourse, but have distinct meanings in mechanics.
The subject is physics. Both terms should be explained within the 'physical' world.
Scientific quantities are often characterized by their units of measure which can later be described in terms of conventional physical units when communicating the work.
The sentence is rather artifical.
It is better to describe the concept physical quantity. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_quantity
New theories are sometimes developed after realizing certain terms have not previously been sufficiently clearly defined.
Most physical articles start with a general introduction about the state of art of the physics discussed.
For example, Albert Einstein's first paper on relativity begins by defining simultaneity and the means for determining length.
Albert Einstein should have started with an introduction about Newton's mechanics and what is wrong or missing in gravitational physics.
These ideas were skipped over by Isaac Newton with, "I do not define time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all.
The book: "Newton's Principia for the common Reader" by S. Chandrasekhar, is an excellent introduction to Newton's mechanics.
There is nothing wrong at the beginning of an article to start with a description of background information or assumption.
" Einstein's paper then demonstrates that they (viz., absolute time and length independent of motion) were approximations.
The sentence is rather artifical (too short). If Newton uses the concept time and Einstein absolute time then that creates a problem.
There is hugh difference between the concepts: Universal time and clock time. Universal time is the time related to the age of the Universe, which is every where the same. Clock time is time indication of a clock. This indication can be different on any clock (specific using light signals) and the progression can also be different.
It should be understood that the evolution of the universe does not depent on the concept time and that two events happening NOW can't influence each other

Francis Crick cautions us that when characterizing a subject, however, it can be premature to define something when it remains ill-understood.
It is only possible to write a clear article, when the subject is fully understood. This requires clear definitions and clear experiments or examples.
When this is not the case, uncertainties or assumptions should be mentioned as clear as possible.
In Crick's study of consciousness, he actually found it easier to study awareness in the visual system, rather than to study free will, for example.
In this context it is interesting to know, what the definition used by Crick, of consciousness, awareness and free will.
His cautionary example was the gene; the gene was much more poorly understood before Watson and Crick's pioneering discovery of the structure of DNA; it would have been counterproductive to spend much time on the definition of the gene, before them.
I expect we all agree that the discovery of the structure of DNA caused a quantum jump in de understanding of heredity and genetics.

2.3 Hypothesis development

2.4 Predictions from the hypothesis

For example, Einstein's theory of general relativity makes several specific predictions about the observable structure of spacetime, such as that light bends in a gravitational field, and that the amount of bending depends in a precise way on the strength of that gravitational field.
The second part of this sentence describes the importance of a gravitational field, that is in line with the ideas of Newton's mechanics.
This moves the concept of (observable) structure of spacetime towards the background.

2.5 Experiments

2.6 Communication and iteration

2.7 Confirmation

3. Foundational principles

3.1 Honesty, openness, and falsifiability

3.2 Theory's interactions with observation

Science has limits. Those limits are usually deemed to be answers to questions that aren't in science's domain, such as faith.
Science and religion should clearly kept separated.

3.3 Empiricism, rationalism, and more pragmatic views

4. Rationality

4.1 Beliefs and biases

4.2 Deductive and inductive reasoning

4.3 Certainty, probabilities, and statistical inference

5. Methods of inquiry

5.1 Hypothetico-deductive method

5.2 Inductive method

5.3 Mathematical modelling

6. Scientific inquiry

6.1 Properties of scientific inquiry

7. Heuristics

7.1 Confirmation theory

7.1.2 Parsimony

7.1.3 Elegance

7.1.4 Invariance

8. Philosophy and discourse

8.1 Pluralism

8.2 Unificationism

8.3 Epistemological anarchism

8.4 Education

8.5 Sociology of knowledge

8.5.1 Thought collectives

8.5.2 Situated cognition and relativism

9. Limits of method

9.1 Role of chance in discovery

9.2 Relationship with statistics

9.3 Science of complex systems

10. Relationship with mathematics

11. See also

Following is a list with "Comments in Wikipedia" about related subjects

Reflection 1 - Definitions.

The whole paragraph 2.2.1 Definition is rather poorly written.
The problem is that a clear definition of all the concepts used is very important item to understand science and or the whole article or book.
The defition section should be part of an introduction section to describe the scientific subject discussed in a broader context, the history of what has happened before, what are the current issues are and what is what you want to achieve.

Reflection 2 - Time

Reflection 3

Feedback

If you want to give a comment you can use the following form Comment form
Created: 3 September 2024

Go Back to Wikipedia Comments in Wikipedia documents
Back to my home page Index