Just watch them seethe under this post and try to redefine science in a way that excludes science itself.
hypothesis's
>null hypothesis is that which we assume to be trueDo scicucks really
>>17078412>null hypothesis only scicucks use this concept
>>17078391Are we back
>>17078391Go ahead and spell out the point you really want to make, OP.
>>17078391What makes me seethe about this image is the state machine representing the scientific method is not depicted as an infinite loop as it should be, the Communicate results state should loop back to either Ask a question or Test hypothesis with an experiment.
>>17078430So OP shouldn't have assumed snarky NPCs like you have enough personal agency to think of a question to ask instead of just making baseless insults derived from the status quo to spike your dopamine?
>>17078561The loop back isn't inherent to the scientific method. Once you've communicated your results, you have successfully "completed" the scientific method. Nothing demands that your communicated results raise further questions or introduces a new hypothesis. The "ask a question" step implicitly includes questions about previous findings as well as questions raised in interacting with the natural world.This "loop" bs is a modern addon designed to give "perspective" or whatever.
>>17078391It's just the knowledge creation myth of our time. Non-bicameral people can't create knowledge, all they know has been learned from other people. This necessary raises the question where all that knowledge came from in the first place. The answer was "it was revealed to the prophets by God." in the middle ages, today it's the scientific method.
>>17078580>The loop back isn't inherent to the scientific methodYes it is.>you have successfully "completed" the scientific method. No, you have successfully "contributed" to the process, but other people will still ask questions and have the ability to improve upon your theory by imagining new experiments.> Nothing demands that your communicated results raise further questions or introduces a new hypothesis. If you are not allowing feedback and just blurting out your results without allowing critique, its just reporting results not communicating.>The "ask a question" step implicitly includes questions about previous findingsWhich is exactly why it needs to be a loop instead of just a single iteration, you can't really ask questions or research the topic if nothing came before.>This "loop" bs is a modern addon designed to give "perspective" or whatever.No, it is to acknowledge that the scientific process started in the middle of some other natural process and your contributions to science started in the middle of the scientific process, so neither your contributions nor the scientific process exists in isolation.
The plural of hypothesis is hypotheses, fucking idiot.
>>17078585Ignoring the strawmen in your post:The scientific method is best understood as a gold-standard for contributing to the body of scientific knowledge. Nearly every scientific paper you will ever read will, almost explicitly, walk you through it from beginning to end. They are designed this way deliberately.>introduction"Here's the observation we made, the question(s) we asked, the research which validates our question as meaningful, and what we suspect the answer(s) is.">methodology"Here's the experiment we developed to test if our suspicions match reality and here's how that went when we tried to implement it.">conclusion"Here's what we believe we can conclude from the data we gathered from the aforementioned experiment"There is a clear start and end point. Most papers are designed, as I said, to be a deliberate walk through the scientific method from start to finish. They do often invite further research in the "discussion" section, but this is also where disclosure of potential experimental design flaws and limitations go.Once you have communicated your results by publishing, assuming you followed all the prior steps correctly, you have "completed" the scientific method with regard to the initial observation that inspired the paper in the first place.
>>17078605>Nearly every scientific paper you will ever read will, almost explicitly, walk you through it from beginning to end.No, they won't walk you through THE beginning nor THE end, they will generally include citations to previous papers that inspired or informed their study and the conclusion will lead up to calls for follow-ups, cohorts, and suggestions of future studies and analytical statistical analysis to further test and validate the theory.>They do often invite further research in the "discussion" sectionConcession accepted.>you have "completed" the scientific method No, you have "complete" your study and hopefully got it to a point of rigor that future scientists can use it for their studies into the theory.>with regard to the initial observation that inspired the paper in the first place.Yes and your observations are just the next iteration's topic of research because the loop continues indefinitely.
>>17078612Refer to the core thesis here: >The scientific method is best understood as a gold-standard for contributing to the body of scientific knowledgeThe contribution you are making at the present moment does have a discrete beginning and end. The scientific method is an instruction set. It's not some grand principle floating out in the ether. That grand principle would be the philosophy of scientific inquiry as a whole, which encompasses far more than just the scientific method.>Concession acceptedGood. I conceded your strongest point and still showed your core premise to be flawed.
>>17078605>>17078612>>17078617Scientific papres are written, cited, but almost never read. It seems to me that most oeople only read (and cite!) the introduction, and maybe the discussion sections, which are not the important parts. The important parts are the method and the results.
>>17078391https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method>The term scientific method came into popular use in the twentieth century; Dewey's 1910 book, How We Think, inspired popular guidelines.[35] It appeared in dictionaries and science textbooks, although there was little consensus on its meaning.[33] Although there was growth through the middle of the twentieth century,[g] by the 1960s and 1970s numerous influential philosophers of science such as Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend had questioned the universality of the "scientific method", and largely replaced the notionlol
>>17078617>The contribution you are making at the present moment does have a discrete beginning and end.As does each step, but the method is not "completed", only the steps are completed and the whole point of communicating your personal progress is so the next people can use it as research vectors.>The scientific method is an instruction set. Yes an instruction set nested in an infinite loop of scientific progress. >It's not some grand principle floating out in the ether. Knowledge is the grand principle, the scientific method is a specific method of collecting and generating knowledge. >your core premise to be flawedNo, you saw my strong point and admitted that your flawed core premise that a single study's conclusion somehow "completes" the scientific method was wrong since the conclusion section is generally followed by a further discussion or call for follow-up section.
>>17078619It is pretty funny how long it takes popular use to catch up to practice and how philosopher will squabble over anything and even question the universality of their own questioning if they run out of things to question.
>>17078621>nu-/sci/ is defending cold war era American pop science slop
>>17078622>retard is defending the institutionalized post empirical pop scientific era that hasn't actually produced anything of its own and has just been coasting off of the tech, theories, and algorithms invented, validated and generated in the cold war era.
>>17078629I'm not reading/discussing the impotent screeching of a pop sci fan. I just thought it was funny how much faith you put in a construct made up by American pop science writers that got promptly BTFO as soon as it acquired an agreed upon meaning.
>>17078619>The term scientific method came into popular use in the twentieth century; Dewey's 1910 book, How We Think, inspired popular guidelines.holy mother of reddit. that's actually in the article
>>17078620>the whole point of communicating your personal progress is so the next people can use it as research vectors.I would take ussue with saying it's the "whole point," but interpreting hyperbole as hyperbole then this isn't a point of contention. What I said was: >Nothing demands that your communicated results raise further questions or introduces a new hypothesis.You responded to this with a strawman about rejecting critique. My point was that if a conclusion doesn't raise new questions, that doesn't mean it's not the result of the scientific method.>an instruction set nested in an infinite loop of scientific progress.The loop isn't closed though. Many scientific questions begin with an observation in the natural world rather than the prior findings of others. And many scientific conclusions more or less die on the vine, only to be cited performatively rather than actually informing any future discoveries. >the scientific method is a specific method of collecting and generating knowledge.Correct. And when someone follows it, they do so from beginning to end. >the conclusion section is generally followed by a further discussion or call for follow-up section.Generally being the important term here. And you miss the point entirely. There is a generalized process to baking cakes. Just because you conclude your documentation of baking your cake with a call for others to contribute their own cake baking recipes that your cake inspired does not imply cake baking is inherently some recursive loop.
Mandatory Threadly Reminder:The brainlets who keep namedropping the Scientific Method(tm) invariably mean some variation of OP's pic. The problem with that pic (and variants thereof) is that it covers, at best, the discovery of empirical laws. A scientific theory is not a collection of empirical laws. A scientic theory unifies an assortment of empirical laws by working backwards towards a set of axioms that logically implies them. That process it not empirical. It's driven by factors like intuition and philosophical/aesthetic preferences and there's no method for it. It's an underdetermined problem in principle.Once you have a theory, you have to test it empirically, but that's only the last step and least of the scientific thinking that went into deriving the theory in the first place. And it doesn't even fit the picture because the hypothesis is logically derived from the framework's premises, not inductively inferred from observations.
>>17078631And I know you are retarded for taking "came into popular use" to mean that is when it was invented and who invented it and to take two contrarian philosophers questioning its universality to mean that the entire scientific community discarded the method.
>>17078635I'm not reading/discussing the impotent screeching of a pop sci fan. I just thought it was funny how much faith you put in a construct made up by American pop science writers that got promptly BTFO as soon as it acquired an agreed upon meaning.
>>17078636Yes being functionally illiterate and not actually reading seems to be the backbone of your opinion on the matter and I am sure you will prove it by copypasting the same thing instead of proving you can form thoughts and respond to what has been written.
>>17078638I'm not reading/discussing the impotent screeching of a pop sci fan. I just thought it was funny how much faith you put in a construct made up by American pop science writers that got promptly BTFO as soon as it acquired an agreed upon meaning.Protip: nothing you shit out is being read by anyone.Protip #2: you're nonsentient so you WILL reply again with fresh mumbling.
>>17078631>as soon as60+ years later by a completely different generations of philosophers rather than scientists and you obviously won't post the actual arguments because they aren't very convincing and you can't post any evidence because there is none given its just some philosophers' crackpot ideas that were never widely adopted given scientists still used the scientific method over the next century later, but I will wait for you to prove me right yet again and copypaste your saved little meme about your basic illiteracy and solipstry again.
>>17078641I'm not reading/discussing the impotent screeching of a pop sci fan. I just thought it was funny how much faith you put in a construct made up by American pop science writers that got promptly BTFO as soon as it acquired an agreed upon meaning.Protip: nothing you shit out is being read by anyone.Protip #2: you're nonsentient so you WILL reply again with fresh mumbling.
>>17078641The dude's obviously not interested in talking to you. Just stop engaging.
>>17078644You didn't read this though, he clearly said nobody is reading it, so you can't possibly be reading it. Now that I have systematically dismantled all his false claims and trapped him in his in his little copypasta loop, there is nothing left to engage with anyway and since this is on an anonymous board, I was never even engaging with "him" in the first place, I was engaging with retarded ideas that have been completely logically refuted to the point he is completely mindbroken and trapped in his little thought loop.
All I did was to quote the wikipedia article on the """scientific method""". Why is this making pop-sci retards lose their minds with rage?
>>17078647You're entirely too invested in this.
>>17078649I won this formal debate, samefag. You're obviously projecting. I've successfully refuted all the points you made. Everyone who is watching us knows I have defeated you and successfully the Scientific Method from yet another philosofag attack.
>>17078648>All I did was to quote the wikipedia articleAs long as you aren't the retard that keeps misrepresenting the quote, they aren't "losing their mind" at you, they are losing it at the retard who can't accurately interpret a fairly simple quote because they are esls that don't understand terms like "came into popular use" or "questioned the universality".
>>17078651>impotent seething continuesReminder:>The term scientific method came into popular use in the twentieth century; Dewey's 1910 book, How We Think, inspired popular guidelines.[35] It appeared in dictionaries and science textbooks, although there was little consensus on its meaning.[33] Although there was growth through the middle of the twentieth century,[g] by the 1960s and 1970s numerous influential philosophers of science such as Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend had questioned the universality of the "scientific method", and largely replaced the notion
>>17078650I'm not the Wikipedia quote guy. I'm the one that was making the point earlier about the scientific method not needing the loop back step. I'm just giving you the age-old advice to not feed trolls.
>>17078633>I would take ussue with saying it's the "whole point,"Then should take issue with the last step being about communication if you don't think the whole point is to find things worth communicating.>My point was that if a conclusion doesn't raise new questionIf it doesn't raise new questions and can't be a new application to anything that needs to be reexamined, then it didn't answer anything in the first place and it has no utility.>The loop isn't closed though. My point was that OP's image isn't a loop at all when it should be, where would you loop to then if you now concede that it is definitely a loop?> they do so from beginning to end. No, they continue something that someone else began and they draw conclusion that can begin some other line of inquiry.>Generally being the important term here. Yes because papers are generally scientific instead of pseudoscientific.>There is a generalized process to baking cakes.This isn't just baking cakes, this is finding ingredients, the experiment itself is more like the cake, the scientific method is the baking process which is an infinite loop if you plan to keep passing down knowledge of various cakes and how they are made.
>>17078650>Everyone who is watching usEveryone watching knows you are a retard who just repeated the same copypasta over and over about how you know for certain nobody else is watching.
>>17078654That wasn't me, that was the agrobot declaring premature victory.
>>17078654Yes you are, samefag. If you weren't, you wouldn't be trying to demoralize me. I WON this debate and there's nothing you can do about it. Science-hating philosofags keep losing.
>>17078652So the "scientific method" was basically just Common Core for science, trying to standardize scientific thinking into a nigger-friendly algorithm. Americoons thinking they can mass-produce science golems in public "schools" and turn science into an industry. I always knew muh method was cringe but this is next-level.
>>17078655>Then should take issue with the last step being about communication if you don't think the whole point is to find things worth communicating.Something being "worth communicating" is a value judgement. >then it didn't answer anything in the first placeAlternatively, the question it answered is uninteresting. Interestingness does not equate to scientificness.>My point was that OP's image isn't a loop at all when it should beMy point is the loop isn't an inherent part of the process at all. You can ask a question about an observed phenomenon, do a bit of googling, make a prediction, then communicate the results to anyone who will listen. If nobody then decided to follow up on your conclusion, the method was still followed from beginning to end as a completely independent instance.>you now concede that it is definitely a loop?I do not concede that. What you said, and I agreed with, is the instruction set is "nested in" an infinite loop. That is a distinct statement from the instruction set being an infinite loop. One is true in the trivial sense that knowledge generally builds on prior knowledge. The other is a contested claim that we're disputing right now.>the scientific method is the baking process which is an infinite loop if you plan to keep passing down knowledge of various cakes and how they are made.I'm saying the scientific method is more like the generalized cake-making process. >flour>egg>sugar>leavener>ovenAny particular cake you bake is going to follow that process. Each cake you bake will use that as the foundation for their recipe. Some work. Others don't. But each cake is, itself, a discrete instance of cake baking.
>retarded golems just keep shitting out dozens of paragraphs arguing about what the True Magical Science Recipe is
>>17078677They're like chatbots, they need exact instructions of how to do "science", otherwise they're completely lost and idle.
>>17078673>Something being "worth communicating" is a value judgement.If so it is the judgement of the flowchart as it is the terminating step of the process/iteration and the desired final state of the method.>Interestingness does not equate to scientificness.All knowledge is interesting and all real knowledge has real applications due to being part of reality.>My point is the loop isn't an inherent part of the process at all.Then you contradicted that and tried to imply its an open loop.>the method was still followed from beginning to end as a completely independent instance.That is how loops work, you are stuck at ask a question until someone asks a question about your experiment.>What you said, and I agreed with, is the instruction set is "nested in" an infinite loop.No, I said an experiment is nested in the scientific method, the method is infinite, but each experiment is self contained like the state diagram shows.>But each cake is, itself, a discrete instance of cake baking.Yes and my point is that the experiment is the cake and the baking is the scientific method.
>>17078677>Me so mad other people can hold coherent thoughts in their heads for longer than a few seconds.
>>17078691>you're so, so heckin' mad about my retarded mumblingYeah, I'm practically in tears. How long before you start "refuting" the other retard's slop word by word instead of sentence by sentence? kek
>>17078692>Yeah, I'm practically in tears.Obviously, your text is dripping with them.>wordHow long until you actually learn to read and realize words have to be strung together to make something complex enough to be refuted, so you don't keep making copypastas about how you couldn't read the post?
>>17078634>scientific theories are about making up what you want to believe and then finding evidence for themmmmmno
>>17078706>mentally ill mumbling continuesI don't care. I'm just marveling at two hopeless retards shitting out post after post trying to decide if babby's diagram should have an infinite loop. Even if you're the kind of moron who takes grade school science posters seriously, there's just nothing there to discuss. The colorful blocks in your diagram explicitly narrow down the scope to settling a single hypothesis. Why would you test the same hypothesis over and over in an infinite loop? This did not occur to either one of you because you're both literal 80 IQs.
>>17078708>i refuse to take my thorazine because i like debating voices in my head
>>17078710>The colorful blocks in your diagram explicitly narrow down the scope to settling a single hypothesisNot surprising you missed the block that specifically says you can ask new questions nd form new hypothesis since you are more keen on bragging about not reading things than actually reading the thing you are talking about.
>>17078714>Not surprising you missed the block that specifically says you can ask new questions nd form new hypothesisI didn't miss that block but you two retards clearly did, even though it was put there specifically for the likes of you. This is some surreal stuff.
>>17078716>I didn't miss that blockYes you did, you clearly claimed it was isolated to one when it specifically talks about making new ones. They didn't put it there for me because they still have the lest step terminate instead of looping back to more questions that are opened as a result of the findings.
>>17078717>you clearly claimed it was isolated to oneWhich is obviously true.>when it specifically talks about making new onesYeah, there's a block trying to accommodate the short bus retards like you that says "oh, by the way, you're allowed to do this more than once in your life".
>>17078689>If so it is the judgement of the flowchartNo. The flow chart just says to communicate it. It doesn't have a disclaimer "if they're worth communicating." It just says to do it.>>17078689>All knowledge is interesting and all real knowledge has real applications due to being part of reality.I pooped this morning. >Then you contradicted that and tried to imply its an open loop.There was no contradiction. The method is nested in a loop. It ais not necessarily a loop in itself.>That is how loops work, you are stuck at ask a question until someone asks a question about your experimentWhat do you even mean by this?>No, I said an experiment is nested in the scientific method, the method is infinite>>17078617>The scientific method is an instruction set>>17078620>Yes an instruction set nested in an infinite loop of scientific progressIt's a text based discussion. Please try to keep track of what was actually said.>Yes and my point is that the experiment is the cake and the baking is the scientific method.And I already explained why you're wrong. The scientific method is a specific procedure, and not a vague notion of doing science.The specific procedure to bake a cake is therefore analogous to the scientific method, and not a vague notion of baking cakes.
>>17078710Have you ever considered that arguing pedantry is cool and fun and gets you pussy?
>>17078871There is nothing cooler than autism. But the two retards aren't actually doing that. They're arguing because they are both too dumb to correctly read a chart for 3rd graders.
>>17078880Idk, man. Your argument about the block saying to form new hypotheses kinda fails when you note it only says to do so if the results don't line up with your prediction.
>>17078751>It doesn't have a disclaimer "if they're worth communicating.The whole flowchart is about making something worth communicating before arriving at the communication step, it says to do it after you have satisfied a bunch of conditions.>I pooped this morning. Yes doctors are interested in people's poop frequency because it often reveals interesting information about their health.>There was no contradictionYes there was, you said there was no loop, then you agreed there was, it just wasn't comprehensive enough since proving your hypothesis still opens up new questions and new things to hypothesize about.>What do you even mean by this?What I wrote and it doesn't necessarily end, it can get stuck in a state.>Please try to keep track of what was actually said.I did keep track, you seem confused and can't keep track that I believe the scientific method is an infinite loop of scientific progress.>And I already explained why you're wrong.No, you tried to make a cake baking metaphor and I explained how you were not correctly equivocating things.>The scientific method is a specific procedureNo, the scientific method is a process, hypothesizing is a specific procedure.>The specific procedure to bake a cake is therefore analogous to the scientific method, No the specific procedure is to bake a cake and the scientific method is analogous to cooking/baking.
>>17079092No, you argument that it only covers a single question and hypothesis is completely refuted by the fact that it directly specifies asking new questions and forming new hypotheses.
>>17079092>>17079092>Your argument about the block saying to form new hypotheses kinda fails when you note it only says to do so if the results don't line up with your prediction.You're completely braindead. That block still reaffirms my point about scope: it literally talks about "future projects", meaning if you got to the bottom of the diagram, you're done with the current "project". Which makes sense. Once you've refuted a hypothesis, you can just publishing the result and ignore that block completely. It doesn't leave anything hanging. You could remove that block entirely and put the text in a footnote and the meaning of the diagram doesn't change.You're literally getting filtered by 3rd grade reading comprehension.
>>17079223>meaning if you got to the bottom of the diagram, you're done with the current "project".Which is clearly not true in practice since people are still questioning old projects and finding flaws because each "project" is never actually "done" since the process of scientific inquiry is an infinite loop in practice.
>>17080731Look up the Belopolsky experiment for redshift. the modern scientist with 30 quadrillion experiments with the most expensive equipment imaginable has produced nothing. It isn't reproducible. They can't share the data. The data they do share doesn't tell you the information necessary for the experiment. The only way to confirm their experiments to hand another gorillion dollars to the labcoat mafia for another super mega hadron collider.And people used to bitch about ivory towers lmao. One giant circle jerk.
>>17080738Then they didn't follow the flowchart because they can't communicate their results.
>>17080731>Which is clearly not true in practiceIt clearly is, but regardless, it doesn't change the fact that you got filtered by basic reading comprehension and couldn't grasp the scope of the process the grade school science poster was trying to describe.
>>17080745>It clearly isClearly not and you are the one who failed to read the clear explanation that there is no "settled science" and people are still testing hypothesis that you are claiming are "done" since you can't refute that.I accept your concession that your are only considering a scope that applies to lies to grade-school children instead of the actual scientific method as used by fully grown actively practicing professionals that I am referring.
>>17080746You're clearly mentally ill and your incongruent mumbling is irrelevant.
>>17080759Concession accepted, but you obviously will continue to seethe and post irrelevant non-sequiturs personal attacks that nobody agrees with due to a combination of your utter retardation and prolific narcissism.
>>17080761Notice how your mental illness forces you to keep replying even though no one is reading your slop.
>>17080762No, but I noticed you confirmed your utter retardation and prolific narcissism by continuing your seething outburst of nonsense.
>>17080766Notice how your mental illness forces you to keep replying even though no one is reading your slop.And you WILL reply again. I own you. You're my seething little (You)slave. :^)
