Justification of the scientific method, anyone?

[Speakpigeon]

Physics relies a lot on maths and maths on logic. What is the justification of the method of logic used by mathematicians, do you know? Or is it that the only method of logic really used in maths is the mathematicians' own intuitive sense of logic?
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

Physics relies a lot on maths and maths on logic. What is the justification of the method of logic used by mathematicians, do you know? Or is it that the only method of logic really used in maths is the mathematicians' own intuitive sense of logic?
EB

Because it has been proven to work. That's the justification for it. There's no formal proof of the scientific method. The scientific method is fundamentally a method by which to finagle out the truth from a bunch of untrustworthy hairless monkeys banging pots together in a random fashion and throwing poop at one another.

When David Hume worded this he used more words. But this is essentially the gist of it.

If we want to know what is true, the scientific method has shown to be better than the second best method. And strictly speaking the scientific method isn't really about figuring out what is true. It's only about eliminating things that are false. Whatever is left is what we call true (or facts).

Maths doesn't rely on logic. It is it's own system. But it sure is nice when logical deductions and scientific proofs come to the same conclusion. If they don't, we use that as evidence for something being wrong.

 

[untermensche]

Mathematics is a human created tool like a shovel.

The logic of the shovel is it is right for the job.

Mathematics does not describe reality. There are no numbers or formulas out there.

Mathematics is a tool humans use to abstract reality, change reality, into something else so predictions can be made.

And every true prediction is a justification for it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Physics relies a lot on maths and maths on logic. What is the justification of the method of logic used by mathematicians, do you know? Or is it that the only method of logic really used in maths is the mathematicians' own intuitive sense of logic?
EB

Because it has been proven to work. That's the justification for it. There's no formal proof of the scientific method. The scientific method is fundamentally a method by which to finagle out the truth from a bunch of untrustworthy hairless monkeys banging pots together in a random fashion and throwing poop at one another.

When David Hume worded this he used more words. But this is essentially the gist of it.

If we want to know what is true, the scientific method has shown to be better than the second best method. And strictly speaking the scientific method isn't really about figuring out what is true. It's only about eliminating things that are false. Whatever is left is what we call true (or facts).

Yes, true enough but I understood all that aged 2 and that's irrelevant to the OP.

Maths doesn't rely on logic.

How do you mean? That seems to be an extraordinary claim. Unless it's your way of agreeing with the second leg of the OP's alternative that "the only method of logic really used in maths is the mathematicians' own intuitive sense of logic". Clarification required...

It is it's own system. But it sure is nice when logical deductions and scientific proofs come to the same conclusion. If they don't, we use that as evidence for something being wrong.

Sorry, you're not making sense here. You start on maths and then drop it midway in favour of science. Sure maths is it's own system but I would assume mathematicians thinks it's a logical one. What's the evidence it's not? As to "logical deductions and scientific proofs", I'd need an example to understand what you mean.
EB

 

[blastula]

Turtles.

 

[fast]

Does anyone want to know why there is no consistent answer as to how many steps there are in the scientific method?

 

[Sajara]

Physics relies a lot on maths and maths on logic. What is the justification of the method of logic used by mathematicians, do you know? Or is it that the only method of logic really used in maths is the mathematicians' own intuitive sense of logic?
EB

I would start with Geometry and geometric proofs...closest math has to logic (9th grade high school math). From there, it is as everyone else mentioned, the scientific method, when applied, helps figure out what will happen given the proper boundary conditions.

 

[Sajara]

Does anyone want to know why there is no consistent answer as to how many steps there are in the scientific method?

It all depends on how the various steps are grouped (some are grouped for ease of understanding). As with any standard, you can break out each step even further into many more steps depending on how difficult you would want to make it for the person who is understanding the standard.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Math is deterministic. Natural phenomena are deterministic. Math and logic map onto real entities in a useful manner that allow us to predict and understand material phenomenon. You cannot build intricate things like airplanes, bridges or skyscrapers without math and logic underlying math. Because those things allow you to understand how your material designs will work.

 

[phands]

Math is deterministic. Natural phenomena are deterministic.

Nope....just not true. Kurt GHodel busted that back in 1931 for mathematics. Chaos theory and QM also formally and correctly remove determinism from Physics.

 

[untermensche]

Does anyone want to know why there is no consistent answer as to how many steps there are in the scientific method?

There is no one specific method.

Darwin did not follow a method. He just tried to account for the evidence.

 

[fast]

Does anyone want to know why there is no consistent answer as to how many steps there are in the scientific method?

It all depends on how the various steps are grouped (some are grouped for ease of understanding). As with any standard, you can break out each step even further into many more steps depending on how difficult you would want to make it for the person who is understanding the standard.

That has a reasonable ring to it.

 

[fast]

Does anyone want to know why there is no consistent answer as to how many steps there are in the scientific method?

There is no one specific method.

Darwin did not follow a method. He just tried to account for the evidence.

The scientific method is more than a how to guide. It's like a map. Darwin may not have used the map in his journey, but we can trace the journey he took on the map. So, while one may utilize the scientific method as a roadmap while another does not, we should be able to track the progress of both on the map.

The steps of the scientific method are like zones on a map, and like Sajara elluded to, we should be able to zoom in or out of delineating zones.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Maths doesn't rely on logic.

How do you mean? That seems to be an extraordinary claim. Unless it's your way of agreeing with the second leg of the OP's alternative that "the only method of logic really used in maths is the mathematicians' own intuitive sense of logic". Clarification required...

Maths is based on axioms. Fundamentally axioms are just things we take for granted for no reason other than we need to have some foundation upon which to build upon. But it's all just stuff we have decided is true because.

There's no problem in maths to shift around the axioms to your hearts content. As long as you make the maths work you're golden. Maths is fundamentally just a game of smarts without application. It's nice if it is applicable. But that's not the point of it. The point is making the patterns work and proving they're true within the same pattern.

I remember when doing logic we had a lecture setting out to prove why 1 is 1 by logical necessity, and why 2 is 2 by logical necessity. By the end of the lecture the board was filled with absurdly convoluted chains of logical deductions that all boiled down to that in one way or another everything is better if we assume this is true.

Logic is a game of deduction, which also doesn't need to be applicable.

It is it's own system. But it sure is nice when logical deductions and scientific proofs come to the same conclusion. If they don't, we use that as evidence for something being wrong.

Sorry, you're not making sense here. You start on maths and then drop it midway in favour of science. Sure maths is it's own system but I would assume mathematicians thinks it's a logical one. What's the evidence it's not? As to "logical deductions and scientific proofs", I'd need an example to understand what you mean.
EB

"In favour of science"? Science uses both logic and maths. There's no competition here regarding what is better to use. Whatever works works. Both are useful.

Maths can be correct AND illogical. Logic has grown from natural language. It's a tool to understand natural language. Logic is a collection of rules that have grown over time to make this analysis easier. But maths isn't natural language and doesn't always follow the rules of natural language. Maths can be illogical and still be mathematically true.

 

[untermensche]

Does anyone want to know why there is no consistent answer as to how many steps there are in the scientific method?

There is no one specific method.

Darwin did not follow a method. He just tried to account for the evidence.

The scientific method is more than a how to guide. It's like a map. Darwin may not have used the map in his journey, but we can trace the journey he took on the map. So, while one may utilize the scientific method as a roadmap while another does not, we should be able to track the progress of both on the map.

The steps of the scientific method are like zones on a map, and like Sajara elluded to, we should be able to zoom in or out of delineating zones.

Darwin had no map. He had no method.

He just had his observations and his mind. He worked it out.

Unfortunately few have a mind like his.

So others need methods.

 

[Sajara]

Maths is based on axioms. Fundamentally axioms are just things we take for granted for no reason other than we need to have some foundation upon which to build upon. But it's all just stuff we have decided is true because.

There's no problem in maths to shift around the axioms to your hearts content. As long as you make the maths work you're golden. Maths is fundamentally just a game of smarts without application. It's nice if it is applicable. But that's not the point of it. The point is making the patterns work and proving they're true within the same pattern.

I remember when doing logic we had a lecture setting out to prove why 1 is 1 by logical necessity, and why 2 is 2 by logical necessity. By the end of the lecture the board was filled with absurdly convoluted chains of logical deductions that all boiled down to that in one way or another everything is better if we assume this is true.

Logic is a game of deduction, which also doesn't need to be applicable.

It is it's own system. But it sure is nice when logical deductions and scientific proofs come to the same conclusion. If they don't, we use that as evidence for something being wrong.

Sorry, you're not making sense here. You start on maths and then drop it midway in favour of science. Sure maths is it's own system but I would assume mathematicians thinks it's a logical one. What's the evidence it's not? As to "logical deductions and scientific proofs", I'd need an example to understand what you mean.
EB

"In favour of science"? Science uses both logic and maths. There's no competition here regarding what is better to use. Whatever works works. Both are useful.

Maths can be correct AND illogical. Logic has grown from natural language. It's a tool to understand natural language. Logic is a collection of rules that have grown over time to make this analysis easier. But maths isn't natural language and doesn't always follow the rules of natural language. Maths can be illogical and still be mathematically true.

An easy example of math without logic, to me, is imaginary numbers. They explain physics very well...but they are literally imaginary.

 

[untermensche]

All numbers are imaginary.

And numbers do not explain physics. Physics creates models that make predictions. Part of these models are numbers.

But the model is an abstraction.

The model of the cannon has no explosion.

Thew model of gravity does not have the force of gravity.

 

[fast]

The scientific method is more than a how to guide. It's like a map. Darwin may not have used the map in his journey, but we can trace the journey he took on the map. So, while one may utilize the scientific method as a roadmap while another does not, we should be able to track the progress of both on the map.

The steps of the scientific method are like zones on a map, and like Sajara elluded to, we should be able to zoom in or out of delineating zones.

Darwin had no map. He had no method.

He just had his observations and his mind. He worked it out.

Unfortunately few have a mind like his.

So others need methods.

Okay, he had no map, but he had a terrain, a terrain that would have been reflected by the scientific method.

He needed no one to tell him to identify anything, and he needed no one to tell him to make observations, but at least in a generalized way, he made an identification--even if it was simply identifying a problem to be worked out; moreover, he made observations in some form or fashion. He may not have knowingly been transversing the terrrain (or knowingly been on track and walking in-step with the steps of the scientific method), but anyone looking in at what he did could identify when he was at what step.

 

[untermensche]

The scientific method is more than a how to guide. It's like a map. Darwin may not have used the map in his journey, but we can trace the journey he took on the map. So, while one may utilize the scientific method as a roadmap while another does not, we should be able to track the progress of both on the map.

The steps of the scientific method are like zones on a map, and like Sajara elluded to, we should be able to zoom in or out of delineating zones.

Darwin had no map. He had no method.

He just had his observations and his mind. He worked it out.

Unfortunately few have a mind like his.

So others need methods.

Okay, he had no map, but he had a terrain, a terrain that would have been reflected by the scientific method.

He needed no one to tell him to identify anything, and he needed no one to tell him to make observations, but at least in a generalized way, he made an identification--even if it was simply identifying a problem to be worked out; moreover, he made observations in some form or fashion. He may not have knowingly been transversing the terrrain (or knowingly been on track and walking in-step with the steps of the scientific method), but anyone looking in at what he did could identify when he was at what step.

He did not have the terrain. That is his genius.

He had these little specks that were the end result of a long process.

And he used them to figure out the process.

It was a unique work of a unique mind.

Not any method.

Nothing that could be replicated.

 

[fast]

Okay, he had no map, but he had a terrain, a terrain that would have been reflected by the scientific method.

He needed no one to tell him to identify anything, and he needed no one to tell him to make observations, but at least in a generalized way, he made an identification--even if it was simply identifying a problem to be worked out; moreover, he made observations in some form or fashion. He may not have knowingly been transversing the terrrain (or knowingly been on track and walking in-step with the steps of the scientific method), but anyone looking in at what he did could identify when he was at what step.

He did not have the terrain. That is his genius.

He had these little specks that were the end result of a long process.

And he used them to figure out the process.

It was a unique work of a unique mind.

Not any method.

Nothing that could be replicated.

Okay, I guess the analogy isn't working for you. Let's try this. Is there anything that he did that could be broadly described that could just as well fit what others have done in pursuit of their scientific inquiry?