I’m acquainted with the scientific method myself, but when I try to explain it to science deniers I always fall short of capturing what makes it such a universal and thorough method. Any help?
In: 6
I think the [WP article on the SM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) is pretty thorough and much more friendly than, say, a [full philosophical treatment](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/), so I recommend reading the former and asking questions if you get stuck.
(That article is what should guide you in how to explain this to your friends. This next bit is for you, and can maybe inform the Q&A and make you ready for counterpoints.)
I want to caution that scientists don’t actually *use* the idealized scientific method, with *very few* exceptions. The practice of real science ranges from a little to extremely messy, and when it’s done correctly it is more of a process of convergence on truth rather than straightforward deduction. (In fact, if an experiment looks like it followed the textbook scientific method and led to a deductive conclusion, you can 99% bet that they ran the experiment 100 times beforehand, most likely before even writing their grant proposal, until they “got it right”.) (By the way, that latter phrase, “got it right”, is a hint at something especially problematic in the current practical philosophy of science.)
The form of how science is pursued is also different depending on one’s field of research and on the particular project. Most idealizations of the scientific method don’t talk about natural versus real-world versus laboratory experiments, or refinement of mathematics, separation of empirical and a priori laws, the in-person interviews one might have to do with test subjects, the political wrangling that may be necessary to implement one’s desired methodology in the first place (and scientific or ethical trade-offs this may involve), etc. etc..
Latest Answers