Scientific method

Parts of the scientific method were used by philosophers of ancient Greece . They developed the rules of logic and principles of dispute management. In this case, the conclusions obtained as a result of reasoning were preferred over the observed practice. A famous example of preference for reasoning over practice is the assertion that the swift-footed Achilles will never catch up with a tortoise .

The peak of development of the logic of utterances was sophistry . However, the goal of the sophists was not so much truth as victory in lawsuits, where formalism exceeded any other approach.

Socrates created a Socratic dispute method . In contrast to the sophists, who were trying to impose and prove their point of view, Socrates tried to force the opponent to come to new conclusions and change his initial views by leading questions. Socrates considered his method the art of extracting the knowledge hidden in every person with the help of leading questions. He is credited with saying that truth is born in a dispute.

In the XX century , a hypothetical-deductive model of the scientific method was formulated ^[3] , consisting in the sequential application of the following steps:

1. Use experience : Consider a problem and try to make sense of it. Find previously explained explanations. If this is a new problem for you, go to step 2.
2. Formulate the assumption : If none of the known fits, try to formulate an explanation, state it to someone else or in your notes.
3. Draw conclusions from the assumption : If the assumption (step 2) is true, which of its consequences, conclusions, forecasts can be made according to the rules of logic?
4. Verification : Find facts that contradict each of these conclusions in order to refute the hypothesis (step 2) (see falsifiability ). Using the findings (step 3) as evidence for the hypothesis (step 2) is a logical mistake. This error is called “affirmation of the consequence” ( eng. Affirming the consequent , Greek Επιβεβαίωση του επομένου )

About a thousand years ago, Ibn al-Khaysam demonstrated the importance of the 1st and 4th steps. Galileo in the treatise "Conversations and mathematical justifications of two new sciences concerning mechanics and laws of fall" (1638) also showed the importance of the 4th step (also called experiment ) ^[4] . The steps of the method can be performed in order - 1, 2, 3, 4. If, following the results of step 4, the conclusions from step 3 have passed the test, you can continue and go again to the 3rd, then the 4th, 1st and so on steps. But if the results of the verification from step 4 showed the falsity of the forecasts from step 3, you should return to step 2 and try to formulate a new hypothesis (“new step 2”), in step 3, justify new assumptions based on the hypothesis (“new step 3”), check them in step 4 and so on.

It should be noted that if you follow the Popper criterion , then taking into account the full group of events and the impossibility of a comprehensive perception of reality, the scientific method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth) of the hypothesis (step 2); it is only possible to refute the hypothesis - to prove its falsity.

Theories

Theory ( other Greek θεωρία “consideration, research”) is a knowledge system that has predictive power in relation to any phenomenon. Theories are formulated, developed and tested in accordance with the scientific method.

The standard method for testing theories is direct experimental verification (“experiment is the criterion of truth”). However, often the theory cannot be verified by direct experiment (for example, the theory of the origin of life on Earth), or such a test is too complicated or expensive (macroeconomic and social theories), and therefore theories are often checked not by direct experiment, but by the presence of predictive power - that is, if unknown / previously unnoticed events follow from it, and upon close observation, these events are detected, then the predictive power is present.

Hypotheses

Hypothesis (from other Greek: ὑπόθεσις - “foundation”, “assumption”) - an unproven statement, assumption or conjecture.

As a rule, a hypothesis is expressed on the basis of a number of observations confirming it (examples) and therefore looks plausible. The hypothesis is subsequently either proved by turning it into an established fact (see a theorem, theory), or refuted (for example, by pointing out a counterexample), translating it into a category of false statements.

An unproven and unrebutted hypothesis is called an open problem.

Scientific Laws

Law - a verbal and / or mathematically formulated statement that describes the relationship, the relationship between various scientific concepts, proposed as an explanation of the facts and recognized at this stage by the scientific community consistent with experimental data. An unverified scientific statement is called a hypothesis.

Scientific Modeling

Modeling is the study of an object through models with the transfer of acquired knowledge to the original. Subject modeling - creating models of reduced copies with certain properties that duplicate the original. Mental modeling - using mental images. Sign or symbolic - is the use of formulas, drawings. Computer - a computer is both a means and an object of study, the model is a computer program.

The construction of a mathematical model makes it possible to systematize existing data and formulate forecasts necessary for the search for new ones. A striking example of this is the periodic table, which predicted the existence of many previously unknown elements.

The predictions obtained from the properties of the mathematical model are verified by experiment or by collecting new facts ^[5] .

Experiments

An experimenter (from Latin experimentum - test, experience) in a scientific method is a set of actions and observations performed to test (truth or falsehood) a hypothesis or to research a causal relationship between phenomena. Experiment is the cornerstone of an empirical approach to knowledge. Popper's criterion puts forward, as the main difference between a scientific theory and a pseudo-scientific one, the possibility of setting up an experiment, primarily one that can give a result that refutes this theory. One of the main requirements for an experiment is its reproducibility .

The experiment is divided into the following stages:

• Collection of information;
• Analysis;
• Hypothesis to explain the phenomenon;
• The development of a theory explaining a phenomenon based on assumptions on a broader plane.

Research

Scientific research - the process of studying the results of observations, experiments, conceptualization and verification of the theory associated with obtaining scientific knowledge.

Types of research:

• Fundamental research undertaken mainly to generate new knowledge, regardless of application prospects.
• Applied research.

Observations

Observation is a purposeful process of perception of objects of reality, the results of which are recorded in the description. To obtain meaningful results, multiple observation is necessary.

Kinds:

• direct observation, which is carried out without the use of technical means;
• indirect observation - using technical devices.

Measurement

Measurement is the determination of the quantitative values ​​of the properties of an object using special technical devices and units of measurement.

In the XX century, some researchers, in particular Ludwik Fleck (1896-1961), noted the need for a more thorough assessment of the results of testing by experience, since the result obtained may be influenced by our preconceptions. Therefore, it is necessary to be more accurate in describing the conditions and results of the experiment. An outstanding Russian scientist, MV Lomonosov , was of the opinion that faith and science complement each other ^[6] :

Truth and faith are two native sisters, daughters of one Almighty Parent, they can never come to quarrel among themselves, unless, out of some vanity and evidence of their ingenuity, enmity will rivet against them. And prudent and kind people should consider whether there is any way to explain and avert the imaginary internecine strife between them.

And now among scientists there are believers, with a rather large contribution. An example would be the director of the Human Genome project, Francis Collins , who wrote the book Proof of God. Arguments of a scientist ”, devoted to the issue of compatibility of religion and science.

To date, the assumption of divine intervention automatically takes the theory that used such an assumption outside the scope of science, because such an assumption is in principle unverifiable and undeniable (that is, it contradicts Popper's criterion ). The scientific method involves looking for the causes of phenomena exclusively in the natural field, without relying on the supernatural. Academician Vitaliy Lazarevich Ginzburg ^[7] :

In all cases known to me, believing physicists and astronomers in their scientific works do not mention a word about God ... Engaging in specific scientific activities, a believer, in fact, forgets about God ...

Even a simple belief in something based on previous experience or knowledge can change the interpretation of observation results. A person who has a certain conviction about a certain phenomenon is often inclined to perceive facts as evidence of his faith just because they do not directly contradict it. In the analysis, it may turn out that the subject of faith is only a special case of more general phenomena (for example, the Particle-wave theory considers the previous ideas about light in the form of particles or waves to be particular cases) or is not related at all to the subject of observation (for example, the Thermal concept of temperature )

No less anti-scientific may be ideological prejudice. An example of the incompatibility of such prejudice and the scientific method is the 1948 Supreme Agricultural Academy session , as a result of which genetics in the USSR were banned until 1952 and biological science was stagnant for almost 20 years ^[8] . One of the main theses of the “Michurin” biologists led by T. D. Lysenko against genetics was that the founders of the classical theory of heredity (by no means “idealistic”) Mendel , Weisman and Morgan allegedly created an incorrect idealistic theory with elements of mysticism due to their idealism instead of the correct materialistic ^[9] :

As we noted earlier, the clash of materialistic and idealistic worldviews in biological science has taken place throughout its history ... It is completely clear to us that the basic principles of Mendelism-organism are false. They do not reflect the reality of living nature and are an example of metaphysics and idealism ... The true ideological background of Morganist genetics was well (by chance for our organists) discovered by physicist E. Schrödinger . In his book “What is life from the point of view of physics?”, Approvingly setting forth the chromosomal Weismann theory, he came to a number of philosophical conclusions. Here is the main one: "... the personal individual soul is equal to the omnipresent, all-comprehending, eternal soul." Schrödinger considers this his main conclusion “... the greatest of what a biologist can try to prove with one blow both the existence of God and the immortality of the soul”.

A number of post-positivists in their works in the 2nd half of the 20th century made an attempt to apply the criteria of the scientific method to science itself using the example of historical material of real discoveries. As a result, there was a criticism of this method, which, according to post-positivists, indicates a discrepancy between the methodology of the scientific method and the real development of scientific ideas. In their opinion, this indicates the absence of a fully formalized and reliable method leading to more reliable knowledge, an unambiguous connection between the principles of verification / falsification and obtaining true knowledge ^[10] .

Although post-positivists abandon the notion of truth , nonetheless, other methodologists science hopes to find common criteria that would allow us to come closer to a more adequate description of the world.

Paradigm Phenomenon

Thomas Kuhn believes that scientific knowledge develops spasmodically. A scientific revolution occurs when scientists discover anomalies that cannot be explained using the old paradigm, within which scientific progress has occurred up to this point. The development of science corresponds to a change in “ psychological paradigms”, views on a scientific problem, generating new hypotheses and theories. Kuhn refers methods that influence the transition from one paradigm to another, in the field of sociology ^[11] .

Refined Falsificationism

Imre Lakatos , developing on the basis of Popper’s falsificationism ideas his sophisticated falsificationism , came to the conclusion that one of the significant problems in the development of science as a system based on some common methods is the existence of ad hoc hypotheses . This is one of the mechanisms by which the contradictions between theory and experiment are overcome. Because of these hypotheses, which are actually part of the theory, they are temporarily removed from criticism and it becomes impossible to refute such theories, since the contradictions between theory and experiment are explained by the ad hoc hypothesis and do not refute the theory. With the help of these hypotheses, a complete refutation of any theory becomes impossible. It is possible to speak only of a temporary shift in problems: either progressive or regressive.

A dogmatic falsificationist, in accordance with his rules, must attribute even the most significant scientific theories to metaphysics, where there is no place for rational discussion - based on criteria of rationality, which are reduced to proofs and rebuttals - since metaphysical theories are neither provable nor refutable. Thus, the criterion of demarcation of a dogmatic falsificationist is highly anti-theoretical ^[12] .

Knowledge and implicit knowledge

Michael Polanyi believes that scientific knowledge can be transmitted through formal languages ​​only partially, and the remainder will be personal or implicit knowledge of the scientist, which is fundamentally inexpressible. A scientist, gradually immersed in science, accepts some of the rules of science uncritically. These uncritically accepted and formally inexpressible rules (often including skills, abilities, and culture) constitute implicit knowledge. Due to the fact that it is impossible to formalize and convey implicit knowledge, it is impossible to compare this knowledge. As a result, in science there is a comparison of only the formalized part of one theory with the formalized part of another theory.

Epistemological Anarchism

Paul Feyerabend believes that the only principle that does not impede progress is the principle of "everything is permissible." No theory ever agrees with all the facts known in its field. Any fact is theoretically loaded , that is, it depends on the theory in which it is considered. Therefore, theory cannot be compared with facts. Also, theories cannot be compared with each other due to the fact that the concepts in different theories have different contents.

Justification without applying a scientific method

There are numerous cases in the history of science when ideas, discoveries, which subsequently received scientific recognition, initially had justifications or explanations that did not correspond to the scientific method. One of the most striking examples of this is the Copernican substantiation of the heliocentric system. Initially, in the new theory, planets revolved around the Sun in strictly circular orbits , which yielded significantly more discrepancies with observations than the Ptolemy theory of epicycles prevailing before it, that is, an experimental verification spoke in favor of the previous theory, and not the new one. Therefore, Copernicus was forced to appeal to simplicity, inner beauty and harmony:

In the center of everything, at rest, is the Sun. In this beautiful temple, who can find a better place for this lamp than that from which it can light everything at the same time? ^[13]

Inability to claim absolute truth

In theology and in some areas of philosophy, scientific knowledge is considered as always limited, conditional, and therefore never able to claim absolute truth ^[14] . This is confirmed by the process of changing scientific theories described above. At the same time, many philosophical systems generally express doubts about the existence of absolute truths, suggesting other theories of truth and knowledge, and the success of science in explaining the world is considered by most philosophers as a sign of its relative truth, whatever that means ^[15] .

• Scientific picture of the world
• Philosophy of science
• Science methodology
• Knowledge
• Research and Development

• Martin Goldstein, Inge F. Goldstein. How do we know. Research process of scientific knowledge / Abbr. per. from English A.E. Petrova. - M .: Knowledge, 1984. - 256 p.
• Ushakov E.V. Philosophy and methodology of science. - M .: Yurayt, 2017 .-- 392 p. - ISBN 978-5-534-02637-5

• About the scientific method // truemoral.ru
• What is a scientific method? // “ Chemistry and life ” No. 5, 2008
• Nesterov, Vyacheslav Lecture Series: Scientific knowledge as a model. The modern theory of truth. (unspecified) . sinor.ru. Date of treatment April 4, 2008.
• Serebryany A. I. Scientific Method and Errors
• Porus V. N. Paradoxes of scientific rationality and ethics. (unavailable link from 13-05-2013 [2297 days] - history )
• Sam Harris Science can answer moral questions. TED Conference Report

Classic works

• Imre Lakatos . Falsification and methodology of research programs
• Michael Polanyi Personal Knowledge
• Thomas Kun Structure of Scientific Revolutions
• Paul Feyerabend . Against method