If you learned about science in school, or read the Wikipedia page on the scientific method, you might have encountered the idea that there is a single thing called “The Scientific Method.” Different formulations of the scientific method are described differently, but it involves generating hypotheses, making predictions, running experiments, evaluating the results and then submitting them for peer review.
The idea is that all scientists follow something like this method.
The idea of there being a “scientific method” exists for some reason, but it’s probably not because this corresponds to the reality of actual science. This description from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the scientific methodology is helpful:
”[t]he issue which has shaped debates over scientific method the most in the last half century is the question of how pluralist do we need to be about method? Unificationists continue to hold out for one method essential to science; nihilism is a form of radical pluralism … Some middle degree of pluralism regarding the methods embodied in scientific practice seems appropriate.”
Similarly, the physicist and Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg said:
”The fact that the standards of scientific success shift with time does not only make the philosophy of science difficult; it also raises problems for the public understanding of science. We do not have a fixed scientific method to rally around and defend.”
This suggests that the mainstream view amongst those who seriously study the scientific method is that there isn’t a single method that comprises science, but that there are a variety of methods and the question is how many different methods to include.
This is weird.
Why is the public discussion about the scientific method so out-of-touch with the reality of science? My best guess is that public discussions of the scientific method are doing three different things:
Governance
Scientific knowledge is afforded tremendous power and respect. For proponents of the ideology, it’s important to explain the source of the mandate for that power and respect and what it means for individuals. This includes distinguishing science from non-science, explaining why science is special and explaining why you should trust science.
The idea of “The Scientific Method” is useful for this governance function.
Transmission of Culture
One component of the success of science is the scientific culture. Those involved in science have an approach to understanding the world that is careful, rigorous, and open to new evidence. Presenting a “Scientific Method” is a useful way of transmitting the careful rigorous nature of the scientific culture even if no singular method exists.
Epistemology
Finally, some discussions of The Scientific Method contain claims about how one ought to come to understand the world.
Where the public discussion on scientific methodology is doing 1) or 2), it will make for bad epistemology. Unfortunately, I think much of the public discourse is doing 1) and 2). For this reason, I think it’s best to mostly ignore the public conversation on scientific methodology and whatever they taught you in school if you want to understand how to gain knowledge about the world.
Is there a “scientific method”?
If you learned about science in school, or read the Wikipedia page on the scientific method, you might have encountered the idea that there is a single thing called “The Scientific Method.” Different formulations of the scientific method are described differently, but it involves generating hypotheses, making predictions, running experiments, evaluating the results and then submitting them for peer review.
The idea is that all scientists follow something like this method.
The idea of there being a “scientific method” exists for some reason, but it’s probably not because this corresponds to the reality of actual science. This description from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the scientific methodology is helpful:
Similarly, the physicist and Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg said:
This suggests that the mainstream view amongst those who seriously study the scientific method is that there isn’t a single method that comprises science, but that there are a variety of methods and the question is how many different methods to include.
This is weird.
Why is the public discussion about the scientific method so out-of-touch with the reality of science? My best guess is that public discussions of the scientific method are doing three different things:
Governance
Scientific knowledge is afforded tremendous power and respect. For proponents of the ideology, it’s important to explain the source of the mandate for that power and respect and what it means for individuals. This includes distinguishing science from non-science, explaining why science is special and explaining why you should trust science.
The idea of “The Scientific Method” is useful for this governance function.
Transmission of Culture
One component of the success of science is the scientific culture. Those involved in science have an approach to understanding the world that is careful, rigorous, and open to new evidence. Presenting a “Scientific Method” is a useful way of transmitting the careful rigorous nature of the scientific culture even if no singular method exists.
Epistemology
Finally, some discussions of The Scientific Method contain claims about how one ought to come to understand the world.
Where the public discussion on scientific methodology is doing 1) or 2), it will make for bad epistemology. Unfortunately, I think much of the public discourse is doing 1) and 2). For this reason, I think it’s best to mostly ignore the public conversation on scientific methodology and whatever they taught you in school if you want to understand how to gain knowledge about the world.