LDC - I really like the new article. I have only made one change - I altered "misconceptions" to philosophical foundations of the scientific method. I really like the way you have re-written the axiomatic viewpoint and I think it is fine as it is. I would also really like you to write an equivalent section explaining the viewpoint that "axioms are not necessary" - this would give the balan ce that the article needs. I also think that the "non-axiomatic" viewpoint should go first. -- MB
As far as verbs or adjectives - I like the verbs. As long as the surrounding language is consistent then it is fine. Using both verbs and adjectives seems redundant. -- MB
Some useful references from an earlier discussion:
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000
http://pc65.frontier.osrhe.edu/hs/science/hsimeth.htm
I removed this right after Cunctator added it:
This adds no information that wasn't already there, and it gives the mistaken impression that there is some official consensus about the exact steps; that's just not true. Descriptions even disagree on the number of steps, or that there is any specific rigorous procedure at all; giving them official-sounding names just encourages people to memorize things and encourage teachers to put things on tests that won't help anyone understand the real concept. --LDC
How about a discussion on experimental error and its effect? What constitutes random error and what is a contradiction that warrants further investigation? Consider, for instance, the scientist who exposed a gold foil to alpha particle bombardment (I'm not sure if he knew that alpha radiation was due to helium nuclei) and expected all of the radiation to go through. Indeed most, did, but a very small amount bounced back. From what I've heard, the amount was so small that it could have been explained away as experimental error. The scientist didn't ignore it, however, because to him it was the equivalent of, "firing a sixteen inch shell at a sheet of tissue paper and having it bounce back at you," (not sure if the quote was his). Rutherford reasoned that there must be something increadebly small and solid that the radiation was bouncing off of. Thus the nuclear model of the atom was born and the plum pudding model was refuted.
Perhaps this deserves to be in some other article about data analysis, but it does warrant mentioning somewhere.
Also, it was Earnest Rutherford, right? --BlackGriffen
Added reference to Thomas Kuhn. Personally I think he has a much more accurate description of what scientists do. -- Chenyu
I'm not convinced that Kuhn's ideas are contrary to the scientific method. But I'll let LDC argue that one, if he so chooses. --STG
The mention of Kuhn seems fine to me. It states something that he believes, and that a lot of people take seriously (though I don't happen to be one of them). While I was here, I also removed the last occurences of "an hypothesis...". --LDC
I think I understand what this sentence is trying to say, but it seems kinda clumsily worded. --Robert Merkel
Damn double negative, coul you simplify this sentence ? --Taw
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)