Free to follow every thread. No paywall, no dead ends.
Scientific method: the story on HearLore | HearLore
Scientific method
The scientific method did not begin with a rigid checklist of steps, but rather with a profound human experience: the irritation of doubt. In 1877, the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce described inquiry not as a search for absolute truth, but as a struggle to move from the discomfort of surprise and disagreement to a secure belief. This emotional and intellectual friction is the engine of science, driving researchers to question assumptions that others might accept as given. The process is not a linear path from question to answer, but a cyclical journey where failure to produce interesting results forces a scientist to reconsider the hypothesis, the experimental method, or even the definition of the subject itself. This iterative nature means that science is a living institution, constantly evolving as new information challenges old certainties. The history of this method is distinct from the history of science itself, as the rules for reasoning have been the subject of intense and recurring debate throughout the centuries. From the ancient Stoics to modern philosophers, the quest to establish scientific knowledge has been a battleground of ideas, where the primacy of various approaches has been fiercely contested by eminent natural philosophers.
Ancient Roots and Islamic Golden Age
Long before the term scientific method emerged in the nineteenth century, the seeds of empirical inquiry were sown in the ancient world and flourished during the Islamic Golden Age. The ancient Stoics, Aristotle, and Epicurus all offered early expressions of empiricism, yet it was the work of scholars like Alhazen, Avicenna, and Al-Biruni that refined the practice of observation and experimentation. Alhazen, writing in 1027, used his measurements of the refraction of light to deduce that outer space was less dense than air, a conclusion that challenged prevailing beliefs about the heavens. His Book of Optics, published in 1027, stands as a testament to the power of controlled experiments, a technique that would later become a cornerstone of modern science. Al-Battani, who lived between 853 and 929 CE, utilized astronomical tables to make precise calculations about the motion of stars, demonstrating that controlled experiments could yield reliable data. These early scholars did not merely observe; they measured, recorded, and tested their hypotheses against the physical world. Their work laid the groundwork for the Scientific Revolution, proving that knowledge could be built on observation rather than revelation or dogma. The development of these rules for scientific reasoning was not straightforward, as the scientific method has been the subject of intense and recurring debate throughout the history of science.
The Scientific Revolution and Newton
Common questions
When did the term scientific method emerge in the nineteenth century?
The term scientific method emerged in the nineteenth century as a result of significant institutional development of science. This development established clear boundaries between science and non-science, such as scientist and pseudoscience.
What year did Alhazen publish his Book of Optics?
Alhazen published his Book of Optics in 1027. This work stands as a testament to the power of controlled experiments and used measurements of the refraction of light to deduce that outer space was less dense than air.
On what date did Watson see Rosalind Franklin's Photo 51?
Watson saw Rosalind Franklin's Photo 51 on Friday, the 30th of January 1953. This detailed X-ray diffraction image showed an X-shape and confirmed the helical structure of DNA.
When was the validation of Einstein's theory of general relativity during the solar eclipse?
The validation of Einstein's theory of general relativity occurred during the solar eclipse of the 29th of May 1919. Two expeditions to Sobral, Ceará, Brazil, and the island of Principe yielded photographs that supported General Relativity rather than Newtonian gravitation.
Who argued against there being any universal rules of science in the 1975 first edition of his book Against Method?
Paul Feyerabend argued against there being any universal rules of science in the 1975 first edition of his book Against Method. This stance questioned the universality of the scientific method and replaced the notion of science as a homogeneous and universal method with that of it being a heterogeneous and local practice.
The Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries marked a pivotal shift in how humanity understood the natural world, driven by the furthering of empiricism by Francis Bacon and Robert Hooke. Bacon advocated for experiments to be performed by scientists like Giambattista della Porta, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo Galilei, emphasizing the need for rigorous observation. René Descartes introduced a rationalist approach, while Isaac Newton refined the scientific method by postulating four principles that form the basis of modern science. Newton's work unified prior theories and measurements into the consequences of his laws of motion, published in 1727, which explained thousands of years of scientific observations of the planets almost perfectly. However, these laws were later determined to be special cases of a more general theory, relativity, which explained both the previously unexplained exceptions to Newton's laws and predicted and explained other observations such as the deflection of light by gravity. The Scientific Revolution was not a single event but a complex interplay of empiricism, rationalism, and inductivism, with scientists like John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume contributing to the philosophical underpinnings of the method. The term scientific method emerged in the nineteenth century, as a result of significant institutional development of science, and terminologies establishing clear boundaries between science and non-science, such as scientist and pseudoscience.
The DNA Race and Model Building
In the early 1950s, the race to discover the structure of DNA became a dramatic example of the scientific method in action, highlighting the importance of hypothesis testing and model building. In 1950, it was known that genetic inheritance had a mathematical description, starting with the studies of Gregor Mendel, and that DNA contained genetic information, yet the mechanism of storing genetic information remained unclear. Linus Pauling proposed that DNA might be a triple helix, a hypothesis that was considered by Francis Crick and James D. Watson but discarded when they realized that in Pauling's model, DNA's phosphate groups had to be un-ionized, contradicting the fact that DNA is an acid. On Friday, the 30th of January 1953, Watson saw Rosalind Franklin's Photo 51, a detailed X-ray diffraction image, which showed an X-shape, confirming the helical structure. The weekend of January 31 to the 1st of February 1953, saw Watson inform Bragg of the X-ray diffraction image of DNA in B form, and Bragg permitted them to restart their research on DNA. On Saturday, the 28th of February 1953, Watson found the base-pairing mechanism which explained Chargaff's rules using his cardboard models, realizing that an adenine-thymine pair held together by two hydrogen bonds was identical in shape to a guanine-cytosine pair held together by at least two hydrogen bonds. This moment of insight, driven by the iterative process of hypothesis, prediction, and experimentation, led to the discovery of the double helix structure, a cornerstone of modern biology.
Eddington and the Bending of Light
The validation of Einstein's theory of general relativity during the solar eclipse of the 29th of May 1919, stands as a historic example of the scientific method's power to confirm or refute theories through observation. In March 1917, the Royal Astronomical Society announced that the occasion of a total eclipse of the sun would afford favorable conditions for testing Einstein's General theory of relativity. Two expeditions, one to Sobral, Ceará, Brazil, and another to the island of Principe, yielded a set of photographs, which, when compared to photographs taken at Sobral and at Greenwich Observatory, showed that the deviation of light was measured to be 1.69 arc-seconds, as compared to Einstein's desk prediction of 1.75 arc-seconds. This observation supported General Relativity rather than Newtonian gravitation, demonstrating that theories could be tested and refined through empirical evidence. The experiment highlighted the importance of predictions from the hypothesis, as the outcome of testing such a prediction was currently unknown, and a successful outcome increased the probability that the hypothesis was true. The story of the 1919 eclipse also illustrates the social enterprise of science, where experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the scientific community to be accepted. The work of Arthur Eddington and his team exemplified the rigorous skepticism and careful observation that are essential to the scientific method, proving that even the most abstract theories could be grounded in the physical world.
The Myth of a Fixed Method
Despite the popular image of the scientific method as a fixed sequence of steps, it is actually a highly variable and creative process that represents a set of general principles rather than a rigid algorithm. The claim here is that science has general principles that must be mastered to increase productivity and enhance perspective, not that these principles provide a simple and automated sequence of steps to follow. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, numerous influential philosophers of science such as Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend had questioned the universality of the scientific method, and largely replaced the notion of science as a homogeneous and universal method with that of it being a heterogeneous and local practice. Paul Feyerabend, in the 1975 first edition of his book Against Method, argued against there being any universal rules of science, while Karl Popper and others disagreed with Feyerabend's claim. Later stances include physicist Lee Smolin's 2013 essay There Is No Scientific Method, in which he espouses two ethical principles, and historian of science Daniel Thurs' chapter in the 2015 book Newton's Apple and Other Myths about Science, which concluded that the scientific method is a myth or, at best, an idealization. The scientific method is not a single recipe; it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity rather than rigid adherence to procedure, and it is an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate, and comprehensive models and methods.
Falsification and the Limits of Truth
The core of the scientific method lies in the principle of falsifiability, a concept championed by Karl Popper, which holds that a theory must be testable and capable of being proven wrong to be considered scientific. Popper used the falsifiability criterion to demarcate a scientific theory from a theory like astrology, as both explain observations, but the scientific theory takes the risk of making predictions that decide whether it is right or wrong. This principle ensures that no theory can ever be considered final, since new problematic evidence might be discovered, leading to the proposal of a new theory or modifications to the previous theory. The strength of a theory relates to how long it has persisted without major alteration to its core principles, and theories can also become subsumed by other theories, as Newton's laws were subsumed by Einstein's relativity. The scientific method embodies the position that reason alone cannot solve a particular scientific problem, and it unequivocally refutes claims that revelation, political or religious dogma, appeals to tradition, commonly held beliefs, common sense, or currently held theories pose the only possible means of demonstrating truth. The process of inquiry is driven by the struggle to move from the irritation of doubt to a secure belief, and it is a social enterprise where experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the scientific community to be accepted.