4 ms·
> I actually think the scientific model is falling apart. You must have a totally different definition of "the scientific model" than I do. I suspect (althou
by haZard_OS 8y ago
> I actually think the scientific model is falling apart.
You must have a totally different definition of "the scientific model" than I do. I suspect (although I could be wrong) is that you have an oversimplified view of just what the scientific process is.
The scientific model/process is not a linear list of discrete steps moving from "Ask a question" to "Communicate results"; it is not a discrete and static set of criteria we apply to individual experiments or instrument output.
Berkeley University does a good job of providing visualizations on this topic:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02 http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02
- jbob2000 8y agoOk, I read your link. I still think my comments stands. My argument would be that the "Community Analysis and Feedback" section is practically impossible to maintain. Back in early science days, this used to be a valuable section because the pool of "scientists" was huge and they often crossed disciplines. Now you have all sorts of specialties such that the pool of colleagues who are able to understand and assess your work might be, like, 8 people. There was a Japanese mathematician who recently put out a huge proof that claimed to solve a major math problem (I am forgetting all of the important details here, so forgive me). The news wasn't so much that he created the proof, but that they couldn't find anyone to verify it!