4 ms·
From wikipedia: 1. Define a question 2. Gather information and resources (observe) 3. Form an explanatory hypothesis 4. Test the hypothesis by performing an
by rantanplan 8y ago
From wikipedia:
1. Define a question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
5. Analyze the data
6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
Emphasis on 4) and the "reproducible manner".
Otherwise what's the point really? We would resort to trust or belief in one's sayings.
- nonbel 8y agoThe wikipedia one is ok, but really most of that is stuffed into my #1 and it treats the "forming and testing a hypothesis" part too superficially. What did I write that makes you think the two are in conflict? I wrote: "figure out what situations naturally arise or that can be devised that produce consistent, stable phenomenon." This is the same as figuring out the "reproducible manner".
- rantanplan 8y agoI don't think you understood what I took issue with in your post. You said: > Passing peer review is something used as a substitute for reproducibility And what I'm saying is "No, it's not". Reproducibility of the results is the most important aspect of the scientific method, otherwise, as I said above: "what's the point really? We would resort to trust or belief in one's sayings."
- nonbel 8y agoOh. I never said that was a good thing. Institutionalized peer review as its done today is a relatively new thing, introduced post-WWII. Ie, that statement was descriptive, not normative. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/peer-review-not-old-you-might-think https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/peer-review-no...
- rantanplan 8y agoOK, thanks for clarifying, I obviously misread your comment.