3 ms·
I think you can simplify science to this: observe, theorize. Repeat these two steps over and over again, refining your theory (or improving your statistical bo
by lotharbot 15y ago
I think you can simplify science to this: observe, theorize. Repeat these two steps over and over again, refining your theory (or improving your statistical bounds) based on observations.
Note that there is no "end" state. Theories get better, but they don't get perfect.
- DanielBMarkham 15y agoFalsifiability is critical, as is the provisional nature of inductive reasoning. So I can't simplify as far as you would. But you could probably simplify from this article, no doubt. I think the trick would be to do so in a way that kept the "gotchas" mentioned in the notes.
- lotharbot 15y agoThe reason I explain it like I do is that "observation" and "theory" are the core elements; everything else (all the notes and gotchas) are constraints, requirements, or clarifications of those two elements. For example, falsifiability is a constraint on what qualifies as an allowable scientific theory. Recognizing that theories are probabilistic leads to the understanding that they remain provisional (with probability never quite reaching 1). Testing a hypothesis means making observations of a particular sort and comparing them to specific predictions from the hypothesis. Making data and algorithms public is a way to ensure observations can be passed from person to person with a minimum of bias creeping in. And on and on and on...
- DanielBMarkham 15y agoNope. I got you. Excellent distillation. I was just saying the purpose here was to distill enough to keep a short list, while not too much to leave out significant details. (Common mistakes) You are absolutely right about observe and theory. If I had to take it to two words, those would the the ones.