Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- scientific_method [2025/11/11 21:56] – created ultracomfy
+++ scientific_method [2025/11/11 23:26] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 The //scientific method// describes the kind of logic used by scholars to make new observations, and to derive conclusions from them.
-====== The Possibility of Knowledge ======
+<WRAP center round rationalwiki 60%>
-As humans we have to start somewhere, and here is where scientific inquiry starts:\\
+<WRAP column 7%>
-The scientific method agrees that, fundamentally, knowledge is a highly philosophical matter. Nothing can ever truly be known. We perceive the world through our senses, which are imperfect, which is then processed through a brain. The inner workings of the brain, neurally and philosophically, are unknown and what ends up in our conscious mind is never a true representation of our senses. By the time our consciousness is told by the brain what is going on, we have already interpreted our senses multiple times. We're basically just looking at a derivative.
+<WRAP center>
+{{:RationalWiki.png?nolink&50|}}
+</WRAP>
+</WRAP>
+The [[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:I_thought_this_was_supposed_to_be_RATIONALWiki|"rational"]] people over at [[:RationalWiki]] have an article on [[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific Method|Scientific Method]].
+</WRAP>
-Beyond that, we only perceive what our senses tell us. That information can be made up, and what they sense does not have to be real. We could be living in a simulation, our brain could be simulating a reality itself, maybe there is a god feeding us experiences directly into our brains. We might never know. The reality is, and the scientific method acknowledges this, that we can never make any substantive, definitive statements about reality. We do not experience reality, we experience the depiction of a depiction of a depiction of reality, if reality even exists at all.\\
-\\
-\\
-//However//, there seems to be an awful lot of consistency. Not only do many of us seem to experience the same (depiction of a depiction of a depiction of a) reality, it is also that the reality itself seems to be somewhat consistent. Why exactly that is will never be a question for an empiricist - for all we know that might truly be the work of a God - but what we //can// do is to find out the rules and mechanics //behind// the things we experience (in our depiction of a depiction of a depiction of a reality - I will stop mentioning it here, but remember that this is always implied).
-====== The Likelihood of Explanations ======
+====== The Nature of Knowledge ======
-Secondly, the scientific method works closely off of Hanlon's razor. Whenever there are ideas for why something might happen, some are better than others.
+Knowledge, in any enduring sense, is not a collection of certainties but a network of provisional claims, each waiting to be overturned. Our senses deceive us, our minds interpret imperfectly, and the world we think we know is always filtered through perception and expectation. As humans, we must begin from a position of uncertainty, and perhaps the scientific method begins by admitting that uncertainty rather than pretending to resolve it. The brilliance of the scientific method lies not in proving what is true, but in discovering what can be shown to be false. The reality is that we are [[probably wrong]], but we can narrow the field of error.
-something something
+To gain any kind of insight into how reality works, we need to work with the things we have. Our experiences, though limited, appear astonishingly consistent in many areas. There are a lot of patterns most humans observe - objects fall, light travels, too much heat hurts. From these patterns we can infer regularities, and from those regularities we build theories. The value of a good scientific theory lies precisely in its vulnerability, the fact that it can - at least in principle -be proven wrong. Any claim that considers itself above the scrutiny of refutation is useless, as that means it doesn't create any observable real-world phenomena that could be measured. The point of the scientific method is to define the world in clear, direct elements, all of which are exposed to the possibility of refutation. The claims which survive this process are not absolute truth, but what remains standing after relentless testing, failure, and correction.
-When we try to explain something, we try to describe the underlying mechanics. Ideally, each mechanic can be properly isolated and described directly. If your explanation requires more than one description, you are probably working around a mechanic you don't yet understand. That's why we want the number of factors and exceptions to be as low as possible.\\
-Take, for example, gravity. At home, you will probably be accelerated towards the ground at the gravitational constant of 1g. If you have no clue about gravity, you could create an explanation that goes as follows: "Every physical object is gravitationally attracted to the nearest bigger object at 1g."\\
+====== Probably Wrong Explanations ======
-This would already explain a lot, but you're going to run into problems fast: Some guy on Mount Everest just jumped, and they were accelerated back to earth at 0.98g. And yes, they double and triple checked, that's accurate. Well alright, how about\\
+When scientists construct explanations, they are not weaving permanent fabrics of truth; they are stitching hypotheses that must endure the tearing forces of falsification. An idea that cannot be tested is not protected - it is irrelevant. The power of an explanation comes from its fragility, ie. its willingness to be broken. The beauty of a scientific idea is not in how convincingly it speaks, but in how precisely it invites contradiction. The keyword here is //precisely//, because with a good scientific theory you know //exactly// where and how to refute it.
-"Every object is gravitationally attracted to the nearest bigger object at 1g, except for some reason if you're nearer or farther from earth."\\
-\\
+Take gravity as an example. If we tried to explain it only by saying that objects fall toward the nearest large mass at a fixed rate, we’d quickly find contradictions. Someone on Mount Everest would measure a slightly different rate of acceleration, and our simple model would need constant patching to fit new observations. Each added exception makes the theory less convincing, revealing that we’ve missed something fundamental. But when Newton proposed that all mass attracts all other mass with a force proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to distance squared, everything suddenly fit together. Earth’s pull, planetary motion, the orbits of moons. That explanation was simpler, more general, and - crucially - predictive. Newton’s law of universal gravitation survived because it invited falsification everywhere: With its mathematical models it made predictions that could have failed but, remarkably, they didn't.\\
-This is where the problems begin - you have now made your explanation accurate enough to explain Mount Everest man, but clearly gravity just doesn't work the way you think and you're now patching your way around the problems that //will// arise with your explanation. There more that this happens, the less likely you are to actually be hitting the true essence of what gravity really is.\\
+At least for a few centuries until Einstein. He found universal gravitation to be quite lacking and expanded on it with general relativity. These people, each in their own right, created models that people couldn't falsify even multiple centuries after!
-In the case of gravity, this would become obvious once you look at the stars. They are not attracted to their stars at 1g, or any alternative you could come up with if you think purely about "distance from earth". Earth itself is pulled towards the sun at well over 1g, and trying to accomodate that into your explanation will make it ever and ever more problematic. You will have to fit in other planets, which will have different pulls even though they are closer or father from earth and the sun, you will have moons which you could try to accomodate and ultimately you could come out at a formula that //works//, but is absolutely horrible and just tries really hard to work its way around a problem it just doesn't //actually// know how to solve.\\
-\\
+The advancement of human knowledge works by cutting away at what we know is wrong. We will always be wrong, but by turning our wrongness into mathematical models that can be definitely, irrefutably shown to be wrong, we can learn and understand a lot. Our knowledge doesn't grow by defending what we think is true, but by going out there and testing it for ourselves.
-\\
-Here is a much better explanation: All mass attracts all other mass. The more mass and the closer you are, the more attractive you are. Make a formula out of this, put it into a computer and.. it works! You seem to have hit the essence of what gravity really is. This works for humans on Earth, it explains why Mount Everest man experienced different gravity, it explains other planets, moons, orbits and why Earth itself orbits the sun as well. To be fair, This formula presupposes Newtonian mechanics (ie. "objects in motion stay in motions, objects at rest stay at rest") and ultimately we cannot truly know whether it's true - but it's a really, really good base. In fact, it's the best base we have so far. Sure, it could just be that anytime someone jumps god just deploys a magical hand to pull you back to Earth, but that doesn't explain anything. In fact, to try to explain the mechanics of how we fall back to Earth, "hand of god" doesn't explain anything //at all//. You are working your way around a mechanic you do not understand.\\
+Now, what science has got over other methods of inquiry is that it is self-correcting. This is because all current scientific theory must always be aligned with observable evidence. So, when new evidence rolls in, scientific theories are adapted to reflect the changes in our knowledge. By acknowledging wrongness, scientific theories evolve over time and create models with extremely high predictive power. And, finally, it is this predictive power that makes the scientific method so good: Science //works//. It has to work, because if there is any observable evidence that contradicts the current scientific theory, that theory will be dropped on the spot (and you will probably receive a Nobel prize). Science, by making refutable predictions is inherently //useful//. If a prediction couldn't be shown to be wrong for centuries, it is probably a really good prediction and will help you do or create things for which other methods of inquiry don't even have words. All modern technology is the result of predictive models and the inherent scientific reasoning behind them.
-\\
-Now, //<wrap em>why</wrap>// we fall back to Earth - ie. //<wrap em>why</wrap>// there is gravity - cannot be known and might be a god, but the //<wrap em>how</wrap>// doesn't make sense to be answered with "god" or anything other supernatural((And to be very fair, even the causes of gravity might actually be explained at some point, but that will always only ever push back the question. What causes the thing that causes gravity? This will go on endlessly.)).