The author of Against Method also thinks so.

I think ‘method’ is a rather simplistic notion, considering the complexities, but I also think that there is a scientific attitude, a characteristic way of approaching problems. I like this summary:

Modern science emerged in the seventeenth century with two fundamental ideas: planned experiments (Francis Bacon) and the mathematical representation of relations among phenomena (Galileo). This basic experimental-mathematical epistemology evolved until, in the first half of the twentieth century, it took a stringent form involving (1) a mathematical theory constituting scientific knowledge, (2) a formal operational correspondence between the theory and quantitative empirical measurements, and (3) predictions of future measurements based on the theory. The “truth” (validity) of the theory is judged based on the concordance between the predictions and the observations. While the epistemological details are subtle and require expertise relating to experimental protocol, mathematical modeling, and statistical analysis, the general notion of scientific knowledge is expressed in these three requirements.

Science is neither rationalism nor empiricism. It includes both in a particular way. In demanding quantitative predictions of future experience, science requires formulation of mathematical models whose relations can be tested against future observations. Prediction is a product of reason, but reason grounded in the empirical. Hans Reichenbach summarizes the connection: “Observation informs us about the past and the present, reason foretells the future.” — Edward Dougherty

Does anyone still believe a “method” of science really exists, and that it essentially defines and differentiates science as a sui generis human endeavor? — Mikie

Who argues that science is a "Sui generis human endeavour"? What does that even mean?

Shouldn’t we abandon this idea? Is it not both old and obsolete? — Mikie

Why? You're providing no argument or even some basic angle on discussing the topic.

Scientific practice ideally consists in unbiased and (as much as is humanly possible) presuppositionless inquiry. The abandonment of belief in what is merely imagined and what seems merely intuitively "right" with no other supporting evidence seems to be the essential element of scientific method, and what distinguishes it from speculative practices that existed prior to the advent of this new kind of scientific practice and which of course still exist today.

Does anyone still believe a “method” of science really exists, and that it essentially defines and differentiates science as a sui generis human endeavor?

Shouldn’t we abandon this idea? Is it not both old and obsolete? — Mikie

In my view, it'd be hard to sincerely act as if anything goes. Maybe Popper (for instance) isn't the final word, but he can be taken as one of many thinkers using critical rationality to further clarify that very same critical rationality.

Scientific practice ideally consists in unbiased and (as much as is humanly possible) presuppositionless inquiry. The abandonment of belief in what is merely imagined and what seems merely intuitively "right" with no other supporting evidence seems to be the essential element of scientific method, and what distinguishes it from speculative practices that existed prior to the advent of this new kind of scientific practice and which of course still exist today. — Janus

That seems like a good (necessarily blurry) picture of it.

Cheers... I agree it is necessarily blurry; and as far as I am aware philosophy of science is yet to establish any perfectly clear and clean boundary between scientific and non-scientific or pseudo-scientific inquiry.

:up:
I suspect that such clarification is interminable. I'm on a Husserl kick at the moment, and he and the other phenomenologists seem to understand that phenomenology's most burning issue is the clarification of its own founding intention -- which is deeply if controversially scientific in as radical and pure a sense as possible --but one wrestles endlessly with the meaning of radically and purity.

I should add many of the arguments sorrounding speculative physics demonstrate the significance of at least considering falsifiability a bedrock requirement for a hypothesis to be considered scientific. See The Fight for the Soul of Science:

The crisis, as Ellis and Silk tell it, is the wildly speculative nature of modern physics theories, which they say reflects a dangerous departure from the scientific method. Many of today’s theorists — chief among them the proponents of string theory and the multiverse hypothesis — appear convinced of their ideas on the grounds that they are beautiful or logically compelling, despite the impossibility of testing them. Ellis and Silk accused these theorists of “moving the goalposts” of science and blurring the line between physics and pseudoscience. “The imprimatur of science should be awarded only to a theory that is testable,” Ellis and Silk wrote, thereby disqualifying most of the leading theories of the past 40 years. “Only then can we defend science from attack.”

Another great read along these lines was Jim Baggott’s Farewell to Reality, also scathingly critical of string fantasy theory.

Does anyone still believe a “method” of science really exists, and that it essentially defines and differentiates science as a sui generis human endeavor? — Mikie

Yes, of course. I do think there is a scientific method, although it certainly isn't the simplistic one people often identify - hypothesis, experiment, results, theory, repeat as needed. It's not a specific method, it's an epistemological process that can lead to many different approaches.

The scientific method is really the only thing that makes science science. No scientific method, no science. It always seems to me people who want to claim there isn't one are just trying to be all iconoclastic and post-modern and stuff.

Sorry, I have to go to bed now.

I also think that there is a scientific attitude, a characteristic way of approaching problems. — Quixodian

I agree. I suspect that it's (ideally) a sublime style of sociality, a way of seeing others and of seeing one's own claims from the outside. One tries to see around limiting idiosyncrasies or (equivalently) see as an ideally universal subject. It's as if the object in its truth exists for just this perfected subject. I don't pretend that this is typically explicit.

As I've mentioned before, I think that the boundaries of our scientific understanding have expanded beyond the limits of convenient observability in space and time. Hence experimentalism has been replaced by modeling and simulation. Science has become much more of an architectonic pursuit. However this is itself a danger, because pseudo-science can also cloak itself in the garb of architectonic. Hence the confusion of the modern world.

I should give that a read — sounds interesting.

I also think that there is a scientific attitude, a characteristic way of approaching problems. — Quixodian

I agree with you. But I think a similar attitude can exist in philosophy, and that what we call science is an offshoot of this. The difference being that scientists’ ontology is naturalism.



Others seem to be understanding the OP just fine, so I’m not sure what more you’re looking for. Either science is unique in some way — as many claim, and which I myself believe — or it isn’t. If it is, what makes it unique? The scientific method? That’s also been claimed, and I don’t agree with it.

Scientific practice ideally consists in unbiased and (as much as is humanly possible) presuppositionless inquiry. — Janus

But it does presuppose naturalism, does it not?

I don’t know if it’s humanly possible, as you mentioned. It does seem like the best we have, but even the best makes some very basic assumptions.

In my view, it'd be hard to sincerely act as if anything goes. — plaque flag

I don’t mean to say that anything goes. I don’t believe that. I’m saying the idea of the scientific method is mostly wrong-headed. Unless of course we want to define it as something different from what is usually meant.

However this is itself a danger, because pseudo-science can also cloak itself in the garb of architectonic. Hence the confusion of the modern world. — Pantagruel

A very important point, yes.

As I've mentioned before, I think that the boundaries of our scientific understanding have expanded beyond the limits of convenient observability in space and time. Hence experimentalism has been replaced by modeling and simulation. Science has become much more of an architectonic pursuit. However this is itself a danger, because pseudo-science can also cloak itself in the garb of architectonic. Hence the confusion of the modern world. — Pantagruel

This is interesting because in the same paragraph you are unsure about the limits of science, while also worrying about pseudo-science. But does your worry of pseudo-science not suggest that you have some criteria to demarcate science and pseudo-science, at least roughly and intuitively if not concretely?

This may serve as a good starting point to understand the demarcation of science - what makes one theory science and another pseudo-science? Is it in the method used?

This may serve as a good starting point to understand the demarcation of science - what makes one theory science and another pseudo-science? Is it in the method used? — PhilosophyRunner

I don’t think sweeping, abstract claims can be made. You have to look at specific, real world examples. So, are horoscopes pseudoscience? Yes. Is chiropractic a pseudoscience? It depends - but mostly, yes. Is creation “Science” pseudoscience? Yes. And so on. You can demonstrate each fairly easily.

This may serve as a good starting point to understand the demarcation of science - what makes one theory science and another pseudo-science? Is it in the method used?
— PhilosophyRunner

I don’t think sweeping, abstract claims can be made. You have to look at specific, real world examples. So, are horoscopes pseudoscience? Yes. Is chiropractic a pseudoscience? It depends - but mostly, yes. Is creation “Science” pseudoscience? Yes. And so on. You can demonstrate each fairly easily. — Mikie

More generally, lets consider quantum physics. Essentially, Einstein's General and Special Relativity remains the best version of an empirically validated theory. While string theory has been highly productive, all of that productivity has been in the domain of the construction of theoretical models. There is no empirical evidence for string theory. This unverified-but-not-unverifiable direction of research begs for abuse by pseudo-scientific interests.

This unverified-but-not-unverifiable direction of research begs for abuse by pseudo-scientific interests. — Pantagruel

Exactly, which is why there’s so much woo-woo that uses quantum mechanics as an example to justify it. Another one: “energy.” More New Age-y stuff. They really have no understanding of any of it, they simply use it to create fictions — like science fiction writers. Crichton did something similar with Jurassic Park … a lot of fun, but complete nonsense.

I don’t think sweeping, abstract claims can be made. You have to look at specific, real world examples. So, are horoscopes pseudoscience? Yes. Is chiropractic a pseudoscience? It depends - but mostly, yes. Is creation “Science” pseudoscience? Yes. And so on. You can demonstrate each fairly easily. — Mikie

I guess my question is why are horoscopes pseudoscience? Is it because of the method they use to come up with theories? Is it because of something else?

And the same question for the other things you called pseudoscience. There is some reason you call these pseudoscience, something that distinguishes them as not science. What is it? The answer to that question will provide a perspective on the line dividing science from not science.

But what exactly are the pseudo science interests and how do they differ from science interest? And does the answer to that not also answer to a demarcation of science?

Am I correct in saying you are:
1) Unsure about the limits of science
2) Sure that there is pseudo-science
3) Pseudo science is not science

It seems that if 2) and 3) are true, then you are sure of at least some of the limits of science.

If I say theory X is pseudo-science because of a and b, then I am saying a and b are indicators that something is not science.

And the same question for the other things you called pseudoscience. There is some reason you call these pseudoscience, something that distinguishes them as not science. What is it? — PhilosophyRunner

Well, we can start with the fact that there’s no credible evidence whatsoever for their claims or their beliefs. There’s very little evidence that manipulating vertebrae has any significant health benefits (beyond placebo), for instance. There’s no evidence that the positions of the planets have any demonstrable effect on human beings. And so forth.

But there are psychological reasons too. It’s usually easy to identify when a person wants to believe something— for understandable reasons. Whether because it’s comforting or there’s financial incentive or whatever. So motivation is a factor. Motivated reasoning.

But there’s also all kinds of biases and pitfalls that lead people astray— and you don’t even have to examine the evidence to know it’s complete nonsense. Claims about 9/11 and the moon landing are some obvious ones. Take a lot of people in, because they’re presented very smartly, by design. But upon inspection — assuming we need to bother to get that far — they reveal themselves as the half-truths and cherry-picked conglomerate of bullshit that they are.

↪Pantagruel But what exactly are the pseudo science interests and how do they differ from science interest? And does the answer to that not also answer to a demarcation of science?

Am I correct in saying you are:
1) Unsure about the limits of science
2) Sure that there is pseudo-science
3) Pseudo science is not science

It seems that if 2) and 3) are true, then you are sure of at least some of the limits of science.

If I say theory X is pseudo-science because of a and b, then I am saying a and b are indicators that something is not science. — PhilosophyRunner

I think that pseudo-science is perpetrated intentionally by people for material ends. Most of that stuff educated people can ignore, but if I cared to pay attention to some of the absolute twaddle that some people pay attention to I'm sure I could draw a line pretty easily.

It seems that if 2) and 3) are true, then you are sure of at least some of the limits of science. — PhilosophyRunner

We can be unsure about what’s true and not true, yes? It doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as truth.

Well, we can start with the fact that there’s no credible evidence whatsoever for their claims or their beliefs. There’s very little evidence that manipulating vertebrae has any significant health benefits (beyond placebo), for instance. There’s no evidence that the positions of the planets have any demonstrable effect on human beings. And so forth. — Mikie

Ok, so just starting with your first paragraph, it seems a dividing line for science:
- Science requires evidence (material evidence? naturalistic assumptions? etc)

Does that not start to answer your OP? The scientific method requires evidence.

To answer the question in the OP "Does anyone still believe a “method” of science really exists?" - I would say you do believe such a method exists, and you use such a method to demarcate science from pseudo-science, including in many posts in this forum. In particular you think that materialistic evidence is an important part of the scientific method, and if there is a theory where the evidence does not support it, you are inclined to dismiss that theory as not scientific. Am I somewhat close?

I am not trying to be facetious or antagonistic, I'm sorry if it comes out that way. I think this is a great idea for a topic.

So is it intentionality that makes something scientific or pseudo-scientific? You clearly have a criteria to divide science and pseudo-science, so a limit of science is right there at that divide.

In order for a person to call something pseudo-science, they must first know the limit of science, to know that the pseudo-scientific theory lies outside the limit of science.

I think there's something there. Much of scientific practice is analytic, in the sense that the aim is to find a way to isolate one factor from among the great many that go into producing any phenomenon we might be interested in. This is very difficult. I was surprised to find, when watching an episode of Nova, that once you've carefully gathered your samples it can be like another year before you get the results of carbon-dating. Every step is work.

So that's one thing. The enormous time and energy put into getting answers to questions made as specific as they can be, or as they need to be, whichever is achievable.

I think the main features of science as an enterprise are that it is communal and self-correcting. I don't know if that fits exactly in the traditional "method" box, but it's the crucial add-on to the carefulness above: for all the work dozens of people put in, they might miss something, so no one believes that there is any process available that marks your results as The Truth. They're just results, and the better the process the more weight they'll carry, but mistakes at either the level of practice or of theory are just expected.

Does anyone still believe a “method” of science really exists, and that it essentially defines and differentiates science as a sui generis human endeavor?

Shouldn’t we abandon this idea? Is it not both old and obsolete? — Mikie

Or, to quote @Pantagruel, it’s ‘quaint’.

I suppose a trivial thing which could be said about a "scientific method", would be to look for simplicity within complexity, you'd want to eliminate as much irrelevant information as possible.

If an idea is too complicated, or has too many variables, the less subject it will be to be considered "scientific". Of course, simplicity has to be used only in so far as it helps explain more complex phenomena, but if one forces this idea to the extreme, you won't get anything out of it.

There's also the curious aspect of "elegance" that arises in some of the sciences, which I know is somewhat controversial, but, for whatever reason, theories pertaining to physics say, and sometimes some aspects of linguistics, have this property to it.

Either science is unique in some way — as many claim, and which I myself believe — or it isn’t. If it is, what makes it unique? The scientific method? That’s also been claimed, and I don’t agree with it. — Mikie

What is it you think makes science special, that is not the method? Could you elaborate? It seems to be from other posts that you have criteria that you use to evaluate whether a theory is science (the word evidence pops up a lot), what is this other than part of a method?

There is some truth to that - other things being equal the simpler theory is often preferred.

I also think that there is a scientific attitude, a characteristic way of approaching problems.
— Quixodian

I agree with you. But I think a similar attitude can exist in philosophy, and that what we call science is an offshoot of this. The difference being that scientists’ ontology is naturalism. — Mikie

And an emphasis on quantification, objectivity, and replicability. Naturalism is a theoretical posit intended to differentiate science from traditional metaphysics which is associated with religion. An barrier that remains in place, if only implicitly, in this day.

While string theory has been highly productive.... — Pantagruel

Producing what, exactly? Other than research grants and tenures for academics, I mean.

Interesting bit of terminology - advocates for string theory and related multi-verse conjectures are often scornful of the insistence that speculative science ought to be subject in principle to validation or falsification by observation or experiment. They devised a slang word for those insisting on such criteria - the popperazi :grin: