Revolutionize Your Thinking: Master The Scientific Method

Hello everyone, Pangea here! This is  the first video in the Physics series, an extensive playlist in which we will  explore modern physical concepts that drive our understanding of contemporary science. I hope  you will enjoy it and find the information useful! We will start our presentation with a definition,  a set of basic characteristics and systematic steps regarding the Scientific Method, and  further in the video we will delve deeper and see what makes scientific theories consistent,  an

d how they relate to the method of science. The Scientific Method is generally defined as a  controlled systematic investigation that is rooted in objective reality, and which aims to develop  general knowledge about natural phenomena. It is a systematic attempt to understand natural  phenomena in as much detail as possible, and use this knowledge to predict, modify  and control the phenomena. It involves some characteristics and a series of steps that  are used to investigate a natural occurren

ce. The systematic plan that must guide a scientific investigation must consider all the  aspects and moments of the research. Scientific research must avoid chance. The  process must be supported by control mechanisms that allow it to obtain truthful results.  All actions and observations are controlled. It must be empirical. It is a way of gaining  direct and indirect observations or experience. Science in general is rational and logical. A scientific investigation must emphasize  the rational

ity on the subjectivity. The findings obtained through  scientific research should be able to be reproduced under the same  conditions established in the study. It is objective. The results of  scientific research must be universal. Science is constantly expanding.  Scientific research is considered provisional because it must  be open to further studies. It must be original. There is no sense in  focusing scientific research on proven facts. If it is based on an existing research, the research 

should focus on a different area of the problem. Planning must have a scientific order, which  responds to the interests of the study. Orderly structure allows developing  an empirical and verifiable study. Careful observation is the basis of  scientific investigation. While observing, we tend to ask questions, while identifying and clearly defining a problem. Problem questions: The next step is developing a problem that can  be solved through experimentation. A hypothesis is a proposed explana

tion  for the observed phenomena. It should be testable and falsifiable, meaning  that it can be proven false through experimentation or observation. Predict a  possible answer to the problem or question. Based on the hypothesis, scientists  make predictions about what will happen in specific situations  or under certain conditions. An experiment entails developing and following a  procedure, generally by computing the consequences of the hypothesis and comparing these results  to natural observ

ations and experiment. During the experiment, scientists  collect data through observations and measurements. This data is used to  analyze the results of the experiment, and see whether it supports or refutes the  hypothesis. This may involve statistical analysis or other methods to assess the reliability of  the results. Modify the procedure if needed. Confirm the results by retesting, and include  tables, graphs, photographs, or other media. Based on the analysis of the data, scientists  draw

conclusions about whether the hypothesis is supported or not. If the hypothesis  is supported by evidence, it may become widely accepted as a scientific theory. Include a  statement that accepts or rejects the hypothesis. Make recommendations for further study and  possible improvements to the procedure. The scientific method is iterative, meaning  that it often involves repeating steps, refining hypotheses, and conducting further  experiments to build upon existing knowledge and deepen our und

erstanding  of the natural world. It is a fundamental aspect of scientific inquiry and  critical thinking in many fields of study. These are the generally accepted  characteristics and steps of the scientific method. We will now  delve deeper and try to understand how it actually relates to proposed  theories, while giving some examples. How do we decide which theories  should become accepted today? A theory is said to be accepted if it is taken  as the best available description of its object.

The object could be something physical, like a  revolving planet, it could be something social, like a group of people, or it could be formal,  like a number or logical relations. In any case, you have some object that a theory tries  to describe. A theory is said to be used if it is taken as an adequate tool for  practical applications, regardless if it is accepted or not. A theory may or may not be  accepted, or it may or may not be of any use, but as a guiding idea, it can be pursued if it  i

s worthy of further development. As examples, we may think of Einstein’s relativity or quantum  mechanics as accepted theories, which also have some small number of practical applications. On  the other hand, Newtonian physics, even if we no longer believe that the theory provides the best  available description of reality, we still use it in most cases and everyday life. In the scenario  of pursued theories, we could mention string theory and its different variations. This theory  is widely pur

sued, although it is not generally accepted. It is not generally believed to be  the best description of reality, although it’s theoretical consistency is there. If we go back in  time, to the early 19th century, accepted theory, used theory and pursued theory was all the  same, namely Newtonian physics. Anyhow, it is hard to tell from the outset, which initial  idea is worthy of further elaboration and which one is not. The question is how do we decide which  theory provides the best available

description? Let’s say that we have two competing  theories, with some evidence for both, and we try to decide which one is better.  What we need is a set of rules or criteria in order to tell us that one theory is better  than the other, given the evidence. This is what we call the scientific method. We need  a method of appraisal in order to determine which competing theory is better. Method means  a set of requirements, like criteria, rules, standards and so on, for employment in theory  asse

ssment, like evaluations, appraisals, comparisons and so forth. Methods should not  be confused with methodologies. By methodology, we mean something openly formulated, something  explicitly stated. Basically, a methodology is a set of explicitly formulated rules of theory  assessment. Method is only your implicit expectations, your intuitions. For example, a  method gives the actual or implicit expectations of the scientific community. A methodology gives  the rules openly prescribed by the com

munity as the correct way of doing science. Your openly  formulated requirements are often different from your actual expectations. You may or may not  be aware of what it is that guides you in your choices, like stating your criteria for you next  PC or smartphone. That would be a methodology. But you do have a method: your implicit expectations,  which allow you to choose between two or more things. Scientists currently employ the method  in their endeavors, and not the methodology. Another th

ing that we have to keep separate from  method is research techniques. Techniques are used by scientists to construct theories. They are  a set of procedures for theory construction, like invention or the generation of new  ideas. It is one thing to generate a new idea, and another thing to assess by method  if the idea is acceptable. For example, let’s try to come up with a solution to a given  problem. We would sit down in a group and try to brainstorm. This would be a research technique.  The

result of the brainstorming may or may not be correct, and in order to find out if it  is correct, we need to apply certain methods for evaluation. Scientifically, we don’t  really care where the theory comes from, because it doesn’t make a theory more true. It  may be interesting, but it doesn’t really matter. The next question we should ask is: is there an  unchangeable method of science? If theories now are better than the theories of the past,  the whole process of scientific change would b

e governed by a fixed and universal  scientific method. So, theories would change, but the method would be the same. What would be  the requirements for such method? To answer this, we must delve into some transitions, and  see how theories actually become accepted. Let’s take for example the law of free  fall, where the distance traveled by a falling object is proportional to the square  of time traveled. Now, what would it take for this theory to become accepted? We would need  some precision

and accuracy, and it would be enough if the predictions of the theory were  in accord with the results of observations and experiments. Anyhow, very often we expect  something more than precision and accuracy, like novel predictions of things that no one  has observed so far. In the case of Newton, his theory provided very accurate predictions  for a wide range of phenomena. It was clear from the outset that it was the most accurate  and precise theory at the time. Despite this, the theory remai

ned unaccepted on  the continent for more than a half of century. The theory became accepted only after  the confirmation of one of its novel predictions, namely that the Earth is slightly flattened  towards the poles. The accepted theory at that time was the one created by Descartes, which among  many things, said that Earth’s polar diameter is slightly greater than its equatorial diameter.  As a result of the confirmation of measurements, Newton’s theory became accepted on the  continent, and

this is related to ontology. Ontology is basically the set of views about  entities and interactions that populate the world. So, if I say that the world is populated  by quarks, leptons and bosons, that would be an ontological statement. Contemporary science, for  instance, has its own ontology, like science of the past has its own ontology. Our attitude seems  to depend on whether the theory attempts to modify the accepted ontology, and if the theory tries  to convince us that there is a new o

ntological element. For example, if a theory does not  try to modify a currently accepted ontology, in order to become accepted, mere precision and  accuracy are sufficient. It must fit the known data with greater precision and accuracy than  the currently accepted theory. On the other hand, if a theory tries to modify a currently accepted  ontology, in order to become accepted, it must provide confirmed predictions of before unobserved  phenomena. So, in the case of string theory, although the

theory is pursued, by postulating  the existence of new ontological entities, namely the strings, in order for it to convince  us that our current ontology is not correct, it must provide us some extraordinary evidence.  In order for the theory to become accepted, it must predict things that only it can predict,  and which are totally unexpected. Basically, a hypothesis is allowed to introduce unobservable  entities, like the strings, provided that it predicts something novel, so far unobserved,

  and these predictions are actually confirmed. From Aristotle up to Descartes, a proposition  was acceptable if it grasped the nature of a thing through intuition, or it was deduced from  the general intuitive propositions. Meaning, in those times, in order to convince your  scientific community, your theory needed to be based on the common sense that anyone with  experience in the field would agree. As a result, you needed to have an axiomatic deductive system  in which your fundamental axioms

will be grasped intuitively by an experienced person, and the  rest of your system, meaning the theorems, would be deduced from axioms. So, let’s say you lived in  early 16th century and you had this grand idea of the Earth not being in the center of the universe,  but one of the planets revolving around the Sun, how would you convince that this idea really makes  sense? By confirmed novel predictions? Copernicus predicted that we should see from Earth a full set  of the phases of Venus, but th

e requirements of the method at that time were based on intuitive  truth, and nobody cared about confirmed novel predictions. The theory of Copernicus was  anything but intuitive, and that’s the reason why no one was convinced. It was Descartes  who marked a radical change, by proposing the intuitive axiom that matter is extension,  and the deduced theorems that material objects are composed of interacting matter, and that  changes in objects result from actual contact. Descartes’s theory was ac

cepted because it met the  requirements employed by the Aristotelian method. Back to our question: is there an unchangeable  (fixed and trans-historical) method of science? If we answer Yes, we come up with the  static method thesis. If the answer is No, we arrive at the dynamical method thesis, which  says that the method of science changes through time. Aristotle believed that there is a fixed  way of doing science, by way of intuitions and deductions. Newton also believed that there are  unch

angeable rules for studying natural phenomena, by way of inductions from phenomena. Even  all the way to 50 years ago, Karl Popper also believed that there is an unchangeable method  of science, by way of falsification. For the most part of the history of knowledge, up until the  1970’s, the Static Method thesis was taken for granted. In this case the method was thought to be  ‘transcendent’, meaning that it’s not part of the process of scientific change, but it’s beyond the  process and it rema

ins there unchanging. Anyhow, Paul Feyerabend was the one who wrote the treatise  titled ‘Against the Method’, in which he argued that the methods are not something external to the  scientific mosaic, but are part of the process of scientific change. So, a scientific mosaic is not  just a set of all accepted scientific theories, but also of the employed methods. What undergoes  scientific change is not only theories, but also the methods. If there are no fixed  methods of theory evaluation, does

it mean that the process of scientific change is irrational?  What is the mechanism of scientific change, and is there a certain logic that governs transitions  from one method of evaluation to the next? If the choices are completely random, like for example,  you choose your method, I choose my method, and so on, then we end up in what is called ‘absolute  relativism’. This means that your theory is better by your own standards, my theory is better by my  standards, I can have my own scientifi

c community and you can have your own scientific community,  and everybody can be happy and smiling :-). I hope you found the presentation useful, and if  so, you may support the initiative by clicking the like button and subscribe to the channel  for future videos! Thank you for watching!