Talk:Scientific method

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2024

A new 2024 study published in PNAS Nexus extends the classic scientific method and would be a nice addition to the “Limits of method” section. Can you include the following additional one or two sentences below and reference at the end of the ‘Science of complex systems’ subsection within the “Limits of method” section?

A study of science’s major discoveries including all Nobel Prize discoveries illustrates that 25% of discoveries since 1900 did not apply the common scientific method (all three features)—with 6% of discoveries using no observation, 23% using no experimentation and 17% not testing a hypothesis. Empirical evidence thus challenges the common view of the scientific method and strictly adhering to it can constrain some new scientific ideas and breakthroughs, which suggests that we need to reform and extend the way we view the scientific method. Scientific Methodology (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Friend, Einstein used the physical instruments pen and paper for making his discoveries. But that's only the beginning of the story. Scientific theory which does not get confirmed experimentally for making bold, original predictions, is totally lame. So, yes, Einstein got the Nobel because an army of physicists were experimentally testing his claims.

Quote: "Such methods extend our mind and generally make observing, experimenting, and testing hypotheses in science possible, doing so in new ways and ensure their replicability." Isn't that self-defeating?

“At first sight this is a classic case of Arts Faculty science. Never mind the hypothesis, give me the data, and there aren’t any,” said Professor Steve Jones at . Note: this is not about Krauss lacking data, it is about how science works in general. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. That paper does look relevant. "The classic scientific method needs to be integrated into and redefined as the sophisticated scientific method that better reflects actual scientific practice." It looks more appropriate in areas where Gauch is cited since his work states that the scientific method is more flexible than rigid process. AAAS also says the same. Not sure if the paper says that the "classic" scientific method is limiting, but rather that our "classical" description of it is oversimplified and inaccurate. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 15:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

References

emojis added?

were the DNA emojis added by a LLM? Scubatoad (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The section History should be revised

It clearly put Bacon as the founder of the scientific method, although all books i have ever found told a different story. There was an exchange of ideas between him and Galileo, but it was Galileo's work being sent to Bacon first. The way it is written now gives no justice to the people who did the real work. Was it edited by someone in Cambridge? Hahaha ~2026-32519-58 (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, the English version differs substantially from the other languages. Shouldn't be. ~2026-33160-32 (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)