#scientificmethod — Public Fediverse posts

Exploring the Foundations of the Scientific Revolution

Several notable and important people led to the modern Scientific Revolution. It grew from their faith rooted in a Christian worldview. These philosophers and scientists founded their beliefs on a rational knowable Creator believing He would leave this universe imbued with rational laws that do not change. As a result using a sound investigative method those laws might be discovered.

The initial start to the development of modern science was heavily influenced by two philosophers who taught and developed the methodology of scientific empiricism: Roger Bacon in the 13th century and Francis Bacon in the 16th/17th century.

Roger Bacon (c. 1219/20–1292), known as Doctor Mirabilis, was a medieval English Franciscan friar, philosopher, and polymath who is considered one of the earliest European advocates of the scientific method and empiricism.

His philosophical contributions include:

• Empirical Science: Bacon emphasized direct observation and controlled experiment as essential correctives to authority and tradition, influencing the addition of optics to the medieval university curriculum. 
• Major Works: In 1267, he submitted the Opus Majus to Pope Clement IV, a comprehensive encyclopedia covering grammar, logic, mathematics, optics, and moral philosophy. 
• Scientific Innovations: He was the first European to record the formula for gunpowder and made significant studies in geometrical optics, vision, and refraction, anticipating developments in lenses and spectacles. 
• Imprisonment: Between 1277 and 1279, Bacon was likely imprisoned or placed under house arrest by his Franciscan superiors due to his interest in astrology, alchemy, and “suspected novelties,” though modern scholars debate the historical accuracy of this event. 
• Legacy: While deeply rooted in medieval scholasticism and theology, his insistence on experimental science (scientia experimentalis) positions him as a precursor to modern scientific inquiry. 

However the next Bacon has had the greatest influence on the fundamentals of modern science.

Francis Bacon (1561–1626) was an English philosopher and statesman widely regarded as the father of empiricism and a foundational figure in the development of the scientific method.  He argued that knowledge should be derived from inductive reasoning and careful observation of nature, rejecting the deductive Aristotelian logic that dominated his era.

His philosophical contributions include:

• The Baconian Method: A systematic approach to science emphasizing experimentation, data collection, and the elimination of biases (known as the “Idols”).
• Key Works: He authored Novum Organum (1620), which outlined his new logical framework, and The Advancement of Learning (1605), advocating for the practical application of science to benefit humanity. 
• Philosophy of Science: Bacon believed that “knowledge is power,” asserting that scientific inquiry should not only seek truth but also produce tangible improvements in human life. 
• Legacy: His ideas heavily influenced the founders of the Royal Society and helped usher in the Scientific Revolution, shifting natural philosophy toward empirical and experimental practices. 

Francis Bacon was a devout Anglican Christian who sought to reconcile his faith with the emerging scientific method.  He believed that studying nature through empirical observation was a way to understand God’s creation and that scientific progress served a spiritual duty to alleviate human suffering. 

While Bacon argued for keeping theology and natural philosophy in separate spheres to prevent religious dogma from hindering scientific inquiry, he remained critical of atheism.

Bacon famously stated that “a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion,” viewing the increase of knowledge as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

However he was not a biblical creationist in the modern sense. He believed that mixing theological dogma with natural philosophy (science) corrupted both, famously criticizing those who tried to build systems of physics based on Genesis or Job.

Bacon articulated the metaphor of “Two Books” written by God:

• The Book of God’s Word (Scripture): Reveals God’s will, moral laws, and the path to salvation. Bacon considered this essential for spiritual truth and believed it should be studied deeply. 
• The Book of God’s Works (Nature): Reveals God’s power and omnipotence. He argued that studying nature was a religious duty that helped humanity understand the Creator’s greatness. 

He urged scholars to pursue “endless progress” in both books but warned strictly against “unwisely mingling or confounding” them.

Of course, I totally disagree his “unwisely mingling” view. There are “Two Books” representing one creation, One Creator. The two books are interwoven by the very nature of the creation. It is all one system created by God and any philosophy that ignores this fact is ultimately doomed to failure.

However he rightfully is credited with what is nowadays called the Scientific Method: hypothesis, experiment and data collection that may disprove the initial hypothesis. No experimental results can ever prove the hypothesis. If you want proofs, try mathematics, which is a closed artificial universe.

I have no doubt that this method gave a big start to the Scientific Revolution, which really started with Francis Bacon in the early 1600s. However in all my own experience in university research labs what was actually used were Bayesian Methods.

Bayesian Methods are statistical techniques that use Bayes’ theorem to update the probability of a hypothesis as more evidence or data becomes available. 

Instead of treating unknown yet-to-be-determined parameters as fixed, Bayesian analysis interprets probability as a degree of belief, allowing for the incorporation of prior knowledge or subjective beliefs alongside observed data. Bayes’ theorem uses a conditional probability to update the prior knowledge.

That means that Bayesian methods build on prior knowledge. And that also means prior biases, which is often seen when a parameter is measured over time. The prior measured value is considered with more weight than it should be and so new values are chosen that fall closest to the prior. What results is a progressive creep in the value towards the final accepted value, the true value. This can be seen in the historical measured values for the round-trip speed of light, c.

Also in the measurements of the electron charge (e).

The bias is not due to the error bounds not overlapping the final correct result but due to weight placed on the priors. So a results that favour a prior is accepted before newer values which may be more accurate. This bias is a feature of a worldview.

Thomas Bayes (c. 1701–1761) was a Presbyterian minister and a member of the English Nonconformist (Dissenter) religious tradition. While his father was a traditional Presbyterian, scholars describe Bayes’ personal theological beliefs as Unitarian or Arian, indicating he strayed from standard Christian orthodoxy. (That is the same accusation leveled against Isaac Newton, so perhaps there is some doubt there.)

Bayes mathematical work, specifically Bayes’ theorem, was originally developed to provide a probabilistic defense of Christianity against the skeptical arguments of philosopher David Hume, who had questioned the validity of miracles.

Bayes published two works during his lifetime: a theological tract titled Divine Benevolence (1731) and a mathematical defense of Isaac Newton’s calculus (1736).

Barring a miraculous revelation from God, in a dream or vision, most experimental development comes from a long list of prior researchers, scientists who slowly advanced the field — one building on the work of another. This is what the oft quoted expression means.

“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

The expression is most famously attributed to Isaac Newton, who used it in a 1675 letter to his rival Robert Hooke. However, the metaphor actually originated in the 12th century with the French philosopher Bernard of Chartres, who described humans as “dwarfs on the shoulders of giants.”

Isaac Newton (1643–1727) was an English polymath and a central figure in the Scientific Revolution, renowned for his foundational contributions to physics, mathematics, and optics.

Newton attended Trinity College, Cambridge, ostensibly preparing to become an Anglican minister, but spent his time developing his groundbreaking theories. The years 1665–1666 was a period of intense personal productivity known as his annus mirabilis. 

He was a deeply religious Christian whose theological writings vastly outnumbered his scientific works. Newton believed in God the Father as the sole creator and Jesus Christ as His divine Son, but some have claimed he denied their co-equality, rejecting the Trinitarian doctrine.1,2 Don’t be misled by such claims. He was an alchemist too, but he wasn’t a witch. Alchemy at that time was the start of modern chemistry and metallurgy.

He viewed his scientific discoveries as a means to understand God’s design in nature, believing that the laws of physics revealed the order of a rational Creator. Newton spent decades studying biblical prophecy (particularly Daniel and Revelation) and church history, seeking to restore the “pure” faith of the early apostolic era.

His major works include Principia Mathematica (1687), which established the laws of motion and universal gravitation, and Opticks (1704), which detailed his experiments on light and color, including the invention of the reflecting telescope (1668). 

Isaac Newton adapted and popularized the concept to acknowledge that his scientific discoveries built upon the work of predecessors like René Descartes. And this situation has been the norm since Isaac Newton.

René Descartes (1596–1650) was a French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist widely regarded as the father of modern Western philosophy and a key figure in the Scientific Revolution. 

He is most famous for the epistemological foundationalist dictum “I think, therefore I am” (Cogito, ergo sum) and for developing Cartesian dualism, the theory that the mind and body are distinct substances.

René Descartes was a Roman Catholic who actively sought to align his philosophy with Christian doctrine.  He worked diligently to provide rational proofs for the existence of God, aiming to reconcile the new science with Christian beliefs and avoid conflict with ecclesiastical authorities. 

He insisted that truths of faith were superior to human reason and separated theological doctrines (like the Trinity) from his rational metaphysics. 

In works like the Meditations, he offered arguments for God’s existence (such as the trademark and ontological arguments) to establish God as the guarantor of truth and the creator of the universe. 

His distinction between mind (immaterial soul) and body (material matter) was intended to support the immortality of the soul, a core tenet of Christian theology. 

Despite his personal devotion, critics accused him of atheism because his mechanistic view of the physical world seemed to exclude God from daily natural processes, leading to the prohibition of his books by the Catholic Church in 1663. 

Ultimately, Descartes is viewed as a figure who tried to rationalize religion without abandoning it, positioning human reason as a path to understanding God rather than a replacement for faith. 

That is quite different to the humanist arguments of atheistic human reason without any foundation in God.

What we now need to understand is that not all science is science. It is not all subject to the Scientific Method even allowing for the human biases and Bayesian inference.

When an hypothesis cannot be tested because the subject lies in the past for the researcher it cannot be called operational or experimental science.

One problem that arises here is that the scientists themselves cannot recognise their own biases and proceed as if they are validly testing their assumed hypothesis. Their minds are dominated by their worldview, and that could be based on there being no Creator (atheism), or that the Creator is no longer around (deism) and all universal parameters evolve from their initial conditions.

In cases where an historical parameter is sought, the science should be called forensic or historical science because no direct evidence of the sought-after parameter is available. As a result proxies are used. But the proxies also cannot be directly tested for what they are assumed to mean.

For example, when trying to determine historical Earth temperatures tree rings or Oxygen isotope ratios are used as proxies. They need calibration but even the calibrations cannot be unequivocal since no one has a time machine. No past measurement is possible. All are inferred from some measurement done in the present.

Francis Bacon kept separate his “Two Books”. To keep them separate is a flawed approach, which other Christian apologists have also used. It is very similar to what Hugh Ross (of Reason to Believe ministry) teaches. He speaks of the 66 books of the bible but then there is the 67th book of nature. Ross claims God revealed that to him before he was even a believer in Christ.

It is a compromise because it does not allow the Creator to work. It assumes that in terms of a literal history in the Genesis account there is error and the language must be reinterpreted to fit in with modern science.

In Ross’ case he believes in the big bang origin of the universe, and so he squeezes the big bang timeline into the 6 x 24-hour days of Genesis creation. Ross accepts the multi-billion-year ages of the Earth and its rock strata, fitting in long periods for each day of creation. He employs a sequence of progressive creation acts that are intended to correspond to the sequence of events in the Genesis account. But one problem with that is the order. They are out of sequence. As well, his progressive “creation” events are, for all intents and purposes, infinitesimally close to Darwinian evolution of species (which he denies).

Why is it so difficult for even the men of faith to completely accept the Christian worldview in all its details. Thankfully there have been many who have done so. But even among the believers there have been many who compromised on the scriptures in favour of secular interpretations of the physical sciences. They could not fully integrate into their worldview one big picture for the handiwork of God.

Footnote:

1. Some have accused Newton of Arianism, but this is rejected by Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian?, Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997. See here.
2. A very detailed defense of Newton’s Trinitarianism is Van Alan Herd, The theology of Sir Isaac Newton, gradworks.umi.com, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 2008. This documents much evidence, including Newton’s words refuting tritheism and affirming Trinitarian monotheism:

That to say there is but one God, ye father of all things, excludes not the son & Holy ghost from the Godhead becaus they are virtually conteined & implied in the father. … To apply ye name of God to ye Son or holy ghost as distinct persons from the father makes them not divers Gods from ye Father. … Soe there is divinity in ye father, divinity in ye Son, & divinity in ye holy ghost, & yet they are not thre forces but one force.

Related Reading

• Why Don’t Scientists Believe in God?
• The Lawgiver is the Biblical Creator God
• True Science and Science Falsely So-Called
• The Laws of Physics Point to the Creator
• How Much Can You Trust in Science?
• Evolution is Not Operational Science
• Why Believe in God in an Age of Science?
• The Bible is Still Relevant in This Age of Science!
• Religion in Science
• The Problem with Science is that So Much of it Simply Isn’t
• The Big Bang is Not a Reason to Believe!
• The Immortal Soul | Neuroscience vs. Materialism
• Can Artificial General Intelligence Have a Soul?
• Young Earth Creation vs. Modern Cosmology
• Operational and Historical Science: What Are they?

Free Subscribers

Subscribe to our Newsletters as a Free Subscriber and be notified by email. Just put your email address in the box at the bottom of your screen.

You’ll get an email each time we publish a new

Premium Subscribers

Subscribe to our Newsletters as a Premium Subscribers at $5 USD/month or $30 USD/year (you choose). Cancel anytime.

Paid Premium Subscribers will get exclusive access to certain content I publish. That will only cost you a cup of coffee per month.

Also you’ll be able to download, for free, a PDF of my book Apocalypse Now and also a PDF of my book The Physics of Creation The Creator’s Ultimate Design for Earth.

You can download them from the link below.

This is how you can support my work. I have been publishing this website for 10 years now and up to 2024 I never asked for any support.

Press the button “Premium” on the front page to find a list of Premium content. Thanks so much to all supporters.

At a minimum, please join as a Free Subscriber. It’ll cost you nothing. It may also help me beat the shadow banning of some posts.

Comments Welcome Below

Rate this:

A quotation from Bertrand Russell

Absence of finality is of the essence of the scientific spirit.

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) English mathematician and philosopher
Education and the Social Order [Education and the Modern World], ch. 1 “The Individual versus the Citizen” (1932)

More about this quote: wist.info/russell-bertrand/852…

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #bertrandrussell #certainty #discovery #finality #science #scientificmethod #testing #uncertainty #validation

New publication

Atlas–Rosetta Framework | Phase 6 – Paper 6

Observer Reversal Analysis (ORA²): Auditing the Observer Before Auditing Reality

Paper 5 asked:
"What has actually been observed?"

Paper 6 asks:
"What assumptions allowed this interpretation?"

Together they provide a complementary methodology for improving interpretative transparency across disciplines by distinguishing observation from interpretation.

🌿 Observe Carefully • Interpret Carefully • Translate Carefully

https://open.substack.com/pub/hybridmind42/p/observer-reversal-analysis-ora?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=75c2ac
#AtlasRosetta #HybridMind42 #ObserverReversalAnalysis #ORA2 #ObservableReductionAnalysis #ScientificMethod #EvidenceFirst #ResearchMethodology #SystemsThinking #InterdisciplinaryResearch #Science #Epistemology

A Beautiful Theory Falls to Ugly Data

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2026/05/a-beautiful-theory-falls-to-ugly-data.html

Comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48884068

#HackerNews #beautifultheory #uglydata #dataanalysis #criticalthinking #scientificmethod

Critical reading is a research skill.

A seven-step approach can help identify knowledge gaps, evaluate experimental design, spot limitations and separate evidence from interpretation when reading scientific papers.

🔗 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01209-0

#Research #ScientificMethod #CriticalThinking #AcademicSkills #openscience

#ScientificMethod

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1wKQkHxbEE

TIL some interesting things about the metric system…

1. Over centuries there were multiple attempts at standardizing a measurements system. France pulled it off during the French Revolution. Two chemists (husband and wife) devised it.

2. The base units were built to be realisable. Meaning based on and provable with nature.

3. The meter was realisable as one ten-millionth of the distance between the North Pole and the equator. Later is was converted to 1/299,792,458 of light speed per second.

Bonus: Marie-Anne Paulze Lavoisier is one of the two aforementioned chemists. She was instrumental in the standardization of the scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system

#MetricSystem #Science #History #TIL #ScientificMethod

New article published:

Atlas–Rosetta: How a Research Framework Actually Begins

Not a theory paper.

Not a framework paper.

A history paper.

How three decades of scientific curiosity, modern AI, and a determination not to fool myself gradually became the Atlas–Rosetta research framework.

🌳📖☕

https://substack.com/@hybridmind42/note/p-202701271?r=75c2ac

#AtlasRosetta #ScientificMethod #Research #SystemsThinking #InterdisciplinaryScience #KnowledgeMapping #DimensionalAnalysis #Curiosity

Matter for Thought - Timeless insights for modern physics

👨‍🔬Quote by Pierre Hippolyte Boutigny, French physicist

📚Source: "Études sur les corps à l'état sphéroïdal - Nouvelle branche de physique” (1857)

#Physics #HistoryOfPhysics #ScientificThinking #ScientificMethod #LearningProcess #CriticalThinking #CuriosityDriven #MatterForThought

Could open-source tools make science fairer and more reproducible?

A new study argues that sharing data and code could help researchers worldwide validate findings and access cutting-edge methods more easily.

🔗 https://phys.org/news/2026-04-science.html

#OpenScience #ScientificMethod #DataScience #ResearchIntegrity #EquityinScience

Astrophysics PhDs DEBUNK Flat Earth with the Scientific Method

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ74BRrkFK0

#Astrophysics #Science #ScientificMethod #FlatEarth

Не верящий в динозавров Игорь Ашманов и отрицающий эпилепсию Василий Генералов приняты в Академию ВРАЛ

22 марта в Петербурге вручали премию за наибольший вклад в распространение лженауки в минувшем году. Звания «Почётного Академика ВРАЛ – 2025» удостоился известный IT-специалист и предприниматель, к.т.н. Игорь Ашманов.

Жюри, состоящее из ученых, присудило Игорю премию за публичные высказывания, в которых бизнесмен отрицает биологическую эволюцию, заявляет, что не верит в самопроизвольное развитие языков и «в динозавров». Победитель, по правилам премии, награждается призом — статуэткой «Грустный рептилоид». Кроме того, в финал премии вышли математик, член-корреспондент РАН Алексей Савватеев, известный выступлениями в поддержку креационизма и гомеопатии, и дизайнер Артемий Лебедев, отрицающий глобальное потепление и заявляющий, что смертность от СПИДа «это вообще ни о чем». В народном голосовании большинство голосов досталось Алексею Савватееву.

Член жюри, Академик РАН Евгений Александров выразил озабоченность тем, что лженаука проникает внутрь РАН — «престиж Академии наук важен, потому что люди доверяют ей».

«Почётным Академиком АПЧХИ» — главным распространителем лженауки в области медицины жюри из медиков признало д.м.н., невролога Василия Генералова, отрицающего эпилепсию как диагноз, продвигающего лечение аутизма у детей методами с недоказанной эффективностью и пугающего аудиторию последствиями прививок. Победитель удостоился оздоровительного приза — «Золотой кофейной клизмы». Членом-корреспондентом АПЧХИ выбрали д.м.н., хирурга Владислава Шафалинова, связывающего рост числа онкологических заболеваний с вакцинацией и электромагнитным излучением, предлагающего лечить рак «ощелачивающей терапией» и другими сомнительными методами. Врач, д.м.н. Сергей Бубновский, призывающий лечить широкий спектр заболеваний исключительно гимнастикой, не получил ни одного голоса жюри и поэтому в Академию АПЧХИ принят не был. «Приз зрительских симпатий» достался Владиславу Шафалинову.

Руководитель оргкомитета премии ВРАЛ научный журналист Александр Соколов выразил удивление по поводу того, что в финале медицинской премии впервые оказалось 3 доктора наук и задался вопросом: «Неужели ученая степень в области медицины значит так мало?» Ведущая премии, врач к.м.н. Ольга Жоголева выразила надежду, что сейчас, когда научно обоснованная медицина набирает обороты, есть шанс, что ситуация изменится к лучшему.

В рамках мероприятия состоялись выступления биолога, к.б.н. Ильи Удалова на тему «Так в чём Дарвин не прав?» и аллерголога, к.м.н. Ольги Жоголевой «Правда о БАДах».

Организатор премии — научно-просветительский портал Антропогенез.ру и проект «Ученые Против Мифов».

Среди членов жюри: академик РАН, д.ф.-м.н. Евгений Александров, д.г.н. Алексей Екайкин, д.х.н.Игорь Дмитриев, д.г.н. Ольга Соломина, д.ф.-м.н. Эмиль Ахмедов, д.г.н. Елена Сухачева, д.б.н. Тамара Кузнецова, д.и.н. Кирилл Назаренко, д.м.н. Юрий Сиволап, д.м.н. Сергей Поликарпов, к.м.н. Юлия Зинченко, к.м.н. Анна Дроганова, к.м.н. Игнат Рудченко и др.

Полный состав жюри

ВРАЛ — Вруническая Академия Лженаук, АПЧХИ — Академия Превентивной ЧакроХирургии.

Премия «Почётный Академик ВРАЛ» присуждается с 2016 года. По словам организаторов, цель премии — в шутливой форме заявить о проблеме лженауки и привлечь внимание общественности к важности борьбы с заблуждениями.

Пресс-релиз
Официальный сайт премии
Подробно о финалистах
Полная видеозапись мероприятия
Главные вопросы о премии ВРАЛ

Наши партнеры: SciTopus MedIQ#ВРАЛ #Антропогенез #УченыеПротивМифов #Лженаука #Псевдонаука #НаучноеМышление #Скептицизм #КритическоеМышление #НаучПросвет #ScienceCommunication #Darwin #Evolution #EvidenceBasedMedicine #AntiPseudoscience #FactChecking #ScienceEducation #RAN #Ashmanov #Generalov #ЛженаучныеМифы #ПремияВРАЛ #ScienceVsMyths #ScientificMethod #PublicScience #Medicine #Biology #Vaccination #EvidenceBased #Debunking

@nazokiyoubinbou @Natasha_Jay
Ah, quite right, the tendency of physics questions to edge toward unrealism...
https://xkcd.com/669/
#xkcd #physics #science #scientificMethod #experiments

This was posted about a month ago, but is still good. It is a set of 9 principals based on statements from Carl Sagan dealing with figuring out what is B.S.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/carl-sagan-detecting-baloney/

#CarlSagan #ScientificMethod #Hypotheses #HypothesesPruning #CombatFakeNews

6th grader's science fair project answers age-old question: 'Do cat buttholes touch everything?'

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.upworthy.com/cat-butthole-science-experiment-goes-viral-ex1

More than 400 years ago, Johannes Kepler challenged deeply held assumptions about how the universe should work 🌌
By following the data, he transformed astronomy and showed that planets move in ellipses, not perfect circles.

A short video worth watching 👇
https://youtu.be/3tOhNRjIHVc?si=tUXNxEhWRrau6O9X

#Astronomy #HistoryOfScience #ScientificMethod

#ScienceHistory #Curiosity

A quotation from Claude Bernard

But it happens further quite naturally that men who believe too firmly in their theories, do not believe enough in the theories of others. So the dominant idea of these despisers of their fellows is to find others’ theories faulty and to try to contradict them. […] They make experiments only to destroy a theory, instead of to seek the truth. At the same time, they make poor observations, because they choose among the results of their experiments only what suits their object, neglecting whatever is unrelated to it, and carefully setting aside everything which might tend toward they idea they wish to combat.
 
[Mais il arrive encore tout naturellement que ceux qui croient trop à leurs théories ne croient pas assez à celles des autres. Alors l’idée dominante de ces contempteurs d’autrui est de trouver les théories des autres en défaut et de chercher à les contredire. […] Ils ne font des expériences que pour détruire une théorie, au lieu de les faire pour chercher la vérité. Ils font également de mauvaises observations, parce qu’ils ne prennent dans les résultats de leurs expériences que ce qui convient à leur but, en négligeant ce qui ne s’y rapporte pas, et en écartant bien soigneusement tout ce qui pourrait aller dans le sens de l’idée qu’ils veulent combattre.]

Claude Bernard (1813-1878) French physiologist, scientist
An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine [Introduction à l’Étude de la Médecine Expérimentale], ch. 3 (1865) [tr. Greene (1957)]

More info about (and translations of) this quote: wist.info/bernard-claude/81484…

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #claudebernard #bias #confirmationbias #disproof #experimentation #hypothesis #proof #science #scientificmethod #theory

There is no certainty in science. Today's 'fact' is tomorrow's flat earth.

#CriticalThinking
#science
#ScientificMethod
#logic
#facts

What is the scientific process, from investigation to publication? Mark Louie Ramos, an expert in health policy and administration, explains for @TheConversationUS.

https://flip.it/VjbC2y

#Science #ScientificMethod #Research

A quotation from Isaac Asimov

Science doesn’t purvey absolute truth. Science is a mechanism. It’s a way of trying to improve your knowledge of nature. It’s a system for testing your thoughts against the universe and seeing whether they match. And this works, not just for the ordinary aspects of science, but for all of life. I should think people would want to know that what they know is truly what the universe is like, or at least as close as they can get to it.

Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) Russian-American author, polymath, biochemist
Interview (1988) by Bill Moyers, A World of Ideas, PBS TV (1988-10-22)

More info about this quote: wist.info/asimov-isaac/34218/

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #isaacasimov #knowledge #life #process #science #scientificmethod #technique #test #truth #philosophy

I deny nothing but doubt everything. - Lord Byron

#CriticalThinking
#science
#ScientificMethod

RE: https://mastodon.social/@safest_integer/115303726020952780

One of the best papers I've just read on AI not being AGI

Three clear conclusions from the paper

1. Humans must remain at the creative steering wheel
2. AI can mimic humans but cannot explain like humans or create explanations
3. Current forms of AI cannot match human intelligence

#ai #research #philosophy #science #scientificmethod

Cutting Down Ockham's Razor via OpenMind Magazine [Shared]

We hear all the time that the simplest explanations are usually the right ones. This truth-testing idea—known as Ockham’s razor, after the English medieval philosopher William of Ockham—has been embraced by no less authorities than Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. Today scientists invoke Ockham’s razor on topics ranging from Covid’s origins to cosmic dark matter, while folks debating a subject on social media regularly invoke it as their final arbiter. After all, why complicate something more than you need to? Isn’t it better to shave ideas down to their essential truths?

https://welchwrite.com/blog/2025/10/01/cutting-down-ockhams-razor-via-openmind-magazine-shared/

#ockham #ockhamsrazor #simple #complex #ideas #explanations #science #scientific #scientificmethod #shared

A few words from Sabine Hossenfelder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO5u3V6LJuM
#SabineHossenfelder #physics #science #ScientificMethod

There’s a strong urge to believe what you wish instead of what you can prove. Computer rumors are a great example. Many rumors have no basis other than being a feature someone wants. They call it "wish casting".

We want the world to be black and white. Some given statement is either true or false. But it’s not. Gödel #Godel describes at least three states: true, false, and unprovable (e.g., the statement "This statement is false". Can’t be true or false; it’s unprovable. Maybe there’s a better name.)

But it’s worse than that.

In science, a theory isn’t true … it’s just the best explanation we have so far. The whole endeavor of science is to keep finding better explanations. To make good decisions you don’t need the absolute best explanation, just one good enough to guide you to beneficial choices. (I said "prove" before, but to be more accurate I should be talking not about what you can prove, but about what you can’t disprove.)

#Bayes (really #Laplace) says a given notion isn’t true, it’s actually true-with-some-probability. Each new thing you observe impacts that #Probability. This is the actual math behind the #ScientificMethod. And it’s the truth of the world. Your beliefs must adapt to your observations, constantly, forever.

If you have unshakable faith in some set of "facts", you’re probably doing it wrong. Even when you’re right, you could be righter.

Of course, if you don’t adjust your beliefs with new input, if you don’t test, if you have "facts" instead of "very probable theories". If you believe things because of how strongly the person who convinced you believed instead of what they could actually show you. If you believe simply because that’s what your parents taught you. Then, well, you **might** be right (even a stopped clock is right twice a day). But at best you’re not going to make good decisions for yourself, and at worst you’re going to try to tell others what to do based on an inaccurate understanding.

It’s messy; and that’s just how it is.