Has the Formula for the "Scientific Method" changed over time since it was first implemented?
No, it has not. I took a course in logic and scientific method when I was in undergraduate school and it is still the same today.
"Scientific method" is really a very broad definition of the process for assessing the correctness of a hypothesis.....
Much like the USofA Constitution.... most people wouldn't say that scientific method is a very specific FORMULA for analysis... but is - instead - broader guidelines for how to analyze something..... After all.... one wouldn't use the same "scientific method" for every analysis.... AND, there is even room, within "scientific method" for dispute as to whether or not a PROPER "scientific method" was used.
A good example would be political pollling.... Many organizations will post "results"... but those results are subject to dispute... sometimes because detractors aren't in agreement with the METHOD used!!!...
I hope it has!!!
Scientific method as a hole is about progress, progress, progress.
The world of science has had to move forward with all scientific discovery and theory. This is to make sure that the very best discoveries are fact or very plausible before being announced to the general public. Also to manipulate and make advances on that very first idea.
You see everything we have (technologically), for example our personal computers started from a single fact, theory & idea, if it wasnt for scientific method there would be no progress on how advancements that make our pc's faster every 6 months (moores law).
i do howether feel very sorry for some theoretical scientists who try to think outside the box and have there ideas poo poo'd by the scientific world because it doesnt fall inline with there own theories.. But thats just science (sub atomic).
Scientific method remains scientific method. I have used scientific method for the past 3-4 decades in my work in the medical field and quality improvement and the basic method has not changed! I thought the question was about "scientific method."
Not really. We still use experiments to test hypotheses and statistical probability to interpret the results. What we also have now that we didn't used to is computational power. We can process vast amounts of data, use models to generate predictions and calculate complex permutations to test if they will work. We can even do this spatially (think Google Earth) as well as over time.
But to be sure of a result we still defer to the empirical experiment.
No, technology has changed but the rules of science haven't
by Oztinato2 years ago
Is the scienctific method infallible?Like many ancient religions modern scientists regard their methods to be infallible. Is this the right attitude?
by emrldphx6 years ago
For those who are interested, I am putting together a primer on the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Much of the disagreement in this forum is due to confusion between the two. We'll start with a...
by Rhys Baker5 years ago
What are the most important topics to teach our children about in science at school?
by paarsurrey17 months ago
As its name suggests it is useful in science only. It has not been designed for religion and or philosophy. Right? PleaseRegards
by paarsurrey6 years ago
Science of itself does not present claims and reasons on issues; others interpret it wrongly; it is a useful tool of the humanity ; and if interpreted correctly it is not in contradiction of the truthful religion.
by boyatdelhi5 years ago
Isn't evolution just a theory that remains unproven?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.