www.freethoughtperspective.net

The Scientific Method

James A. Young

“A single well substantiated fact, irreconcilable with a belief, is sufficient to prove the belief false.” John Stuart Mill

This is the essence of the Scientific Method. It clarifies its most important aspect, one in which most people fail to grasp. That is, the key to validating a belief is not in the attempt to prove it true, but rather in the attempt to prove it false. An infinite amount of supporting evidence cannot hold a belief to be true in the face of a single well substantiated fact that is irreconcilable with it. This is why we should always look for flaws in our beliefs, no matter how true they may seem on the surface. Even some scientists’ fail to comprehend this simple but extremely important concept. Flim-flam artists deliberately misrepresent the Scientific Method in the hopes that important people will not grasp this important distinction. This is just one of several important points responsible for the credulity of the Scientific Method.

I am sometimes asked, “What is the difference between a substantiated fact and a well substantiated fact?” From a practical aspect, there is no difference. The inclusion of the word “well” is done merely to place emphasis upon the substantiation as being credible. The proper application of the Scientific Method is the only credible process of substantiation. In order for a hypothesis to be valid, it must be of a character that if it is wrong it would be possible to prove it wrong. Being falsifiable is a characteristic the flim-flamers deliberately avoid in the beliefs they promote. For example, someone might promote the idea “Elephants can fly.” This hypothesis is not falsifiable. No matter how many elephants we prove cannot fly, the flim-flamer can simply assert that we have not yet tested the right elephant. If we tested every elephant on earth, the flim-flamer can then assert that the elephant didn’t feel like flying when tested.

The Scientific Method cannot prove that illusions of the imagination are illusions. Never allow a flim-flamer to trick you into attempting to formulate such a hypothesis. It would not be falsifiable. However, we may sometimes reword a hypothesis to make it falsifiable. Suppose we do this in our example hypothesis by making it state, “Elephants cannot fly.” Now the hypothesis is valid because it is falsifiable. Remember, using the Scientific Method, our focus will not be to prove our hypothesis true i.e., “An elephant can fly.” It will not be necessary to test every elephant on earth. And it places the burden of proof where it belongs, on the flim-flamer. Repeatable tests will always yield the same conclusive result. If substantial testing fails to validate the hypothesis, it will be regarded as a substantiated fact that “Elephants cannot fly.”

While the flim-flamer would like us to believe his ideas cannot be subjected to scrutiny via the Scientific Method, rewording the hypothesis is often all that is needed to make an un-falsifiable hypothesis a falsifiable one.

Thirdly, tests and their results must be repeatable. If the tests cannot be repeated by others, always achieving the same results, the test are fraudulent tests.

Fourth, the application of the Scientific Method does not yield an opinion. It yields well substantiated facts. While flim flamers attempt to characterize everything which discredits their ideas as just opinion, you should resist such attempts.

Below I have outlined the several steps involved in the Scientific Method for your study. Simply reading through the steps will not give you sufficient understanding. There are several misconceptions that are promoted by its detractors. I will address some of these issues in the hopes that when you hear them, you will be in a better position to respond.

The Scientific Method: 1. Observe perplexity. 2. Collect data and analyze (logical and/or empirical evidence). 3. Formulate universally repeatable test designed to falsify the hypothesis. 5. Apply testing. 6. Determine conclusion — (based upon universally repeatable test results).

A. Validation as theory — (Regarded as tentative fact. Amendable as new evidence dictates).

B. Falsified — pseudo-fact, myth. Science understands the limitations of limited knowledge. We are constantly discovering new truths. Sometimes new evidence falsifies old conclusions. In order to maintain credibility, science forever accepts new evidence. The conclusions of science are as new evidence dictates. This means that even though all scientific theories are regarded as fact, they are not considered as absolute truth or infallible. That is, they are not considered to be fact only so long as they are never falsified. This gives scientific facts a tentative characteristic. Religious critics portray this tentative characteristic as a major flaw. They assert that once a conclusion is substantiated to be fact, it should become absolute. They assail any process that could allow a false conclusion to ever be regarded as true, only to later be discovered to be false and acknowledged as such. Interestingly, that is the way religion operates. This insistence upon infallibility is continuously illustrated in the intransigent religious position that all religious teachings are infallible even in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary. If religious nuts had their way, they would turn scientific theories into these same kinds of religious absolutes. The ability to discover an error and correct it is what makes the Scientific Method credible. To say that the Scientific Method must demonstrate infallibility to be credible is absurd and dangerous. Ockham’s Razor — “The simplest correct explanation is best because it allows fewer opportunities to introduce error.” When properly represented, Ockham’s Razor is in complete harmony with the Scientific Method. However, beware of any flim-flam attempt to represent Ockham’s Razor as meaning that “The simplest explanation is the best explanation.” That is not in harmony with the Scientific Method.

Reason is an intellectual process whereby conclusions are derived from critical analysis of evidence. Theoretically, the purpose of reason is to extract, broaden, validate or enhance credible knowledge utilizing sources of knowledge and evidence previously validated.

Conclusions are credible when a single well-known fact contradicts or is irreconcilable with the conclusion. It does not matter how much supporting evidence such a belief has. If falsified by a single fact, that’s the end of it. It is proven to be false.

Unfortunately, in direct opposition to ‘reason” is “biased faith” which seeks to manipulate evidence to support predetermined conclusions. Reason is often subjected to sabotage. Because agendas reign supreme, the analysis may be tainted with bias. False conclusions are facilitated by manipulation of evidence. Evidence may be ignored or omitted, its existence or credibility denied. At other times, conjecture, assumptions or other invalidated data is substituted for valid evidence.

All of these flim-flam manipulations constitute what is known as “pseudo-science.” There is a lot of it being practiced. However, it should be remembered that the theories of pseudo-science do not hold up under the applications of the Scientific Method because the results of testing are not universally repeatable. The good news is that sooner or later the credible application of the Scientific Method will expose the fraud. The gimmicks of pseudo-science cannot survive the Scientific Method, making them tentative at best.

No one can be forced to participate in credible reasoning or face its conclusions. It is far too easy to sabotage the reasoning process. Credible reasoning can only be achieved with resolve to wisely identify and make full use of controvertible evidence. The evidence must be free to conclude what it may. The Scientific Method guarantees that will eventually happen.