The Dollar

I'm just looking at the state of the planet and how every scientific 'discovery' is a wildcard added to a very bad dish. Something wrong with a inviolate methodology producing so many negative consequences. Shouldn't some of the smart geeks start looking behind them and set to trying to figure out if 'peer-review' science is really giving us a fix on reality? Don't wanna replace it with religion but maybe it's time to stop and pause, look at the damage done and question the method that led to such astounding 'progress' recently? Maybe we need a New Kind of Science like that Wolfram guy says or maybe we need something else altogether?

premjan

I don't think science is the problem, human nature is the problem. Science is just acting like a magnifier for human nature.

PyramidHead

Yes! What we should do is look at the scientific method, see how good it is at predicting correct results, compare it to other methods, and form conclusions based on the evidence! That's such a great idea, I think I'll come up with a name for it: science.

The Dollar

Science is a human project. The same reasoning could be said for religion although with less effect because their 'spells' are blanks.

premjan

What do you feel could be the flaw in the scientific method exactly? It is pretty straightforward and simple.

Straight Hate

So what if there is a race of aliens using the exact same method of observation and inquiry - is it not science because it's not human?

The scientific method is a method - not a morality.

The Dollar

It is not possible to undo the damage of previous less accurate scientific paradigms when they are used by the wider community as a basis for action. No scientific paradigm is so accurate that it will not be vunerable to superscesion. Every false theory can do damage of unknown magnitude whilst in place. Every theory is potentialy a false theory. This is a fundamental defect in the scientific method.

Straight Hate

Examples? And relevence to the scientific method as a method?

So the formula for water - H2O - is just a 'scientific paradigm' subject to eventual change?

Can do or does do? And what does this have to do with the method itself? Do you know what a 'method' is?

Poor choice of words. A 'defect' has a perjorative connotation, when in fact the 'defect' in the scientific method is one of its greatest strengths - the ability to change with the newest, and best possible evidence.

Keith&Co.

I think that what you really want is an ethical governor set on implementation of scientific discoveries.
That won't impact the scientific method in much of any way at all.

faith_rifter

Not really. We just say that in case we mess up. That way it isn't our fault.

It sounds like you're trying to find an equation to amend human error. Science isn't messed up, we are.