beausoleil

I agree that science tends to be self-correcting, but I'm reluctant to go as far as to describe the mechanism as a method. Science tends to be tested against reality, and so incorrect ideas tend to be weeded out.

I think it's interesting that people want a reasonably well defined boundary between science and non-science so that ideas can be characterised quickly as one or the other. I think this is odd - reality isn't like this. It's fair to criticise something as not being based sufficiently on evidence, but labelling it unscientific is just a political manouvre.

Sivakami - all scientists in my experience let their biases 'interfere' with their work. When you're confronted with new reality and need to come up with a new idea, biases are about all you have to go on. Competing biases are then gradually weeded out as ideas are tested, but the mechanism is not that good - see studies of the mass extinction-asteroid hypothesis and how it came to be accepted, for instance. People are very reluctant to change their ideas even when confronted with evidence, especially when the evidence is from outside their specialty. I wonder how many advances you'd exclude from science because the people who came up with them 'aren't really scientists' by your criterion. My point is that science works with people who have biases - imposing your artificial requirement that people be bias-free would in fact alter the way science is done from what has produced the successes we all benefit from today.

Ms. Siv

I am a bit confused here.

I thought I explicitly stated that scientists - being human beings - will and do have biases. Thats precisely why the scientific method is so valuable. Thanks to it, the biases are weeded out, sooner or later. Because nothing is sacrosanct and everything can be skeptically scrutinized and questioned (based on evidence).

- S.

Godless Dave

I was taught the basics of the scientific method in 5th grade.