[Abraxas]

The temptation is to formulate a theory that explains what is, and how it works, and why, and we've all been told that one should avoid bias, and try to remain objective as much as possible - but, is there a useful principle that we can come up with and bear in mind to make this easier to understand and remember?

Consider the following as a template or a suggestion, and this thread as a discussion meant to both inform and inspire you.

The foundation of the modern scientific method stems from the idea of verification, and falsification. You can find numerous articles going into depth on these ideas, but in brief, I will summarize them here.



If a hypothesis or a conjecture has no way of being false, ever, then there is no way that it can ever be proven to be true. This is why speculations such as solipsism, and statements such as 'nothing is true' and other forms of extreme skepticism, are necessarily self-refuting and meaningless or arbitrary.

Consider the following as an alternative way of looking at science, and perhaps a better way in the face of mainstream values that tell us that we should be so open-minded and accepting of everything.

The real value of a theory, of a law, or of science itself for that matter, is not in what it allows us to do, or what it tells us is true - but, in what it does not allow us to do, and in what it tells us is not true. Science is the creation and discovery of limits to knowledge and reality. It is by limiting ourselves to specifics and certainty, that we can summarily reject, through analysis and criticism, what is untrue, false, and meaningless or without purpose.

Looking at reality through this lens of trying to refute everything you possibly can is the other side of the coin, and the other half of the scientific method. So, young scientists and brave new minds, seek not to formulate your conjecture solely on what might be true, and what could be possible, but also, on what might not be true and on what might not be possible.

If this is already your approach, then consider the inverse of what I am saying. The point is to find the right balance between skepticism and open-mindedness. One the one hand, do not reject any objective input from others, from yourself, or from anything. But, do not be drawn into feelings of sympathy, or let your desire for validity and acceptance blight your sharp mind down to a dull instrument that will, in the end, only do more harm than good to both yourself, and the scientific community.

*gathers his papers and steps down from the soap box*

[bellisaurius]

Sorry all I can do is thank here. There's not much to add.

[nonnaci]

Ha, its like gradient descent + constrained optimization. One can carve out a space of knowledge by positing 'what ifs' while constraining the space of knowledge via 'what's not'. The former picks a likely direction to embark on, the latter prunes the set of directions which are off-limits. e.g. pre-post Kant. I actually see this dynamic quite a bit in mathematics. See the work surrounding Fermat's last theorem and P=?NP.

[MNiS]

Well stated. Science is wildly successful due to its rigorous empiricism but isn't the only method of determining Truth. Not by a long shot. I think a lot of people tend to forget this and turn Science itself into a religion, foregoing the rigor and skepticism necessary, thus undermining the very basis of the scientific method.

A person who is nothing but scientific, leaves them morally and spiritually bankrupt and a hollow husk of a person.

[Larxene]

Skepticism and open-mindedness are not opposites. Cynicism and open-mndedness are.

It is not necessarily true that science is about discovering what is false. Rather, finding falsity is a consequence of trying to find truth. The cause is 'trying to find truth', the effect is 'finding falsity'.

To see why this is necessary, consider the logic grid puzzle game. In order to match the items correctly, you are given some statements that are assumed to be true. From there you connect what is, then from the remaining, you eliminate what isn't. The larger the item sets, the more likely we will need to use elimination.

In external reality, we often have very large possibility sets, which is why we need to use elimination. Secondly, because we start from an agnostic position, we need to come to know something, and sometimes what we come to know is what isn't true; and because that's we have, that's what we use.

[Abraxas]

EDIT: I changed my mind. I'm not interested in arguing with you.