http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/op...thod.html?_r=0
If scientific method is only one form of a general method employed in all human inquiry, how is it that the results of science are more reliable than what is provided by these other forms? I think the answer is that science deals with highly quantified variables and that it is the precision of its results that supplies this reliability. But make no mistake: Quantified precision is not to be confused with a superior method of thinking.
This is a bit misleading.
The most important part of the "scientific method" this article is that you also declare your assumptions and methods so that others can check for inherent biases (which the researcher themselves may not be aware of due to upbringing and cultural influences) allowing others to replicate your results given those assumptions.
What this article is really arguing is that there isn't any one method to scientific testing. There is many ways to test specific theories and ideas.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote