This isn't a board about philosophy, so it might be against the rules to put such a thread here. (The moderator may put it somewhere else, if there is a better place).

I personally follow a scheme of pragmatic reasoning, that is not in line with what is called the scientific method. Since I'm convinced about the validity of my method, I would like to show where are the differences to the scheme called scientific method.
This seems to be a well defined method, but as I see it, it is not.
My understanding of the problem differs in point one and three. Actually the hypothesis is a process and not a single statement. This process should be guided by known facts and the aim to be in line not with what is regarded proven, but with how nature behaves. So test do not serve the purpose of collecting data, but to separate the more likely hypothesis from the lesser likely.
That means, one should set up lots of hypothesis, perform an experiment and chose the one with the best fit to observation and treat this as temporarily proven. Than proceed from there and form a hypothesis based on that and test that, too. A rigorous proof is not required. What is required is, that the hypothesis serves a purpose and does not violate known facts.
It does not even require a specific quantitative statement in case that isn't known. This is so, because it is better to say, this is not known, than to make a statement, that is experiential proven and take this for the prove of the method. This is what physicsts actually do. They think, it is possible to prove with mathematical rigor theories, that do not makes sense. This method will lead deep into the woods.
So better drop the requirement of a proof and concentrate on the deviation of a plausible hypothesis and then try to disproof it.
This leads to the question, how to deal with the other points. As I would concentrate on the development of a hypothesis, I would feel no need to serve any other of these points. That seems unfair, since it is a lot of work to perform experiments. But gathering data and thinking about a subject are different things to do.

No they don't.

OK, not in general. Now, that sounds like the scientific method.

BTW, the wiki article has this right after the scheme you quote in the OP:

Yes, I see. But as a German, I have read the German article and only copied the quote from the English one.
There are theories, that claim to be an exact solution of Einsteins field equations. So that equations are treated as proven fact and deviation of that are treated as proven, too, even though some of them don't make sense.

It is important to watch the way of reasoning i.e. in astrophysics. Since GR is proven (more or less), it is assumed, that vacuum is somehow able to perform tensor algebra. So the method isn't anymore a method to express a behavior, but a theory about how nature behaves. Than it is assumed without a question, that any further theory must use tensor algebra. This leads to the whole bunch of theories about black-holes and big bang. Nobody is able to put that in doubt, because a method is required, that would lead to big-bang and black holes.

Same with quantum-physics. It is regarded as proven fact, that nature in the core must be quantized - whatever that would mean.

Science does not prove. Mathematicians prove, scientists do not. They form theories based on the best available evidence, according to a process much like what you have described. I surely don't need to preach to the choir here, but theory is not conjecture--for anyone reading this who might have been conditioned to the contrary. (It's what I love about creationists: "...but it's only a theory." (Sorry, forbidden subject; couldn't resist. I'm doing my 40 mea culpas as I write.)

Your thinking something does not make sense does not mean it does not make sense.

Beyond that, this statement is pretty much exactly backwards to how things are really done. Mathmatical rigor is all fine and dandy, but without experiment to show that the really real world actually works that way, the rigor is useless.

Where the mathmatical rigor is useful is when you need to make sure you are actually seeing what you think you are seeing. Your idea that you should make a bunch of hypothesis and then pick the one that gives you the best fit can, and probably would, give you a completely wrong solution.

I forgot something important:
this method requires a process of doubt about the own process and results. It is essential to step back, if this leads to a dead end. Than it is necessary to return to an earlier point and to reevaluate that. Without such a back-move it is possible to stay in such a dead alley for ever.

I highlighted two of your comments in red, and I was going to make the comment that few people actually do that--that science is continually sceptical. Then, I noticed your comment: "Since GR is proven (more or less)," and I realized you were not making the comments about others, but about your own misperceptions about how things are done.

Things are not "proven," even more or less. They're continuall tested, even GR.

This is very good, I think. But what about i.e. black holes? Is the hypothesis of their existence tested, too?
As I see it BHs violate known behavior of matter. So there is a observed fact No. 1: incompressible behavior of fluids and solids. No 2: Infinite density in a black hole.
The justification of assumption 2 is drawn from Einsteins field equations. But something must be wrong and the question should be, what could be wrong.
If there is no mathematical prove possible, so where is there any prove at all, that assumption No. 1 could be violated? Could be the case, our understanding could be misguided somewhere else.
This is the crucial point of my statement: we most not save a theory by adding assumptions, that are not likely be true, but we have to return to start if got stuck.

ContinuallyIncompressible? That is false. That is only true in approximation, and even in the case of some materials not true at all.Where did you start?

This 'sunday morning philosophy' reads like this:
there is something called scientific method, but real scientists say, actually we don't use it.
Maybe it's only used in universities to train the students?
Possibly it would be better, to teach a different method, that is of higher practical value.
And maybe it would be useful to put kind of red flags on certain theories, warning of hypothesized foundations.
Otherwise one could pile up theories on unproven speculations and that on piles of other speculations.

That is a weird take on what was said here. There is a big difference between saying "this description is not always how science is practised" and "scientists don't use the scientific method".

In my opinion you are taking things too literally. A scientist may be working on only one step of the list in the OP. Or the question from point 1 may only arise after step 2, ie something has been observed that raises a question. In both cases they are strictly not working using the exact method described in the OP. But it is unfair to say that the scientific method is not used.

Then you first need to make a convincing case that a method of higher practical value exists. I very much doubt that you (or anyone else, that was not a personal attack!) will be able to do that.

That is the problem of "diving in" a branch of science in which one is not properly trained. As a layman it is very difficult, if not impossible, to know every angle in a certain field that a hypothesis or theory needs to cover. That is one of the reasons why it takes 10 years or more of study to become a scientist, 10 more work and study to become a very good one, and maybe 20 years more to become a well respected one. For the rest of us, trying to make sense of it all, there's peer review.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Scientists don't walk around with a "Scientific Method" checklist downloaded from Wikipedia.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

What slang and papageno said

That list is not the list I use, nor is it the one I was taught, or seen other teachers teach. I'm not sure where it came from, looking back on that wiki article. The citation footnoted seems to be from J Am Soc Info Science, but the article is entitled "Peer review and the changing research record" which, without actually reading it, seems odd that it would contain such a list.

For one thing, the list doesn't specifically say anything about the testing of a hypothesis.

This line of argument would, if valid, also rule out the existence of neutron stars. Do you have issues with these objects as well?

YES !!!
There is something, I have invented recently. It is called the bs-factor and serves as 'red-flag'. It is a logarithmic unit starting with one for randomness. It has a theoretical open end and describes the weirdness of a model.
Neutron stars get a score of three (to adjust the unit).
It goes a bit higher with -for example -the 'end-of-the-world' according to the Mayan calender (what is actually a specific alignment of the sun to the galactic center).
The crystal spheres of Phtolomaeus would score even higher, but that is not all that is possible.

And do you also have problems with nuclear fusion? After all if you cannot push nuclei closer together when they are nicely shielded by the electrons in a solid, then how can you possibly get them close enough to fuse?

Yet again, your thinking something does not make sense does not mean that it does not make sense.

No, but as in various other fields, I have a different model for the mechanism, that makes the stars shine.
It would be worth to discuss, but wouldn't fit to the subject. That is 'the scientific method' and not fusion.
I've mentioned the neutron only, because I would feel the need to classify theories upon the trust in their foundations.
Neutron stars could be possible. Could be .. possibly is correct .. might be true..But might be wrong.
So one would like to know, how far from secure ground is that theory planted.
I wouldn't expect anyone to trust me or my little theory, because that is pure speculation. It's likely to be wrong, but possibly it's right.
Something to add:
I just found this site, called an open letter to the scientific community.
The reason of quoting this site is not, whether or not I would believe in big-bang (btw: I don't), but how are scientific problems treated. That raises sever questions about how science is done: if there is an open discussion or not.

I like the "if it looks like a duck" method, tempered with the "poke it and see if it quacks" and "pull on the feathers and see if they're real" methods.

Naturally, one must always lift the tail, although I've heard that's easier said than done with comets.

__________________
If I set the budget, we'd have Ares and more. Unfortunately, I don't set the budget, and Ares is just too expensive and too far out for us to accomplish our goals within the budget we were given.

If we halt the ISS, all versions of Ares, and transport Orion and Altair aboard DIRECTv3's Jupiter family of Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles, we just might make it back to the Moon by 2020.

Trust is not needed.
You either demonstrate solid science or you do not.


See, this is what just plain flat out BUGS me.

When someone comes up with a theory while suffering from misconceptions and not understanding the current theories even... They tend to complain when they are advised to LEARN science.

Someone call a Wahhmbulance.

If your car breaks down, are you going to postulate about wild speculations of what could be wrong with the car?

Or are you going to learn the mechanics necessary in order to diagnose and fix it properly?

ATM'ers seem to think they can speculate wildly about the car- then demand that Certified mechanics listen to them. Then they get upset when the mechanic tries to explain to them how cars actually work.

The discussions are open.
That doesn't mean that your mind is, though.

Well, yes. This board gives space to open discussions. But the text I've quoted is not about this board, it's about funding and peer reviewed magazines. The people that have signed this letter say, that work, that isn't in line with a certain paradigm is not funded and not published. I don't want to make a statement about what is right or wrong (hardly mentioned my own believes and wouldn't expect others to have the same). But it is quite irritating, that such a number of people sign a statement, that they are not free to follow research as they would think is scientific.

But you are free to do so.
You are free to research and pursue.

But when you are using principles or employing ideas that have been observationally tested and demonstrated as incorrect- Why would someone waste their money funding you?
You can always fund yourself.

Or- try one of those rich people that believes in paranormal research... If you can justify your case somehow.

You are free to pursue it. And what does it mean to get published? It means Peer Reviewed.
It means someone checks your work.
It means Balanced and measured and weighed. As long as you have sound science- you should not be concerned about Peer Review right?

I personally don't expect any money and don't attempt to get my stuff peer reviewed, because I'm only a hobbyist.
If that process of peer reviewing function as those people think it would function, than that would mean, one has to treat everything, that actually passed it with a certain amount of distrust.
Why that? In case of astrophysics there are certain assumptions and we must treat them as proven, to proceed from there. If one thinks, these foundations are wrong, than this would include everything, that is based on these axioms as well. If the process of peer reviewing prefers papers based on big-bang cosmology, than all peer-reviewed papers share the fate of the big-bang-cosmology.

Then don't complain about how free (or not) you think the discussion is.
Critical thinking you mean? It's not the same thing as distrust.
Clarify- Exactly- what is based on assumptions and axioms?

Maybe my expression is a bit to strong. 'Distrust' was meant as something like doubt. English is a second language for me, so excuse me if I chose inappropriate words.
Axioms are foundations of reasoning. If a theory is developed, it is necessary to base that theory on some assumptions, what I would call axioms. Actually axioms mean things you cannot prove. But, if someone wants to think about a certain subject, he would treat everything axiomatic he thinks are fundamental and proven, even though they are not axioms but theories themselfs.
An example would be Maxwells equations. These are treated as well established and their validity as proven. Everyone could base theories on Maxwells theories without any question. Newtons laws give very good predictions for moving bodies in the realm of lower velocities. Nobody would take that into doubt. These theories are further treated axiomatic, even though they are actually well tested theories. This means, the foundations are always treated axiomatic, because that is the ground a new theory is based on. One can't always prove them and nobody is expected to do that.
But if some of these 'axioms' turn out to be wrong, then everything based on them would be without foundation.

Skepticism is probably the mot juste

Every scientist worth their salt has some

This shows clearly you have no idea what the peer-review process is all about. Naturally, I can only talk about myself. When I get a paper to be reviewed, I don't care really about the topic (although some topics are more interesting than others to me), I care about whether or not the paper is:

- well written, that everything is explained appropriately, and in a way that is acceptable to normal standards; (an example of a paper I received a while ago, the authors started to introduce new data in the discussion, this is not-done, and merits a minor comment)
- is the science premise supported by the observations that are shown? (I basically work in observational planetary physics, and I need to check whether indeed what is claimed in the text is supported in what is seen in the magnetic field or in the plasma data)
- at the same time, are the conclusions supported by the observations?
- if there are calculations/math, is that done properly. (there are some papers that have a lot of math in them, which sometimes you need to assume is right, or you may have to work on the paper for weeks, but at least you will have to check the starting point, and look at the mathematical assumptions)

These are some points that one looks at. It is not really appropriate to put an original referee report here on the board, but it would clarify a lot. I will put here some comments that I made with respect to a paper that I rejected, only to give you a taste of what is written in a referee report (note: I think that I may sometimes be rather harsh to my colleagues, but similarly, others are harsh to me, see below)

I wrote:
Now an example of what I received as referee report:
It should be clear that I could not convince referee XX that the paper was interesting, but the other accepted the final version of the paper, and the editor decided to publish the paper.

I hope this gives a bit of insight into the peer-review process.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

This is absolutely true, because I didn't have any idea about the process, how this is done and by whom. Thanks a lot for telling, how this process is performed.
But, as I see it, it's worth to check, if these guys are right with their statement, that cosmology based on different assumptions is more or less hindered to be published. I wouldn't say it's true, but I would say it shouldn't.

It is a bit strange I must say, there are over 500 people that have signed the statement on "cosmologystatement.org". It would be very hard to suppress anything that is supported by over 500 people, if they would set their will to it.

But most likely, there are so many different views in that community, that they cannot come up with one or three reasonably developed theories. I quote:

However, where is all this research? There are papers published when I search on title key words "plasma & cosmology." However, apart from Alfvén and Peratt, there is little there. It cannot be that over 500 supporters are silenced. I think the paper by Rueben would be interesting to read.

Most journals, when one submits a paper (I will have to do it next week again), will ask for a list of possible referees for said paper. Now, a list like that you can create in two ways, either you put in the list your friends (that are not co-author) and you will have it easy, or you put in the names of colleagues that are knowledgeable on the topic and who will give you (most likely) a hard time (but this usually leads to a much better paper in the end). I know enough people who do the first.

In my opinion, a paper is looked at on its merits, and if the observations support the underlying model of the authors, be it BB or PU.

If the people on cosmologystatement are right with their statement that nothing "anti-BB" gets through, they should at least show these papers that did not get through, including the referee reports that rejected these papers. As the website is now, it is more sulking than evidence.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

But; I see that thinking being abused on this forum quite a bit.

I don't see any problem taking those theories into doubt as long as there is some basis to explain why those theories are in doubt, or if there is another method that performs the same functions of the theory.

But; what I usually see is somebody saying the theory is wrong because it doesn't work in thier own idea. Sure; it may not fit, but it's circular reasoning to say it's wrong because of that fit. And; many times it's because the usage is wrong.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)