>>12717796>Scientific methodDid anyone really need the method to be codified?
It really just serves to restrict the scope of the questions asked to things that might be answerable (this serves to keep the meta-physicists and snake oil out).
The testing part is obvious and the rejecting part is obvious. People have been doing some form of this for as long as trade has existed in order to avoid getting scammed.
I do worry that the rejection part might be too stringent which results in the strangling of fruitful ideas in the crib before they reach functional potential.
In the space of all possible models of a phenomenon, the scientific method is like gradient ascent.
Most improvements in our predictive power are done by making a small modification to the currently best model.
The slightly improved model becomes the new high water mark that defines what a subsequent good/bad modification will be measured against.
Now suppose our gradient ascent has stranded us on a hill leading to a local (but not global) maximum.
To find a higher hill, one must necessarily travel down through a less optimal valley but our method would reject such a path since it will necessarily be less than our current best for a duration of time.
The only way to avoid the valley is to make the leap to another hill in one step which is highly unlikely and even more unlikely for anyone stuck in the publish-or-perish rat race. There are examples of leaps like this happening in mathematics (Wiles, Perelman) but they were notable for working in secret or outside academia.
I don't think there will be the equivalent in physics or other sciences because the cost is too prohibitive to do things alone or outside academia.
>EthicsMy dogs don't try to kill each other. They must be enlightened.
