What is the future of the scientific method?

Well, the prior method was received wisdom—from the gods. People who were sages and wizards were the source of knowledge and information.

The scientific method has developed in order to overcome some of the weaknesses of received wisdom. It provides a formal way to define a problem, use theory to generate hypotheses and test those hypotheses and report results. It important to do this so that other scientists can do the same thing in order to verify the results. There have been scientists who were sloppy, or measuring things wrong, or just plain faked their results.

In the future—I think there will be more use of modeling to tell us what will happen. That’s because there will be some problems that we can’t conduct, either because they are too expensive, or because scientists are not allowed to use human subjects on experiments that may hurt the people.

So giant supercomputers will develop models of humans or whatever complex system is being investigated, and they will try to see if the model can accurately predict what might happen in real life. That’s my guess anyway.

Here is a list of all the methods used to acquire knowledge. Propositional_knowledge coming from the main title Epistemology

As I recall, brute-force problem-solving – the heart of the scientific method – has been around for a long, long time.
In recent times, statistical analysis seems to have moved to the forefront of research, instead of proper Science.

@Nullo “Proper” science? Methinks you don’t know what you’re talking about. The nature of the universe is probabilistic. It is a delusion to think you can say this will always result from that. If you want to be a real scientist, check your prejudices at the door, and learn some statistics. If you’re willing to take off your white gloves, that is.

@wundayatta That’s “Science”. Capital ‘S.’ I have studied precisely some statistics. thanks.
I was thinking in particular of the rise of the soft ‘sciences’, where there is little in the way of hard data to work with, where studies are more prevalent than experiments. I believe that there was a post to that effect not too long ago.

@wundayatta The notion that “this will always result from that” is the heart of all science. Sorry, no white golves required…

The notion that the scientific method will “evolve” betrays something of a misunderstanding of what the scientific method is, I think. The scientific method will be refined and that can be considered evolution, sure. But it will not be replaced wholesale by anything unless we move backwards.

The scientific method essentially refers to the gathering of information, the formulation of hypothesis based on that information and the testing of said hypothesis. The means by which these steps are taken will change but the basics will remain. Unless, of course, the creationists get their way.

@crazyivan In social science, this does not always result from that. Most so-called “hard” scientists seem to think that the social sciences are not science. They believe this always results from that. The problem is, that there are infinitesimally small possibilities that this will not be the outcome of that. This is my understanding of the significance of quantum uncertainty.

Other things happen that make it impossible for this to always result from that. Measurement error is a significant problem. Part of that comes from measurement tools that simply can’t get accurate enough. It’s also because of inaccuracies in our definitions of what we are measuring.

Now these events where this does not result in that in the hard sciences are exceedingly rare, but they are there. Probability plays an important role in the hard sciences.

The soft sciences have the same measurement and definition problems, only they are much larger and much more significant than in the hard sciences. I think that hard scientists tend to overlook this. They put themselves in little boxes of conventionality, and they do find themselves wearing white gloves, and ignoring some things that might change their their theories. Granted, these things are very very small and insignificant, but they aren’t zero.

Studies of human behavior are notoriously difficult. So many things can go wrong. We know that. When things go wrong in hard science, they think their measurement machines are not good enough. I doubt if many conclude that they are not measuring what they wanted to measure.

The scientific method amounts to physical observations combined with logical inference. I don’t see any viable alternative. It is arguably the greatest intellectual achievement in the history of mankind. Look how far it’s taken us in past three centuries or so.

Prior to the time of Galileo, the world’s best thinkers basically sat in a chair and declared how the world works by intellectual thought alone. It was a dismal failure. Aristotle set us back thousands of years, for example, by declaring that a body in motion comes to rest if not acted on by a force, and a constant force was required to keep a body in constant motion. This is what’s observed in the case of, say, pushing a book across a table, but it turned out to be based on faulty assumptions and lack of careful observation. Aristotle, for all his brilliance and body of work, was not a scientist.

Logic will never go out of style.

There are those who say we (or at least some people) could practise science a whole lot more effectively than the scientific method in its current form prescribes. And considering their case, I’m going to agree.

@wundayatta Yes, the dichotomy between “hard” and “soft” science is problematic. I’d be in favor of creating a new umbrella term that encompasses both and leaving the word “science” out of reference to so-called soft sciences. Not that I don’t think they have enormous value, but it does confuse the crap out of people who are trying to get a handle on what “science” really is.

@gasman Perfect answer.

@Fyrius I agree wholeheartedly that the practice of science will improve over time, but the basic foundations of the scientific method will only change it we decide to move forward slower.