Editing Scientific method (section)

=== Modern use and critical thought ===
{{anchor|theTermSci}}The term "scientific method" came into popular use in the twentieth century; [[#CITEREFDewey1910|Dewey's 1910 book]], ''[[How We Think]]'', inspired [[#aGuideline|popular guideline]]s.<ref name="cowles">{{harvp|Cowles|2020|p=264}}</ref> It appeared in dictionaries and science textbooks, although there was little consensus on its meaning.{{sfnp|Thurs|2011}} Although there was growth through the middle of the twentieth century,{{efn|name= deweySchool|1= On Dewey's Laboratory school in 1902: Cowles 2020 notes that Dewey regarded the Lab school as a collaboration between teachers and students. The five-step exposition was taken as mandatory, rather than descriptive. Dismayed by the Procrustean interpretation, Dewey attempted to tone down his five-step scheme by re-naming the steps to phases. The edit was ignored.}} by the 1960s and 1970s numerous influential philosophers of science such as [[Thomas Kuhn]] and [[Paul Feyerabend]] had questioned the universality of the "scientific method," and largely replaced the notion of science as a homogeneous and universal method with that of it being a heterogeneous and local practice.{{sfnp|Thurs|2011}} In particular, {{anchor|critiquesOfFeyerabend}}Paul Feyerabend, in the 1975 first edition of his book ''[[Against Method]]'', argued against there being any universal rules of [[science]];<ref name="auto" /> [[Karl Popper]],{{efn-lg|Popper, in his 1963 publication of ''Conjectures and Refutations'' argued that merely [[Trial and error|Trial and Error]] can stand to be called a 'universal method'.<ref name= trialAndErr>{{ citation | mode=cs1 | url= http://www.paul-rosenfels.org/Popper.pdf | last= Popper | author-link= Karl Popper | date= 1963 | title= Conjectures and Refutations | pages=312–365 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171013124349/http://www.paul-rosenfels.org/Popper.pdf |archive-date =2017-10-13 |ref=none | quote=If we have made this our task, then there is no more rational procedure than the method of trial and error--of conjecture and refutation}}</ref>}} and Gauch 2003,<ref name= allScience /> disagreed with Feyerabend's claim.

Later stances include physicist [[Lee Smolin]]'s 2013 essay "There Is No Scientific Method",<ref name="Smolin 2013">{{cite web |url=http://bigthink.com/in-their-own-words/there-is-no-scientific-method |title=There is No Scientific Method |last1=Smolin |first1=Lee |access-date=2016-06-07 |date=May 2013 |archive-date=2016-08-07  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160807052038/http://bigthink.com/in-their-own-words/there-is-no-scientific-method |url-status=live }}</ref> in which he espouses two [[#ethicalPosition|ethical principle]]s,{{efn-lg|name= ethicalPosition|Lee Smolin, in his 2013 essay "There Is No Scientific Method",<ref name="Smolin 2013" /> espouses two [[#ethicalPosition|ethical principle]]s. Firstly: "we agree to tell the truth and we agree to be governed by rational argument from public evidence". And secondly, that ..."when the evidence is not sufficient to decide from rational argument, whether one point of view is right or another point of view is right, we agree to encourage competition and diversification". Thus echoing {{harvp|Popper|1963|p=viii}}}} and [[History of science|historian of science]] Daniel Thurs' chapter in the 2015 book ''Newton's Apple and Other Myths about Science'', which concluded that the scientific method is a myth or, at best, an idealization.<ref name="Thurs2015">{{Citation | last = Thurs | first = Daniel P. | chapter = That the scientific method accurately reflects what scientists actually do | editor-last1 = Numbers | editor-first1 = Ronald L. | editor-link = Ronald L. Numbers | editor-last2 = Kampourakis | editor-first2 = Kostas | title = Newton's Apple and Other Myths about Science | pages = 210–218 | publisher = Harvard University Press | year = 2015 | chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=pWouCwAAQBAJ&q=newton%27s+apple+and+other+myths+about+science | isbn = 978-0-674-91547-3 | quote = It's probably best to get the bad news out of the way first, the so-called scientific method is a myth.&nbsp;... If typical formulations were accurate, the only location true science would be taking place in would be grade-school classrooms. | access-date = 2020-10-20  | archive-date = 2023-11-29  | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20231129112729/https://books.google.com/books?id=pWouCwAAQBAJ&q=newton%27s+apple+and+other+myths+about+science#v=snippet&q=newton's%20apple%20and%20other%20myths%20about%20science&f=false | url-status = live }}</ref> As [[#Beliefs and biases|myth]]s are beliefs,<ref name= beliefCreatesReality /> they are subject to the [[narrative fallacy]], as pointed out by Taleb.<ref name= narrativeFallacy /> Philosophers [[Robert Nola]] and Howard Sankey, in their 2007 book ''Theories of Scientific Method'', said that debates over the scientific method continue, and argued that Feyerabend, despite the title of ''Against Method'', accepted certain rules of method and attempted to justify those rules with a meta methodology.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Nola |first1=Robert |author1-link= Robert Nola |last2=Sankey |first2=Howard |date=2007 |title=Theories of Scientific Method: An Introduction |series=Philosophy and science |volume=2 |location=Montréal |publisher=[[McGill–Queen's University Press]] |pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=aKjgBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 1], [https://books.google.com/books?id=aKjgBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA300 300] |isbn=9780773533448 |oclc=144602109 |doi=10.4324/9781315711959 |quote=There is a large core of people who think there is such a thing as a scientific method that can be justified, although not all agree as to what this might be. But there are also a growing number of people who think that there is no method to be justified. For some, the whole idea is yesteryear's debate, the continuation of which can be summed up as yet more of the proverbial 'flogging a dead horse'. We beg to differ.&nbsp;... We shall claim that Feyerabend did endorse various scientific values, did accept rules of method (on a certain understanding of what these are), and did attempt to justify them using a meta methodology somewhat akin to the principle of [[reflective equilibrium]].}}</ref> 
Staddon (2017) argues it is a mistake to try following rules in the absence of an algorithmic scientific method; in that case, "science is best understood through examples".<ref name="Staddon 2017 p.">{{cite book |last=Staddon |first=John | title=Scientific Method: How Science Works, Fails to Work, and Pretends to Work | publisher=Routledge | publication-place=New York | date=2017-12-01 | isbn=978-1-315-10070-8 | doi=10.4324/9781315100708 | page=}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url = https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/21425/StaddonHistoryofScienceSept2020.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y| title = Whatever Happened to History of Science?| date = 16 September 2020| access-date = 2021-08-27 | archive-date = 2021-08-27 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210827092318/https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/21425/StaddonHistoryofScienceSept2020.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y| url-status = live| last1 = Staddon| first1 = John|quote="science is best understood through examples"}}</ref> But algorithmic methods, such as ''disproof of existing theory by experiment'' have been used since [[Alhacen]] (1027) and his ''[[Book of Optics]]'',{{efn|name= alhacenCharacterizes}} and Galileo (1638) and his ''Two New Sciences'',{{sfnp|Galileo Galilei|1638}} and ''The Assayer'',<ref name= ilSaggiatore /> which still stand as scientific method.