Define "the scientific method"

define "the scientific method"

Other urls found in this thread:

lmgtfy.com/?q=what does p<0.05 mean
plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>put male and female experimentally obtained values in a comfy room with some Barry White music in the background
>wait till they mate
>voilà! you now have reproducible results

...

>not reporting results that disagree with your hypothesis
t. psychologist

Throw shit until it sticks

The method which science follows.

Karl Popper

Come up with a result, then find reasons why it's wrong. If you can't find any, the result probably works in the domain you have defined it in.

Was the Wikipedia page not enough of an explanation?

Literally Google it

>Was the Wikipedia page not enough of an explanation?

>There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles.[11] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order.[12][13] Some philosophers and scientists have argued that there is no scientific method; they include physicist Lee Smolin[14] and philosopher Paul Feyerabend (in his Against Method). Robert Nola and Howard Sankey remark that "For some, the whole idea of a theory of scientific method is yester-year's debate, the continuation of which can be summed up as yet more of the proverbial deceased equine castigation. We beg to differ."[15]

Nice, you’ve read it! What’s wrong with it?

>What’s wrong with it?
What do you mean?

So you understand the scientific method now?

>So you understand the scientific method now?
I don't know what this "scientific method" is that you're referring to.

Was part of the Wikipedia page unclear? Which part?

>Was part of the Wikipedia page unclear? Which part?
The part where no definition was provided.

imagine how stupid you have to be, to smugly pose for a photo which exposes how dumb you are.

It's telling you some argue it doesn't exist, but you can read definitions of people that believe it exists.

>but you can read definitions of people that believe it exists.
Obviously. So why did you post ?

>hypothesis not supported
>go through the data to find another correlation that barely reaches preport

>don't report when hypothesis not supported
>fuck drumpf
joke writes itself

What does p

lmgtfy.com/?q=what does p<0.05 mean

Are these result reproducible using bing?

>The part where no definition was provided.
because no definition is possible.

shut the fuck up and stop misleading people with your idiocy

here's a good reference. note that this is introductory survey material, and not in depth
plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/