A new approach to scientific research
@THEcreationist (837)
India
July 1, 2009 12:31pm CST
Do you think that the way the scientists research, i.e. first thinking of a probable solution to a mystery, then trying to fit it in the universally accepted laws of science to prove their solution is correct, is right? They proceed with their imagination and work with exising laws in different ways and prove that they were correct. Then, after 100 years, somebody claims that they were wrong and i am right by introducing new imagination and providing a convincing expanation for it.
For example ,numerous models for fundamental particle have been suggested (starting with Rutherford) and proven to be right by their postulants.
What I think is a new(but rigorous) approach that you start with the problem, and frame and solve equations based on it in stepwise manner applying accepted laws to it. In this way you reach solution by reason instead of reaching reason from proposed solution (which has high chances of errors).
Since i am working in this direction, i entertain your views and comments for my guidance.
1 response
@GADHISUNU (2162)
• India
1 Jul 09
Scientific Advancement is a movement from the known to the unknown. Why scientists take an imaginative leap forward and then try to fit it to the known facts, is for ascertaining that Logic- the method of science, is not given the go by in stating newer scientific facts. That is why we see The world view as given by the Theory of Relativity, does not totally contradict Newtonian Physics where, either would serve like the Motion of mechancal particles - the Newtonian Equations being particulary easier to handle. This is understood by the statement that Einsteinian Equations reduce to Newtonian ones at far lower speeds that are encountered in the Physical world. At the same time, the contrary-to-common sense statements of Einstein's Equations has advanced our frontiers of the known Universe. Take for example the prcession of the perihelion orbit of Mercury. Or the Curved Nature of Space-Time.
The same can be said about, say, Mathematical Concepts. When Theory of Equations threw up the Complex numbers, we find, from the history of Math that, for a long time Mathematicians weren't comfortable with the idea. Whereas we see today, when Complex Numbers are introduced, they are done in such a manner as to see them as an "extension" of the Real Number System and proceed further to uncover the peculiarities of the New Found knowledge.The fact that this new area solves several of the problems in Real Functions is an interesting pay-off/spin-off.
Thus I see nothing wrong with the Scientific Method. The quantum leap as the starting point to look for a different theory, is the only road to discovery. The movement from Rutherford Model of the atom which was conceived without violating the Laws of Classical Mechanics needed the qantum leap into "No Ebnergy Loss while the electrons occupied the predetermined orbits called stationary states" was really a courageous leap forward. To arrive at the same thing by a different route is possible today, like for instance, the derivation of Planck's Law from Statistical Mechanics as done by Dr. Satyan Bose is a post-facto learning. It is a different thing that this also lead to further development in Particle Physics.
Learning in general, and Scientific Progress in particular needs quite a bit of back and forth movement.
Further discussion shall be based on how you respond.
@THEcreationist (837)
• India
2 Jul 09
Hi,Gadhisunu. Thanks for such a comprehensive response. I also favour of the key role of imagination power in finding out solutions to scientific mysteries as you do. Certainly, one needs imagination to figure out solutions as well as to existing problems.
But, I would like to emphasize upon that Einstein did not use imagination as a tool of dsigning solution. Rather, his imagination helped him figure out conclusions from the works of Michelson-Morley , Lorentz, Poincare etc. i.e. they were based on concrete observations and mathematical derivations based on them.
On the other hand, observers like Rutherford (atomic model)& Maxwell (EM theory) used imagination to design solutions (well, the were right in some way) and then tried to fit it for the answers to existing questions. In this way you can reach to proving you right, but, it is not necessary that the nature works as you suggest, i.e. there may be other way the nature works. In other words, proceeding from solution to explanation lets you prove one way is right, but you can not say that other ways(may be not yet postulated) are wrong.
On the other hand, if you start by imposing observed conditions and deriving one solution (may not possible every time due lack of variety of observations), you indirectly show that there is no other solution to the problem as far as currently available data is concerned (Well, it may be a really difficult task to achieve but, it reduces chances of faulty models).
I entertain your further views, you seem to be really interested in reason.
@GADHISUNU (2162)
• India
2 Jul 09
Thank you creationist for your response as well as starting up something that is scientific for a discussion. I had long wished someone takes up such Scientific subjects fior discussion. I was getting bored to keep writing only on the Religion board. Sometimes some of the Politics board are interesting. I started on the Management Board but few are forthcoming.
One DC Merkle wanted to discuss English literature current/ancient, but she had to abandon after findingthe response to be poor.
Anyway let us be on.Look I am also looking for alternatives to the Scientific Methos even though one must admit that it is one fool-proof method fro extracting knowledge from Nature.
What do you think of Heuristics - as an alternative to rigorous methods?
1 person likes this
@THEcreationist (837)
• India
2 Jul 09
Thanks Gadhisunu for your interest in a scientific discussion. Thats because i am a self researcher and love to discuss and explore new scientific ideas.
Thanks again for your fantastic suggestion of heuristics as an option to random scientific research approaches. The idea is good and will introduce an element of certainity in finding solutions to problems as the methods are already tested.
In many situations that are a modified version of already encountered ones, your experience is the guide. But, for the mysteries, you can not not depend on heuritics. There is a need to develop an stepwise method.
I thought of its need from the postulation of the superstring theory. The researchers found an expansion of exponential and guessed that it could well satisfy the existing requirements of unification of forces if it represented vibrating strings. They postulated complete theory applying mathematical models and their experience, shook the scientific world and ended up with seven different explanations of the working of nature. That was where they got stuck, because their experience could not guide them beyond this place. If a stepwise method can be developed, one solution can be obtained.
By the way, i am impressed by your rare interest in scientific discussions. I am sending you friend request, please accept, if you love to. If you know any expert in scientific research, i urge you to include him in the discussion.
