The Scientific Method, Part 1

5
ByCrossFitFebruary 18, 2020

All the seeds of the scientific method lie within the derivation of science (which is the method’s application). The scientific method consists of a set of attributes that can be neatly organized into four major categories: foundations, discovery, creativity, and validation.

Foundations of science include natural language and its derivatives of logic and mathematics. These permit the expression of observations, relationships, and processes with the least ambiguity. Precision in definitions allows observations and measurements to proceed with repeatability. Mathematics, which is solely based in a labyrinth of logic and definitions, allows science to explore the full consequences of its models. Mathematics leads science into new territories from the mental constructs called models.

Discovery is the art of making observations and measurements. Measurements, the comparing of observations with standards of like objects and processes, are the backbone of science.

Creativity in science is the extraction of patterns from measurements expressed as models with predictive power. This is the objective of science. Creativity includes the design of experiments to confirm or validate models. (Educators often overlook the strong creative element in science. Perhaps this is an oversight, but it may be due to a belief that nature contains laws simply to be discovered. Science itself holds no such belief. The creation of models from patterns is the art of generalization and the application of the cause & effect principle.)

Validation is the process of gathering data and organizing them to corroborate the predictions of the model. Confirming data increases the accuracy and perhaps alters the scope of the data upon which the scientist has constructed the model. Validating data has the same effect but on the novel predictions of the theory.

These attributes have a logical but not a necessary chronology. Every attribute must be present in a field of study for that endeavor to qualify as a science.

Within these attributes, we fit seven essential elements of science, to be considered in detail in further entries in this series.

  1. Definitions
  2. Observations
  3. Measurements
  4. Models
  5. Predictions
  6. Experiments
  7. Validation

Additional Reading

Comments on The Scientific Method, Part 1

5 Comments

Comment thread URL copied!
Back to 200219
Bob Kaplan
February 20th, 2020 at 2:22 am
Commented on: The Scientific Method, Part 1

Very much looking forward to this series.


"These attributes have a logical but not a necessary chronology." Agree with this as I think "observations" may deserve a seat at the base of the pyramid. Precise definitions are essential. Although, sometimes what we think is precise today turns out to be rather loose tomorrow. It's nonetheless critical to define our observations with as much precision as we possibly think we can so that we can understand just how wrong we might be without so much ambiguity.


Maybe it goes without saying, but a prerequisite in all of this is a kind of honesty that is probably kryptonite for individuals trying to get grants, publish papers in mainstream journals, and having a career in "science" nowadays.


On a more positive note, here's a quote from Claude Bernard I picked up from Gary Taubes (I think "An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine" was the first book recommendation I coaxed out of him, and he opened with this quote in some of his talks I've seen) on the role of observation:


"To have our first idea of things, we must see those things; to have an idea about a natural phenomenon, we must, first of all, observe it. The mind of man cannot conceive an effect without a cause, so that the sight of a phenomenon always awakens an idea of causation. All human knowledge is limited to working back from observed effects to their cause."

Comment URL copied!
John Smith
February 21st, 2020 at 1:45 pm

In the greater science research enterprise, the scientific pyramid sits on a base labeled "funding"

Comment URL copied!
Nathan Jenkins
February 19th, 2020 at 2:09 am
Commented on: The Scientific Method, Part 1

"Educators often overlook the strong creative element in science."


Speaking from personal experience, I'd replace "often" with "damn near always". If anything, we academics are trained to actively suppress our creative impulses. Creativity is the antithesis to building consensus, which is the primary objective of mainstream academic science. Creative ideas are discouraged, shot down, dismissed as 'fringe', and, perhaps most importantly in terms of real societal impact, rarely selected for major research grant funding. That which gets funded tends to get more (and then, still more) funding. The funded stuff is what the Guidelines writers and policy makers look to create consensus statements. The new grant applications are more likely to be selected for funding to the extent that they comport with the consensus view. The feedforward cycle goes on on and on.


CrossFit is a *real* science experiment that's actually worked, on a global scale, and therefore has a unique perspective to offer on these matters. I eagerly await the rest of the series.


Comment URL copied!
David Caccamo
February 19th, 2020 at 2:56 am

I couldn’t agree more about the creativity demands of primary scientific research. It takes keen curiosity and original thinking to pull out the important questions and strike on effective methods to generate new learning, as well as refine what we think is already settled knowledge. As a curious, attentive clinician with some useful training, I consider myself a reasonably adept consumer of actual science. I fill in the gap’s and daily work to use it for the betterment of the patients that I treat. I found my niche. Fortunately, I realized long ago that I lack the intense creativity and entrepreneurship necessary to make a go of generating actual, quality, original science. I’ll leave that to experts like Dr. Jenkins.

Comment URL copied!
Tyler Hass
February 19th, 2020 at 6:43 am

The creative aspect of science is what jumped out at me as well. The world of academia is harmfully divided into arts and sciences (BA vs BS for example). Artists are assumed to be the creative ones, while scientists are cold and analytical. I've generally found this to be far from true. Art can be just as derivative, rote and procedural as memorizing a bunch of scientific facts and following lab protocols. Real science generates new knowledge, thus it is a creative process. It's sad to see that, as Nathan mentioned, much of the creativity in science is lost to group think and forced consensus.

Many would probably say that CrossFit's workouts are very innovative and creative (which they are), but I think the definition of fitness is even more so. The concept of fitness was so nebulous before. To distill it into something so specific and measurable, yet broad and encompassing, is profoundly creative. People might not be doing Fran in 50 years, but I think the definition of fitness will endure.

Comment URL copied!