Strange as it may seem, it is hard to find a set of well-defined principles for science.
Although some have proposed that these principles should be written down and formalised, the principles and traditions of science are, for the most part, conveyed to successive generations of scientists through example, discussion, and informal education.
Examples of scientific malpractice demonstrates that example, discussion, and informal education may not be a sufficiently robust strategy.
This thesis defines a set of principles for science.
From these principles a set of ethical guidelines are derived.
These principles and guidelines defines a standard that will make it easier to identify malpractice.
The ethical guidelines in this post are directly derived from The principles of science (v7.5), and are strictly related to the activity of establishing and providing true and independently verifiable knowledge.
Many scientific organization issues codes of conduct. Typically for these codes of conduct is that they are more about the relation between scientists, their organizations and the society than about science itself.
Don´t get fooled by fake news, alternative facts or dubious science.
Strange as it may seem, it is hard to find a set of well-defined principles for science. The idea with this work has been to identify and define a set of fundamental principles for science.
These are the necessary characteristics of verifiable statements, arguments, and concepts. Characteristics that can be used to distinguish verifiable knowledge from beliefs.
This post gives an overview over what I regard to be the most fundamental scientific flaws with the governance of IPCC – United Nations Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change.
I have been missing a neat summary of Karl Popper´s scientific method. I have also been thinking, that a neat set of theorems representing his method would be useful. Both as a guide for development and scrutiny of ideas, but also to be able to reveal weaknesses in any idea claimed to represent the truth. This is my summary of Popper´s method into a neat set of theorems.
I was a bit puzzled, once I had discovered that:
IPCC was misled by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) on “Qualitative expression of confidence”!
Both IPCC and it´s reviewer, InterAcademy Council, messed up on “Quantified measures of uncertainty”!
How on earth could a scientific organization mess up on these things?
Can a scientific statement be justified by the fact that IPCC is utterly convinced of its truth? The answer is, ‘No’; and any other answer would be incompatible with the idea of scientific objectivity.
By inductive reasoning, and imagination, many possible explanations can be provided for a series of events. However, most of these explanations will be wrong.
Knowledge on the other hand is characterized by the ability to repeatedly predict a particular range of outcome for a particular set of conditions.
Enjoy this 1 minute clip with Feynman!
What Richard Feynman summarize here is the hypotetico – deductive model. This method can be regarded as the modern scientific method.
These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred.
The world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it…”
A culture is a way of perceiving, thinking and acting – which has been learned, developed or discovered by an organization – while learning to deal with its internal and external challenges – and which is being taught to it´s members as the right way of perceiving, thinking and acting
“… it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible”
– Karl Popper
“The degree of certainty in key findings is based on the author teams’ evaluations of underlying scientific understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence. (from very low to very high)
Confidence in the validity of a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement.”
– IPCC WGI;AR5
Have you ever read the work by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and felt disturbed by terms like “Medium agreement” or “Robust evidence”? Such terms origin in a document called: Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties “These guidance notes are intended to assist Lead Authors of…
In the post: “What does it take for an quantitative theoretical model to be reliable?” I put up a list over requirements a quantitative theoretical model will have to fulfill to be regarded as reliable. I base the list on what I regard to be principles in modern philosophy of science. Hopefully in accordance with the principles of…
The average value of an ensemble of climate models is often used as an argument in the debate. What does it mean? The following is a quote from the contribution from Working group I to the fifth assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.: Box 12.1 | Methods to Quantify Model Agreement in Maps…
Does your favourite scientific method happen to be one of these? (Ref Wikipedia – for what it is worth) Inductivism is the traditional model of scientific method attributed to Francis Bacon, who in 1620 vowed to subvert allegedly traditional thinking. In Baconian model, one observes nature, proposes a modest law to generalize an observed pattern, confirms it by many observations, ventures…
You might regard this analysis as being too simple to add value – but then again: “Science may be described as the art of systematic oversimplification.” ― Karl Popper The skeptical weblogs contain clear signs that there is a lot of opposition to the works by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Could it be that one…
I think it would be useful to have an international standard to refer to when evaluating if an quantitative theoretical model is reliable. Unfortunately no such standard exists. If we regard the case where the theoretical model is about predicting the quantity of an output value for a number of inputs. There are some standards relating to measurement,…
I claim in this post: What does it take for an quantitative theoretical model to be reliable? that a quantitative theoretical model will have to fulfill a set of criteria to be reliable. Consequently an alternative theory will have to fulfill the same criteria. So – let´s say that the main theory is that increasing CO2 level in the…
It´s great fun to read about scientific history and the great philosophers of science like Karl Popper and David Hume. The current discussions about climate science makes me wonder – where are great philosophers of science when you need them? Will a great philosopher step forward and warn on unprecise statements like: “The science is…
An international standard would make it easier to discredit improper arguments within science. In lieu of such standard, other sources may be helpful . Below are some extracts from Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. This report by, the National Academy of Sciences, is freely available from National Academies Press. To scientists with…