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.
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.
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.
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…
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…
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…