Below is a downloadable PDF compiling a broad selection of respected academic and institutional sources that unambiguously clarify the true nature of the scientific method.
This is a useful compilation. It seems some, like Tom Cowan, when they see the word "flexibility" immediately jump to "permission to make up nonsense" like he did with his greenies example.
I asked Claude AI the question: "Is the scientific method a strict set of rules that must be carefully followed to yield reliable information?"
Here are the last two paragraphs of the response:
"What makes science reliable isn't strict adherence to a single method, but rather the broader scientific culture of skepticism, reproducibility, transparency, and peer review. Scientists are expected to document their methods, share their data, and submit their work for scrutiny by others. This collective process of validation and criticism helps identify errors and build reliable knowledge over time.
The key insight is that scientific thinking--being systematic, evidence-based, and open to revision--matters more than following a specific procedural checklist. The "method" is better understood as a set of values and practices that promote objectivity and reliability, rather than a cookbook of mandatory steps."
Exactly, Marty, and Claude’s response is absolutely on point. This is basic high school science. The scientific method, as it's typically outlined in textbooks, is simply a general framework used in research for young students to familiarize them with basic principles of what the method entails—in practice, it is not a rigid checklist of rules. But groups like the No-Virus crowd twist it into something it’s not, because that’s the only way they can try to make their theory of “non-existence” seem valid. They insist the method must be followed exactly as they interpret it, or else label the work as “pseudoscience.”
This is a useful compilation. It seems some, like Tom Cowan, when they see the word "flexibility" immediately jump to "permission to make up nonsense" like he did with his greenies example.
I asked Claude AI the question: "Is the scientific method a strict set of rules that must be carefully followed to yield reliable information?"
Here are the last two paragraphs of the response:
"What makes science reliable isn't strict adherence to a single method, but rather the broader scientific culture of skepticism, reproducibility, transparency, and peer review. Scientists are expected to document their methods, share their data, and submit their work for scrutiny by others. This collective process of validation and criticism helps identify errors and build reliable knowledge over time.
The key insight is that scientific thinking--being systematic, evidence-based, and open to revision--matters more than following a specific procedural checklist. The "method" is better understood as a set of values and practices that promote objectivity and reliability, rather than a cookbook of mandatory steps."
Exactly, Marty, and Claude’s response is absolutely on point. This is basic high school science. The scientific method, as it's typically outlined in textbooks, is simply a general framework used in research for young students to familiarize them with basic principles of what the method entails—in practice, it is not a rigid checklist of rules. But groups like the No-Virus crowd twist it into something it’s not, because that’s the only way they can try to make their theory of “non-existence” seem valid. They insist the method must be followed exactly as they interpret it, or else label the work as “pseudoscience.”