There Is No Distinctly Scientific Method
My impulse is to jump in and critique, but after reading this twice, I&#x27;m actually not sure I understand what he&#x27;s saying. Is it a good point?<p>He doesn&#x27;t really make any reference to the commonly understood definition of the scientific method, which AFAIK, is: hypothesize, test, repeat. And the real takeaway is: TEST. The point of the scientific method is to validate assumptions, plain and simple, isn&#x27;t it?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Scientific_method#&#x2F;media&#x2F;File:The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Scientific_method#&#x2F;media&#x2F;File:...</a><p>&gt; &quot;If scientific method is only one form of a general method employed in all human inquiry, how is it that the results of science are more reliable than what is provided by these other forms? I think the answer is that science deals with highly quantified variables and that it is the precision of its results that supplies this reliability. But make no mistake: Quantified precision is not to be confused with a superior method of thinking.&quot;<p>I feel like this is the crux - the scientific method is not about quantified precision as a goal, right? Measurement is a means to an end - we measure are part of testing to actually complete the process of validating the hypothesis. If that&#x27;s what &quot;highly quantified variables&quot; means, then maybe there&#x27;s an interesting point here. But measurement was never the goal, testing is the goal. It&#x27;s not really about superior thinking either. The superior thinking, in fact, is in not thinking about it, but proving it instead. It&#x27;s more reliable for one simple reason: hypotheses are not accepted until tested.