The Times and Troubles of the Scientific Method

Science is working tirelessly night and day to disprove its own theories about how the universe works (or at least, that's what science thinks it's doing). Hank tells us a quick history of how we came to create and adopt the scientific method and then gives us a vision of the future of science (hint: it involves a lot more computers and a lot less pipetting).

--
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?

[AllyCat]

So I watch SciShow every day, and in my biology class today my teacher showed this video and I got really excited because I watch this in my free time and we're watching it during school.

[SciShow]

Thanks, yeah, we messed that up. Adding annotations and a link to a video explaining the situation. Thanks for setting us straight!

[Mirandalorian]

I have been a Nerdfighter since about 2008 and I'm currently taking a Biological Anthropology college course; my professor linked us to this video and I'm so incredibly happy.

[bobjones]

First of all, all the things that were discovered without using the method (like theories such as Einstein's) were not accepted UNTIL they could be proven empirically. In fact, one of the biggest hurdle of Einstein's was observing and collecting data on a certain cosmic phenomenon that would support or disprove his theories. So empirical evidence is still king. You can come up with all sorts of ways to formulate the hypothesis of the scientific method but the data collecting and observations are still required for your ideas to be accepted.

Second, using machines and instruments for data collecting is nothing new. However, coming up with methods of how to collect data, deciding which data is important, and analyzing and interpreting the data (all very vital aspects of the scientific method) are almost always done by humans. The LHC has not changed this at all.

[EmperorsNewWardrobe]

4:30 "used math to prove that we see light that...". I thought science never 'proved' because of falsifiability, that we can never prove that a result will be the same in the future, only infer it. The problem of induction.

[BlizzardandBlaze]

Honestly, I think the scientific method is fine. There is nothing that says science has to know everything. Rather, the scientific method tells us our best guess about how the universe works. Furthermore, a scientific explanation need not be prefect to be viable. It's basically telling us that "this is our best guess" as to how the universe works. There might be holes in that guess, but that's where future scientists come in and build on the previous work of previous scientists, do more thinking, come up with better hypotheses that do explain the errant phenomena, then as time goes on and as those better explanations are proven or disproven, we come to a better understanding of the universe.

Further, if I'm not mistaken, all hypotheses must be testable somehow. Either by doing the math or by doing experiments. We often don't have the technology to do those experiments when the hypothesis is formed, but sometimes technology catches up, like now we have the Large Hadron Collider so we can test for the existence of the Higgs Boson. (note, I have no clue what the higgs boson means, although, I do know that the LHC tests for it, and that it's supposed to be a hypothesis created WAAAY back that we're only testing for now.)

In addition, creativity has it's place in science. Sometimes it takes a creative mind to think of speed as relative, or time as not moving in a continuous stream. The scientific method is what comes in when creativity is finished doing it's work. It says "Ok! it sounds good, and it SEEMS like a really great idea! But, does it hold in the real world". The answer might be yes, the answer might be no.

So, I don't believe that the scientific method is in trouble, or somehow flawed. I'd actually be more concerned if there was a proven way that the scientific method could not possibly be used to explain the universe we are in. That would be troubling, because I think the scientific method is pretty much the basis for all science. But, it's worked extremely well so far.

[McLir]

This is great. Thanks for recognizing Al-Haytham's vital role. As a student of science history, I am surprised how little-known he is.

[TheLonelyPanther]

Oh.. Finally!
I had to scroll back in ur video list just to listen to the glorious intro music in FULL!
Searching and testing videos for the full music was actually scientific, pun intended 😅

[TheBillymybob]

"The difference between science and messing around is writing it down." - Adam Savage

[Papaconstantopoulos]

I definitely like your videos like this, Hank, that cover one topic and discuss it in depth for a solid ten minutes. Thanks, very interesting.

[bigbenhebdomadarius]

Actually, although Einstein discovered the photoelectric effect and the photon, the photon has nothing to do with gravity in his thinking. General Relativity ascribes the effect of gravity to distortions in the fabric of space-time caused by the masses of the objects in it.

[RacheRache]

Thanks :) I have an exam today about science and scientific theories for which I DID NOT get the chance to do research on but this video covers a lot of points that I could write on! Amazing :) :)

[laetrille]

Just because we cannot test it today, it does not mean it is not real.

[bsrrhsl]

I'm so glad Scishow posted this video. Teaching so many people the scientific method and invoking interest in discovery and understanding is the type of work that needs to be done to pave the way for ingenuity and progress in the future. I wish this kind of work would be done in schools and hope that maybe in the near future it will be despite all of the opposition

[blackoak]

While I agree that computers are absolutely key to the future of science, it is a little much to imply that scientists will be replaced by computers in the more basic forms. The thing is, it is by doing the thinking, and testing and data analysis that scientists get a deeper understanding of what's going on. All the little things that lead to internalized understanding. If it's all done by a computer then the scientist is just spouting computer guided random stuff.

There is knowing, and then there is understanding. Knowing, u can do at a distance. Understanding requires u get ur hands dirty.

[revyaraksha]

Wow great episode! I loved this. Once might even say one of the major aims of science is to refine how we do science.

Would you consider doing more videos on the history of science? I really enjoy the history behind science and the prevailing thoughts of different eras leading up to our current methods, thoughts, systems etc. etc. as much as the actual science itself. You usually include some of that in your videos but this one seemed more focused on it than usual.

[janicecolumbus]

Pervy dog? Hank, you're the best!

[KikiAelita]

This is the sort of thing I would've appreciated hearing more during my school years. A view of science that doesn't say 'here's how it works, hope you don't miss your daydreaming' but a voice that said 'actually, here's how it works - but there's plenty we don't know, so don't just stop dreaming'.

[jackalderson]

Ah yes, good old: Shoot a science experiment until it's destroyed or it's indestructible

[scooterbriody]

I hate how we call the dark ages the dark ages when only the white guys were having a hard time...