There is quite a bit of discussion in the philosophy of science about just what the scientific method might be, but suffice to say the current definition is the version you get when your science teacher is trying to do the old "science is the light of rational certainty in a sea of darkness" routine. For example, how do we deal with historical sciences such as paleontology? Hmm ... I'm trying to prove that T. Rex is closely related to modern birds. So I'll design an experiment with a T. Rex and a modern bird ...
My guess is that wikipedia is ahead of us here. -dmh 14:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Just because there are instances where the scientific method cannot be used, does not mean that we should abandon it. It still works fine in debunking things like astrology amd homeopathy. SemperBlotto 15:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Did I imply anything of the kind? My only contention is that the nice, comforting definition one usually sees is only an approximation of what happens in real science. My actual comment here is that the present form of the definition is borderline encyclopedic. It certainly has too much going on for a dictionary definition. The more important the term, the more important it is not to try too hard. Leave the details to the Wikipedia article — that's a great advantage of being able to link directly to it — and keep the Wiktionary entry concise (I was reluctant to add even as much as I did).
- The essense of the scientific approach is making and testing falsifiable statements. There's also an element of Occam's razor in the mix. Beyond that, we're drilling down to the next level, which again is Wikipedia territory. I'm not going to revert to my previous version, but I would like to see a more concise summary of what you feel was missing from it. The current entry is just too long (as is this note, but so it goes) -dmh 18:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)