[sim (OP)]

There is no scientific method We keep hearing that what makes science science is the "scientific method"
but
There is no scientific method
x rays where discovered serendipity
penicillin was discovered serendipity
the micro wave was discovered serendipity
radioactivity was discovered serendipity
Einsteins cosmological constant ad hoc
Maxwell's displacement constant ad hoc

Go read Feyerabend "Against method" where he shows science is anarchy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method
Against method

Feyerabend summarises his reductios with the phrase "anything goes". This is his sarcastic imitation of "the terrified reaction of a rationalist who takes a closer look at history

Go read Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

the Structure of Scientific Revolutions introduced a realistic humanism into the core of science, while for others the nobility of science was tarnished by Kuhn's introduction of an irrational element into the heart of its greatest achievements

.

And read

Scientific method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

these debates clearly show that there is no universal agreement as to what constitutes the "scientific method".[93] 

[Bored chemist]

What would you advocate instead?

[mad aetherist]

There is no scientific method -- We keep hearing that what makes science science is the "scientific method" but --There is no scientific method

Yes, we are in an Einsteinian Dark Age, & science is controlled by an aether denying Mafia, especially in theusofa. 
For 1500 years it was the Papal Dark Age. We could have walked on the Moon in 969 AD.
But times they are a'changin.
I probly dont have time to buy & read thems books.
The scientific method is allowed to exist in areas where it might not hurt, eg art & stamp collecting.

Nowadays big money hurts science, especially in theusofa.
And politics, especially in theusofa.
And Christians, especially in theusofa.

[Bored chemist]

What would you advocate instead?

[mad aetherist]

What would you advocate instead?

Scientific method.
But that is problematic. Lets say that theusofa was controlled by the mafia & religion & ceo's. Then u would ask what would i advocate instead. And i answer law & order & civil rights & the constitution & free speech & democracy & get big money out of politics. The problem is how do u do that.
So how do u get scientific method back into science.  The mafia control the universities the societies the money the magazines the prizes.  It is a cult (Einsteinology) that censors & fires scientists & bullies & threatens. 
And this cult will lose face when the truth comes out (that SR & GR are fake, & aether exists)(that the BB is krapp)(that GWs are krapp)(the accelerating expanding universe is krapp)(etc etc etc).
The answer probly lies in China. They have a superior system, & will not lose face when Einsteinology falls. 

[evan_au]

There is no scientific method.... XXX were discovered serendipity

Chance favors only the prepared mind.

- x rays were discovered by Roentgen, as part of his scientific experimentation on vacuum tubes
- penicillin was discovered by Fleming in his scientific studies of bacteria
- the micro wave (oven) was discovered by Spencer in his engineering work with radar transmitters
radioactivity was discovered by Becquerel due to his scientific interest in geology and photography
- Relativity was discovered by Einstein due to his scientific interest in what would happen if his tram travelled (a lot) faster
- Electromagnetic waves were discovered by Maxwell due to his mathematical interest in unifying scientific discoveries by Faraday, Ampere and others.

Science, mathematics and engineering prefer:
- data over opinion
- objectivity over subjectivity
- quantitative over qualitative
- repeatable results over random results
- knowledge over ignorance

As Bored Chemist asked, what alternative are you proposing?
- Which of the above preferences would you reverse?

Oops! crossover with mad aetherist...

[alancalverd]

The scientific method is

Observe
Hypothesise
Test

Scientific knowledge is the residue of explanatory and predictive hypotheses that have survived testing.

It has nothing to do with how why when or by whom the initial observation was made.

Literary criticism has been dismissed as "reams of bad English written about a few lines of good English". I wish I could come  up with an equally succinct dismissal of the philosophers of science.

[mad aetherist]

There is no scientific method.... XXX were discovered serendipity

Chance favors only the prepared mind.

- x rays were discovered by Roentgen, as part of his scientific experimentation on vacuum tubes
- penicillin was discovered by Fleming in his scientific studies of bacteria
- the micro wave (oven) was discovered by Spencer in his engineering work with radar transmitters
radioactivity was discovered by Becquerel due to his scientific interest in geology and photography
- Relativity was discovered by Einstein due to his scientific interest in what would happen if his tram travelled (a lot) faster
- Electromagnetic waves were discovered by Maxwell due to his mathematical interest in unifying scientific discoveries by Faraday, Ampere and others.

Science, mathematics and engineering prefer:
- data over opinion
- objectivity over subjectivity
- quantitative over qualitative
- repeatable results over random results
- education over ignorance
As Bored Chemist asked, what alternative are you proposing?
- Which of the above preferences would you reverse?
Oops! crossover with mad aetherist...

I believe that we should have all of thems.
It can all be boiled down one thing, the lie that the MMX was null. This was partly Michelson's fault for his krappy write-up where he mis-used the word null whilst his results were not null. Thusly all of Einstein's SR is krapp. In which case all of GR is krapp. In which case any accord with measurement or experiment is obviously a lucky equivalence (except for the 43 arcsec per century, that was simply a case of fraud by Einstein working backwards towards a known number, & making his nonsense equations appear good).
What we have is an aether.  As proven by every gas mode MMX, & lots of other kinds of experiments.

Unfortunately or fortunately the Einsteinian Dark Age that we are presently in has no major dollar effects. We can still make lots of tech stuff despite the flaws in the science.  It is mostly a case of teaching krapp to skoolkids who in their turn teach that krapp to skoolkids etc, a happy little cycle, & no-one is badly hurt (except for the few scientists who have the balls to speak out). Just a few billion dollars going to waste here & there. Lots of fake heroes, no great harm done.
Ending the Dark Age wont necessarily lead to major new inventions etc. But there are likely to be lots of little improvements.

One area that is lagging concerns observations made by Ivor Catt, showing that amps & volts are fake. What we need is a better theory for current & for em radiation.  As usual this will involve aether.

[mad aetherist]

The scientific method is

Observe
Hypothesise
Test

Scientific knowledge is the residue of explanatory and predictive hypotheses that have survived testing.
It has nothing to do with how why when or by whom the initial observation was made.
Literary criticism has been dismissed as "reams of bad English written about a few lines of good English". I wish I could come  up with an equally succinct dismissal of the philosophers of science.

Wrong. Scientific knowledge is what u protect till death, at which time the truth might have a chance, but nowadays death doesnt help, the mafia are in charge.

[Paradigmer]

, that was simply a case of fraud by Einstein working backwards towards a known number, & making his nonsense equations appear good).

IMO, on intellectual gun points by the Einsteinian mafia, Einstein was merely the figurehead of the Einsteinian Dark Age.

[mad aetherist]

, that was simply a case of fraud by Einstein working backwards towards a known number, & making his nonsense equations appear good).

IMO, on intellectual gun points by the Einsteinian mafia, Einstein was merely the figurehead of the Einsteinian Dark Age.

The mafia have a problem. They cant afford to admit that SR & GR are complete krapp, & that Einstein is a false god.  The easy thing is to deny & censor & hide the truth.  But this makes it worse for themselves down the road.  But they hope that something will come up & somehow cushion their fall, or in any case they themselves will have died so it will embarrass someone else.

In a way this bizness is merely a sideshow. Its a bit like watching Islamology & Jewology fighting it out, the winner doesnt matter, they all disappear into their churches once a week, & it doesnt matter which building they enter.  For most of the week they are doing something productive like growing corn.
The Einstein question represents say 1% of 1% of 1% of science.  If we all agreed that aether exists & that SR & GR are krapp then nothing much would change.  The large colliders would not be designed differently, the fusion gizmos would not be designed differently.  But praps Einsteinology is holding some important discovery or invention back. We dont know.
Its a bit like arguing whether God created us.  Or whether Noah's flood killed the dinosaurs.  The argument is almost superficial, there might not be much harm done. Or, it could destroy the planet.

[Paradigmer]

The mafia have a problem. They cant afford to admit that SR & GR are complete krapp, & that Einstein is a false god.  The easy thing is to deny & censor & hide the truth.  But this makes it worse for themselves down the road.  But they hope that something will come up & somehow cushion their fall, or in any case they themselves will have died so it will embarrass someone else.In a way this bizness is merely a sideshow. Its a bit like watching Islamology & Jewology fighting it out, the winner doesnt matter, they all disappear into their churches once a week, & it doesnt matter which building they enter.  For most of the week they are doing something productive like growing corn. The Einstein question represents say 1% of 1% of 1% of science.  If we all agreed that aether exists & that SR & GR are krapp then nothing much would change.  The large colliders would not be designed differently, the fusion gizmos would not be designed differently.  But praps Einsteinology is holding some important discovery or invention back. We dont know. Its a bit like arguing whether God created us.  Or whether Noah's flood killed the dinosaurs.  The argument is almost superficial, there might not be much harm done. Or, it could destroy the planet.

Indeed. So, you can't really blame the Einsteinian mafia on its modern physics religion that tailors for pragmatic theories of truth.

“The more you see, how strange nature behaves, the harder it is for us, to make a model, that explains even how the most simple phenomena works. Theoretical physics has given up on this pursuit.” - Richard Fenyman

Einstein did had many significant discoveries, one example is on the photoelectric effect, which is instrumental for solar cell developments.

BTW, he did not win the N prize for SR or GR. He should be recognized for the geodesic effect for his SR paper, but unfortunately this was hijacked and adulterated by the Einsteinian mafia to promote their religion of science.

[mad aetherist]

The mafia have a problem. They cant afford to admit that SR & GR are complete krapp, & that Einstein is a false god.  The easy thing is to deny & censor & hide the truth.  But this makes it worse for themselves down the road.  But they hope that something will come up & somehow cushion their fall, or in any case they themselves will have died so it will embarrass someone else.In a way this bizness is merely a sideshow. Its a bit like watching Islamology & Jewology fighting it out, the winner doesnt matter, they all disappear into their churches once a week, & it doesnt matter which building they enter.  For most of the week they are doing something productive like growing corn. The Einstein question represents say 1% of 1% of 1% of science.  If we all agreed that aether exists & that SR & GR are krapp then nothing much would change.  The large colliders would not be designed differently, the fusion gizmos would not be designed differently.  But praps Einsteinology is holding some important discovery or invention back. We dont know. Its a bit like arguing whether God created us.  Or whether Noah's flood killed the dinosaurs.  The argument is almost superficial, there might not be much harm done. Or, it could destroy the planet.

Indeed. So, you can't really blame the Einsteinian mafia on its modern physics religion that tailors for pragmatic theories of truth.

“The more you see, how strange nature behaves, the harder it is for us, to make a model, that explains even how the most simple phenomena works. Theoretical physics has given up on this pursuit.” - Richard Fenyman

Einstein did had many significant discoveries, one example is on the photoelectric effect, which is instrumental for solar cell developments.

BTW, he did not win the N prize for SR or GR. He should be recognized for the geodesic effect for his SR paper, but unfortunately this was hijacked and adulterated by the Einsteinian mafia to promote their religion of science.

Einstein plagiarized even the photo electric effect. Pretty much all of that was already known.
I dont know what the geodesic effect is. Praps it refers to the Minkowski. Anyhow there is nothing of any value in SR.
Which reminds me that it was Minkowski that made Einstein famous, a bit like Paul making Christ famous -- no Minkowski then no Einstein, no Paul then no Christ.

The Einstein mafia have made Einsteinology compulsory for skoolkids.  But truth will prevail.

[Paradigmer]

Go read Kuhn The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

This is a book any man of science should read and correctly understand.

The contemporary scientific method is meant for pragmatic theory of truth, and it has significance for its technological accomplishments. It could weed out pseudoscience for example, this is despite it fails on epistemic theory of truth for its theory of justification.

I have a piece on "Critiques of the scientific method" you might be interested

p.s. scroll up a bit to find the topic if somehow it did not show the right topic.

[mad aetherist]

Go read Kuhn The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

This is a book any man of science should read and correctly understand.

The contemporary scientific method is meant for pragmatic theory of truth, and it has significance for its technological accomplishments. It could weed out pseudoscience for example, this is despite it fails on epistemic theory of truth for its theory of justification.
I have a piece on "Critiques of the scientific method" you might be interested
p.s. scroll up a bit to find the topic if somehow it did not show the right topic.

I will have a read of that & that.
The twins contradiction kills SR. Nothing more needed.

[Paradigmer]

Einstein plagiarized even the photo electric effect. Pretty much all of that was already known. I dont know what the geodesic effect is. Praps it refers to the Minkowski. Anyhow there is nothing of any value in SR.Which reminds me that it was Minkowski that made Einstein famous, a bit like Paul making Christ famous -- no Minkowski then no Einstein, no Paul then no Christ.The Einstein mafia have made Einsteinology compulsory for skoolkids.  But truth will prevail.

Simply put, geodesic effect describes the inertia accelerations of an orbiting object.

Am googling on "Einstein plagiarized the photo electric effect". Please provide your sources.

Yes, truth will prevail.

The twins contradiction kills SR. Nothing more needed.

The twins contradiction merely kills the Einsteinian SR.

[Paradigmer]

Einstein plagiarized even the photo electric effect.

Found this:
http://theconversation.com/when-science-gets-ugly-the-story-of-philipp-lenard-and-albert-einstein-43165

Philipp Lenard and Einstein ever worked cordially initially. Their later fallouts was in personality, which spiral out of control. I still didn't find anything on Einstein plagiarized others work on photoelectric effect.

In the backdrop of WW1, it was not the fault of Einstein when the scientific community at then surpressed Nazi physics.

[mad aetherist]

Einstein plagiarized even the photo electric effect.

Found this:
http://theconversation.com/when-science-gets-ugly-the-story-of-philipp-lenard-and-albert-einstein-43165
Philipp Lenard and Einstein ever worked cordially initially. Their later fallouts was in personality, which spiral out of control. I still didn't find anything on Einstein plagiarized others work on photoelectric effect.
In the backdrop of WW1, it was not the fault of Einstein when the scientific community at then surpressed Nazi physics.

I did find this.
Does the photoelectric effect prove the existence of photons?
No! Listen to Millikan on the subject -- and he should know! He is probably best known for his "oil drop" experiment, but he also made a vital contribution to photoelectric theory. His experiments confirming that Nature really does seem to obey the law that Einstein had predicted in 1905 are still taken as definitive. In his main paper on the subject, (Millikan, R A, "A Direct Photoelectric Determination of Planck's 'h'", Physical Review 7, 355-388, 1916) he says in the introduction:

It was in 1905 that Einstein made the first coupling of photo effects and with any form of quantum theory by bringing forward the bold, not to say reckless, hypothesis of an electro-magnetic light corpuscle of energy h?, which energy was transferred upon absorption to an electron. This hypothesis may well be called reckless, first because an electromagnetic disturbance which remains localised in space seems a violation of the very conception of an electromagnetic disturbance, and second because it flies in the face of the thoroughly established facts of interference. [My emphasis]

Millikan's concluding discussion includes fascinating ideas about what really happens, some sounding remarkably similar to my own [see my faq file]! He repeats several times his vehement objection to the idea of localised packets of light. For example:

... if the equation be of general validity, then it must certainly be regarded as one of the most fundamental and far reaching of the equations of physics; for it must govern the transformation of all short-wave-length electromagnetic energy into heat energy. Yet the semi-corpuscular theory by which Einstein arrived at his equation seems at present to be wholly untenable . . .

Finally, he says that a modification of Planck's latest idea [in which light is not in packets of h? but of nh?, where n is any integer]

"... seems to me able to account for all the relations thus far known between corpuscular and ethereal radiations É If any particular frequency is incident upon [a substance containing oscillators of every conceivable frequency] the oscillators in it which are in tune with the impressed waves may be assumed to absorb the incident waves until the energy content as reached a critical value when an explosion occurs and a corpuscle is shot out with an energy h? ...

It is to be hoped that such a theory will soon be shown to be also reconcilable with the facts of black body radiation. "...

[Paradigmer]

No! Listen to Millikan on the subject -- and he should know!

That dispute does not amount to Einstein had plagiarized others on photoelectric effect.

[mad aetherist]

THUS, THE EXPERIMENTS OF THOMSON, KAUFMANN, AND FINALLY, AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY, HASENÖRHL, CONFIRMED MAXWELL'S WORK. IT IS LUDICROUS TO
BELIEVE THAT EINSTEIN DEVELOPED THIS POSTULATE, particularly in light of the fact that
Einstein did not have the laboratory necessary to conduct the appropriate experiments. In this same plagiarized
article of Einstein's, he suggested to the scientific community, "Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory
using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium)." This remark
demonstrates how little Einstein understood about science, for this was truly an outlandish remark. By saying
this, Einstein showed that he really did not understand basic scientific principles and that he was writing about a
topic that he did not understand. In fact, in response to this article, J. Precht remarked that such an experiment
"lies beyond the realm of possible experience." The last subject dealt with in Einstein's 1905 papers was the
foundation of the photon theory of light. Einstein wrote about the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect
is the release of electrons from certain metals or semiconductors by the action of light. This area of research is
particularly important to the Einstein myth because it was for this topic that he UNJUSTLY received his 1922
Nobel Prize.
But AGAIN IT IS NOT EINSTEIN, BUT WILHELM WIEN AND MAX PLANCK WHO DESERVE
THE CREDIT. The main point of Einstein's paper, and the point for which he is given credit, is that light is
emitted and absorbed in finite packets called quanta. This was the explanation for the photoelectric effect. The
photoelectric effect had been explained by Heinrich Hertz in 1888. Hertz and others, including Philipp Lenard,
worked on understanding this phenomenon.
Lenard was the first to show that the energy of the electrons released in the photoelectric effect was not
governed by the intensity of the light but by the frequency of the light. This was an important breakthrough.
Wien and Planck were colleagues and they were the fathers of modern day quantum theory. By 1900, Max
Planck, based upon his and Wien's work, had shown that radiated energy was absorbed and emitted in finite
units called quanta. The only difference in his work of 1900 and Einstein's work of 1905 was that Einstein
limited himself to talking about one particular type of energy light energy. But the principles and equations
governing the process in general had been deduced by Planck in 1900. Einstein himself admitted that the
obvious conclusion of Planck's work was that light also existed in discrete packets of energy. Thus, nothing in
this paper of Einstein's was original.
After the 1905 papers of Einstein were published, the scientific community took little notice and Einstein
continued his job at the patent office until 1909 when it was arranged by World Jewry for him to take a position
at a school . Still, it was not until a 1919 A Jewish newspaper headline that he gained any notoriety. With
Einstein's academic appointment in 1909, he was placed in a position where he could begin to use other people's
work as his own more openly.
He engaged many of his students to look for ways to prove the theories he had supposedly developed, or ways
to apply those theories, and then he could present the research as his own or at least take partial credit. In this
vein, in 1912, he began to try and express his gravitational research in terms of a new, recently developed
calculus, which was conducive to understanding relativity. This was the beginning of his General Theory of
Relativity, which he would publish in 1915.