Principles of science and ethical guidelines for scientific conduct – Discuss it here

My thesis on principles of science and ethical guidelines for scientific conduct is now available as an eBook on Kindle.

See About for information about me.

I will happily discuss the book in the comments section below this post.

In exchange for some kind of feedback to improve the quality of the book for the next update, I will happily provide a free copy by e-mail. Drop a comment below, and I will send a copy to the e-mail address used for registering. (E-mail address, identify and communication on e-mail will be kept confidential).

 

Earlier versions of the work, with all fruitful discussions in the comments field,  have been moved to a private site. This has been done to meet the terms of Amazon for their promotion of this book.

I will happily discuss the book here.

15 thoughts on “Principles of science and ethical guidelines for scientific conduct – Discuss it here

  1. truth is a property of a fact: all facts must have that property; a hypothesis is merely a predicate waiting to become a complete statement.
    so- is a hypothesis a statement or a question? i think it is a question.
    whatever the answer may be,, when it is presented, then the hypothesis ceases to be a hypothesis and becomes known – accepted as fact or rejected as falsehood.

    it’s quite a frisson to read ´Moral of science’, above. It’s a very well polished and faceted gem.

    Now you might do something else and come back to this after a few months to see what you can find with one more refinement cycle. A little time away can help because one starts not seeing what he’s seen too much of.
    It’s really hard to edit your own work when you know it by heart.

    Like

    • Good to have you back. 🙂

      Many thanks for your complements to ´Moral of science´.

      I see that the treatment of hypothesis can be improved.

      Maybe an hypothesis can be regarded as a question on the form:
      Can it be true that: …….
      To resolve that question I think it will have to be verified that observations are consistent with the proposition of the hypotesis and that all implications that are deduced from that hypothesis are also true.

      Like

  2. what i was aiming at is that any experiment that does not yield a yes or no answer is not a reasonable experiment.
    investigation for discovery is a different thing.
    an experiment to determine the truth of something is pointless if it fails to resolve.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think that is currently covered under:
      “Unscientific concepts
      Concepts that demonstrably cannot possibly be evaluated to true or false contradict the standard of scientific value, as defined here, and belong in the category ‘mysticism’.”

      The following point by you is important: “an experiment to determine the truth of something is pointless if it fails to resolve.” To me, that´s is a common thing to consider: is the test conclusive?

      That is covered by the following quote:
      “If a sound and uncontradictable argument can be stated against the way a concept has been tested, the concept should be regarded as still being an hypothesis.”

      Like

  3. reading your new book i notice a spot where you have described a ‘scientific concept’ and say if it is not true it must be false. then you address the ‘hypothesis’ which is not proven.
    explicitly, i think the distinction is that of ‘assertion vs question’
    because, while the ‘scientific concept’ is, implicitly, an assertion of a truth, an hypothesis is not presented as true but as a test to determine a truth.
    equally, however, an hypothesis must resolve to true or false or it is not a reasonable question.
    the word ‘reasonable’ can be a synonym for ‘scientific’ in this context. reasonable means that it does logically resolve, reason being the application of logic to resolve stuff…lol

    very nice to have your thesis packaged that way. i would buy a print copy if you click that checkbox.

    Like

    • Thanks a lot for the feed-back. 🙂

      I have read the book over and over, and I realize that my treatment of hypothesis is not clear.

      I also realize that the section on moral of science is a bit messy. I think I need to insert a few section breaks and probably use a few block quotes on a few essential principles that are now plain text.

      Regarding hypothesis, I think that a concept that has not been validated by testing should be termed an hypothesis. It may well be that it may seem logical but we can not know if it works before it has passed the validating tests.

      However, I´m working on a minor revision where these are the main points I will look into.

      I´ll tell you when I´m through.

      I´ll also wait with paperback version until this revision has been made.

      Like

    • Here is my suggestion for a revised section ´Moral of science´:

      Ethics are based on a moral standard of value by which right and wrong are evaluated. Ethical guidelines should promote actions that are evaluated to right by that standard. The moral standard propounded here is:

      The moral standard for science is the abstraction of concepts that are true and independently verifiable.

      That perspective is here regarded to be morally sound because it is consistent with the nature of ´the wise man´, Homo sapiens. Humans possess a unique capability to make abstract concepts from observations.

      A person’s concepts influence his reason, judgment, and actions. True concepts are essential to survival and prosperity of individuals and the societies they form, false concepts are detrimental.

      Concepts can rapidly propagate globally and affect millions, false concepts can be harmful to any mind infected by them. Further, belief in a false concept tends to occlude comprehension of all that is contradicted by it. Once accepted, a false concept may resist correction with great tenacity.

      Even though each individual is responsible for what he believes or not, a false concept published in the name of science is an assault on reason, man´s basic tool for survival and prosperity.

      The perspective on scientific conduct in this work is based on a moral standard of self-possession:

      A person owns his body and mind and should not be harmed, curbed, or misled by false concepts.

      Like

      • i love reading that no matter how many times i do it…lol
        and i swear there is no normal 4 yr old who can’t understand that easily, if not intuitively.
        it just needs to be installed asap so no garbage can displace it.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Thanks a lot. 😊
          That feed-back means a lot to me. Your input by the way. I just rearranged it a bit. 👍

          The Kindle e-book is now updated with that section.
          I’m got my own book updated, by sending a reqest to Kindle. But, I am not sure if those who have a version (about 30 downloads) get the update though.

          Like

    • “an hypothesis must resolve to true or false or it is not a reasonable question.”

      I think that a concept is an abstract construction that may or may not correspond with observations of nature.

      «In the case of science – I think one of the things which makes it very difficult – is that it takes a lot of imagination – It´s really hard to imagine all the crazy things that things really are like!»
      – Richard Feynman

      An hypothesis about nature cannot resolve to true without being tested. It can take ages before the means to perform a test becomes available, or it can take ages to test an hypothesis.

      Like

      • i propose the hypothesis that the moon is made of cheese.
        this takes the form of a statement but the nature of an hypothesis is that it is yet to be resolved and therefore it is really a question ‘is the moon made of cheese?’
        because this can be resolved to true or false, in principle if not easily in practice, it is a reasonable hypothesis on the face of it.
        the fact that it is stupid is irrelevant for the purpose of explaining the interrogatory nature of an hypothesis.

        so that an hypothesis is distinct from an assertion of fact and therefore is not false for lack of resolution.
        if it is reasonable, it can be resolved.

        however, it is possible to ask a question that can not be resolved in principle. such questions are often used to baffle and confuse. the usual manner of producing such a question is to drop the context. by doing so, one may thereby create an unreasonable hypothesis = one that is not amenable to logic = can not be resolved by any means.

        co2 will lead to mass starvation!
        reasonable hypothesis?

        Liked by 1 person

        • To consider how that resolves by this work, a reasonable hypothesis it must meet the relevant principles depending on what kind of hypothesis it is. Ref.:
          “These are the things to look for in a scientific concept. If a concept fails to comply with a relevant principle, that shortcoming will be a reason for a sound argument against that concept:”

          While a reasonable hypothesis must meet the §P1 Clarity principle – one hypothesis might be about mathematics and can be resolved by a proof within mathematics – another hypothesis might be a well-defined concept that has a well-defined capability within a well-defined context that only lacks a hand-full of tests to cover the full context. This latter hypothesis must then meet the full set of principles.

          In sum, I think that hypothesis is handled in a reasonable way within the work, however – it might be that it could be made clearer or improved. However, I am revising the section on hypothesis so I will try to improve it.

          Like

    • This is my draft for a revised section: About hypothesis in Chapter 1:

      “An hypothesis is an unproven statement or concept that has been put forward for further consideration. Hence, an hypothesis can become true or false by later evaluation or testing.

      Obviously, an hypothesis will fail in the evaluation against one or more principles for true and independently verifiable knowledge. However, to be reasonable, an hypothesis must still comply with applicable principles in accordance with its maturity.”

      And here is the revised section in chapter 4

      “An hypothesis is here defined as a statement or concept that has not been verified or validated. If an hypothesis is significant in the construction of a concept, the entire concept will become hypothetical. 

      There is nothing wrong in propounding an hypothesis within scientific conduct, as long as the hypothesis is clearly identified.”

      Like

      • i know you understand it. i just like the taxonomic tree to be pinned out for ready dissection.
        i can’t give the appropriate attention to this for now. i’m sorry. when i can eat solid food again i will be more thoughtful. another week or so.

        Like

Leave a comment - (new users aut. approved)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s