I have spend considerable time studying the "scientific method".
In the case of the use of CT, there is one part of the SM that is missing, and that is experimentation, or (as in the case of rogue waves) documented real world experiences.
If there is no disagreement about the other 80% (by your estimate), why mention it.
The SM is attributed to both Francis Bacon and Galileo depending on who you read. Both were working in the mid 1500's.
Despite this, it was not being taught in universities until some 300 years later.
~ ~ quote
“By the turn of the century, public enthusiasm for the wider utilization
of the scientific method in various natural and social domains reached new
heights, abetted in part by the publication of Karl Pearson’s best-selling
book
The Grammar of
Science, published first in 1892 then reprinted in 1900
and again in 191 1, which called for the application of method beyond its
typical domain. The extension of science into “regions where our greatgrandfathers
could see nothing at all, or where they would have declared
human knowledge impossible,” Pearson declared, “is one of the most
remarkable features of modern progress.” But what the extension of the
scientific method meant beyond the vague consensus on the importance of
induction, appeals to careful observation, and the accumulation and recording
of facts was far from clear. One educator lamented that
“the range of uses
and abuses of the phrase ‘scientific method’ has become so great as to render
well-nigh hopeless the attempt to define its content with all embracing
adequacy.
Formal structure was still lacking – at the turn of the century.
John Dewey was instrumental in having the SM used in teaching, at the turn of the century. This is when the SM transferred from Science to the general public."
http://web.missouri.edu/~hanuscind/8710/Rudolph2005.pdf
Since the time of Dewey the SM has gone through several transformations, in attempts to keep up with technology and the understanding of what "Science" means.
The SM I was tested on in 1965 is not the same SM that is in use today.
The tool used to determine what constitutes a 'scientific fact' has changed, and with it, what is considered 'scientific fact'.
For the record, a 'scientific fact' is a social construct, which may or may not mirror actual occurrences. in the case of rogue waves, the 'scientific facts' were incorrect.
We should not be surprised that when a measurement tool is changed, measurements change.
I sound an interesting read.
In part:
"From Newton's time until Einstein, the prevalent view was that scientific knowledge is certain knowledge. Scientific knowledge comes from direct observation, refined and extended by logical inference. When used with appropriate care, both of these ingredients were considered to give results that were beyond question.
Since the early part of the Twentieth Century we've had clear evidence that none of the elements of this formula for scientific certainty is correct. However, popular and even professional views of science and its workings are still thoroughly contaminated with partially digested remnants of these notions. This series of essays is an effort toward cleaning up this messy intellectual legacy.
We know that many facts and principles that we currently accept will be replaced by ones that are obviously superior -- not just a little closer to the truth, but whole new ways of looking at things -- theories that reveal facets of the natural world that today we can't even imagine. That progress is obviously quite wonderful, but it does create a problem for people who want to believe that science produces or approximates truth: We have no way to know if what we currently believe about any particular aspect of the natural world is the final word on the subject -- or if it will someday be thoroughly transformed in the light of new discoveries, more powerful analytical tools, and more accurate measurements.
Metaphors and analogies are useful, sometimes even powerful cognitive tools, if we know them for what they are. In this case, though, we're talking about the leftover intellectual baggage of a failed romance between science and wishful thinking. The notion that science yields certain knowledge was incorrect, and trying to save the concept of truth, by reducing it's role to that of a goal we approach but can never reach, merely clouds the issue without solving the problem. The concept of truth, even in that much attenuated form, still fails to contribute meaningfully to our understanding of science and how it. works.
http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/limits-of-logic.htm
~~~
When anecdotal evidence in one direction is overwhelming, one would think there would be some actual real world evidence to contradict it, if one wants to claim scientific knowledge.
Lacking this, I see nothing except conjecture. Educated guesses that contradict actual real world experiences.
