What are the weaknesses of the scientific method?

Answer 1

Hummmm? Hard to say really. Every time we run into a stumbling block another form of reasoning takes over.
I.E. Deductive reasoning states that if the premises are true then the conclusion has to be true.
But this form of reasoning has it`s limitations - in that it cannot postulate the existence of things unknown, unseen, unobserved.
But then non-deductive inferences take over. Such as inductive and abductive inferences. These two have their limitations in that they only make there conclusions probable by stating one hypothesis is more probable than the other. Arguments from analogy are judged by there strength or weakness by stating the target object T is similar to the Subject S by (N) degree.
Judging from the outside it is beginning to look full proof.

Where is the weakness? I`m afraid this question is beginning to haunt me.

Answer 2

When the data accumulated is "selective," then conclusions drawn become scarred. I'm waiting for scientists (not all, but some) who'll actually look at the literal tsunami of evidence in SUPPORT of UFOs and draw the inescapable conclusion that, hey, some of these HAVE to be real. (Some scientisits HAVE drawn that conclusion, and others are certain further investigation is warranted..but you don't hear about them much...only the hilarious superskeptics.)

Example? The 1966-68 Condon Commission on UFOs investigated some 12,000 + sightings and other reports....21.5% came up "unidentified" and another 9% were "insuffucient data"..almost 31 PERCENT of the cases had NO ANSWER. Did the Commission decide on further study, as any scientist with a working brain would minimally and logically conclude? NO..they went with the 70% they could "explain" instead and essentially gave UFOs no serious thought . A total joke.

It should be noted this Commission was a "setup". Its director, a physicist named Dr. Edward Condon was a UFO skeptic and told reporters, a month before the Commission even convened, that his job was to "debunk UFOs". As a result of this ridiculous remark getting into the papers, several Commission scientists immediately quit in protest ......so much for the conclusions, from an effort whose impetus started with an honest Michigan Congressman named.... ..Gerald Ford...whose own Mich. State Univ. was buzzed by UFOs in 1966, scaring hundreds of co-eds there, and it was all explained away as "swamp gas" by the Governments' UFO"investigator" Dr. J. Allen Hynek, who later quit the Government himself after finally realizing the Air Force was disallowing him access to the "real" cases. He then established his own Center For UFO Studies (CUFOS), which still exists today, 20 years after his passing.

So......the method sounds good, but if all data isn't given a fair chance, the conclusions are flawed..sometimes the data is good but the conclusions are c wrong or mistakenly misdirected, ie, flawed anyway!

Answer 3

The main problem it that it is a word used by people who do not understand it, to shoot it down.

Science, and not pseudo-science, is a process that slowly spirals upwards, with theories, which are tested and built upon to ask new questions.

When a theory is proved wrong, it is a success in science, for it opens up a new area of research, to find a way to correct the original model.

However, the openness of the system, allows critics to poke holes within it, and for others to attach wild ideas into the holes and try and justify their untested theorems as science.

Too many scientist are being held back by individuals who - unable to comprehend the basic concepts, tie them up with silly questions they can little comprehend themselves. Science is the victim of the devils advocates of outdated religions myths.

Answer 4

Fails to consider gut instinct.... you can't always have scientific proof of everything can you? There are such things as intuition... emotions.... feelings... and that "sixth" sense some people seem to have.

MOST scientific methodology is merely testing out a hypotheses.... and you tend to then end up with a "significant" difference between your set hypotheses and the null one or not.

Answer 5

Starting with the presupposition that the scientific way of viewing the world is the only way there is

Answer 6

the main weakness to the method is human nature.the scientist/s will tend to have preconceived ideas what the experiment is to `prove`.this will often make the facts fit their `ideal` rather than the `truth`

Answer 7

They have to rewrite their scientific books all too often,proving it was not scientific in the first place.

Answer 8

Human weakness to influence results.

Answer 9

It doesn't take into account the person, the subject, it's all away from an individual centered perspective, it's all mesurable not taking into account humanistic variables that influentiate things and are not mesurable.

Answer 10

Its dogged commitment to empiricism and naturalism.