The rules of science v4.1 – in a nutshell

The set of rules presented herein has been established as a tool to distinguish what we know from what we do not know for sure – to distinguish science from beliefs.

§1 A scientific concept consists of a well-defined concept having a well-defined capability of prediction within a well-defined context.

§2 A scientific concept consists of statements that are logically valid conclusions – deduced from premises that are themselves logically valid conclusions or axioms.

§3 A scientific concept can only be validated by comparison of predictions deduced from that concept with measurements. Whenever predictions differs from measurements by more than the stated capabilities there is something wrong with the concept or the test of it.

§4 Data, and precise information about how that data has been obtained, must be readily available for anyone having rights to the referring document.

§5 A proper measurement report contains traceable values, units, quantified accuracy, well-defined measurands and a well-defined context.

The following set of definitions are essential for correct interpretation of these rules:
https://rulesofscience.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/the-rules-of-science-in-a-nutshell-v1-0

axiom: a statement that is self-evidently true
calibration: comparison of a measurement with a reference having a known uncertainty
capability: difference between predictions and measurements
comparison: quantification of the difference between
concept: any expression of a relationship between two or more measurands
context: a set of those things that have an influence on the predicted value
data: measured or predicted value of a measurand – or a relationship between measurands
deduction: logically valid combination of premises into a conclusion by means of mathematics and logic
definition: identification of the set of properties that distinguish a measurand or a concept from all others
false: a statement that can be contradicted, within the defined context, by a logically valid statement
logically valid: the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion – it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.
mathematics: a consistent and logically valid system of symbols and operations on these symbols
measurand: well-defined property that can be quantified
measurement: quantify a measurand by an enumerated multiple of a unit
precise information: sufficient for replication by independent persons using similar tools.
prediction: quantification of a measurand without any foreknowledge about an eventual measurement result
readily available: available, without further request, by anyone having rights to the referring document
reference: a reference measurement having an unbroken chain of calibrations to the definition of the unit.
relationship: a quantified change in measurand A is followed by a quantified change in measurand B
statement: a logical proposition that can be either true or false within the defined context
test: an activity that can verify a part of a concept
traceable: having an unbroken chain of calibrations to the definition of the unit
true: a statement that can not be contradicted, within the defined context, by a logically valid statement
unit: a well-defined quantity that has one unique value
validated: confirm the truth of a concept within a well-defined context
verify: demonstrate the truth of
wrong: not true

Epilogue

This is the nutshell version of:
https://rulesofscience.wordpress.com/2016/12/08/the-rules-of-science-v4-1

This work can be reproduced on the condition that the original source is identified by a link to: https://rulesofscience.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/the-rules-of-science-in-a-nutshell-v1-0
is included and provided together with the reproduced material.

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “The rules of science v4.1 – in a nutshell

  1. now this is one step away from perfection – half a step, maybe.
    the real beef is in the glossary where the parsing is a masterpiece of logical clockworks.

    at this stage, for me to make any additional comments will require serious focus and even so will probably be somewhat trifling matters because the thing is in fine shape now and the quality is in every part as one dissects and inspects it.

    this degree of self consistency is beautiful, by definition, and especially to the ocd epistemologists in the family…lol
    so let me approach this after a good sleep so i can gather both my wits and try to do it justice.

    it’s been great to watch it grow.
    when you know that you know what you know and you know how you know it- that makes you mohs 12.
    you can’t be fucked with.
    and it doesn’t end there. you have proven that your mind is competent to deal with anything. just avoid kryptonite and you’re golden – forevar!

    Liked by 1 person

    • This would not have looked anything like this without your critical eyes, guidance and support. Thanks a lot.

      Some small adjustments now, to remove grammatical mistakes and other inconsistencies that makes the reader stop and think about inconsistencies rather than what the rules and the definitions implies.

      I´m probably blinded by my own work right now. I will have to let it rest for some day´s before I review it again.

      Like

    • I think that there are 3 things that can demonstrate that there is something wrong with these rules:
      – A concept that is known to be true that can not comply with these rules
      – A concept that is known to be wrong that complies with these rules
      – A demonstration that the rules are not logically valid

      Like

  2. the only comment i find to make concerns:

    §4 Data, and precise information about how that data has been obtained, must be readily available for anyone having rights to the referring document.

    “for a theory to be verifiable it must include the data and information on how it was obtained”

    (that’s a logical proposition rather than a commandment)
    (any issue of ‘intellectual property’ is not relevant to science)

    & maybe #5 can be polished up a little…

    after a break to let it all get digested, you know…

    Like

    • Very good!

      I agree that Intellectual Property is not relevant to science. I will remove: «by anyone having rights to the referring document».

      Since the term “theory” has not been defined – and may not have to be – I suggest that the following rule might do the job:

      «A scientific statement is verifiable, data and precise information about how that data was obtained are readily available for independent verification.»

      readily available: available without further request

      The format will then be more in line with §1 and §2. That format will also make it easier to memorize the rules.

      Further, i think this paragraph should be §3.

      I also like that the term «verify» is now more central. I have had this feeling that it should be more central in the rules – now it is.

      Like

      • A proper measurement report contains traceable values, units, quantified accuracy, well-defined measurands and a well-defined context.

        verifiable data requires well defined measurands, a well defined context and traceable measurements of specified accuracy.
        ?

        Like

      • §2 A scientific concept consists of statements that are logically valid conclusions – deduced from premises that are themselves logically valid conclusions or axioms.

        §2 A scientific argument consists of clearly stated premises, propositions and conclusions.
        conclusions are deduced by an explicit application of previously proven properties, theorems and axioms.

        just messing around…

        Like

        • I can need som help with definition of “proposition” there are lots od definitions around for that word.

          Also, “premise”, “conclusion” and “property” are not yet in the list over definitions. I imagine that you might have these terms defined in your glossary?

          Like

        • “proposition”, “premise”, “conclusion” and “property”

          premise: the logical basis of an hypothesis consisting of axioms and statements which are already verified
          also: the reason for bothering about this hypothesis in the first place

          proposition: you already have this:
          statement: a logical proposition that can be either true or false within the defined context

          conclusion: deduction made from the result of testing an hypothesis

          property, in this sense: an attribute of an entitiy or of the relationship between or among entities

          Liked by 1 person

  3. #2 is about the means and methods of an investigation, i think. it’s not a ‘subsidiary’ rule…
    it looks like the particular one that a person will look at as the ‘short short checklist’ when he evaluates a report of an investigation.
    is the reason for the investigation stated? (premises… context…)
    is it clear what is being tested? (propositions… )
    are conclusions logical? (and is that presented plainly…)

    Like

    • because rule #2 is your declaration of the scientific argument of the science of science.
      it’s the self referential nucleus.
      first and foremost your premise, your proposition and your conclusion are stated and must recapitulate its own definition.
      that’s why it’s ‘teh rule (of rules)’ and belongs first.

      Like

    • Sorry for late response. I noticed and paid attention to all your comments soon after they arrived – I have no objection to the meaning of your proposals – it just takes me some time to free my mind from a few earlier constraints and try out a variety of ways to put It.

      I am striving for a simple and consistent set of rules – a set without duplication – a set where every significant word is defined. I´m striving for a set of rules that I can read through without hesitating one moment about what I read. I would like every single rule to be like a direct hit with a hammer – driving a nail into the coffin of pseudo-science.

      It just takes some time.

      Like

  4. i can see the final shape emerging. it’s almost there. give it all the time it wants. nobody cares about sweat, blood and tears – only that you got it.
    whoever gets it wins.

    Liked by 1 person

    • New version:
      https://rulesofscience.wordpress.com/2016/12/22/the-rules-of-science-v5/

      I ended up with smaller chunks – but more rules this time. I´m happy with having a rule for scientific arguments now, and I´m also happy with having the terms “verify” and “validate” on board. Engineers (good engineers that is) will recognize these terms from ISO 9000 – where the terms can be interpreted along the following lines:

      Verification is the confirmation that a product meets identified specifications.
      Validation is confirmation that a product appropriately meets its design function or the intended use.

      “Obviously, almost all properly designed products will pass validation testing if they pass verification testing. But, some products are difficult or impossible to verify by the manufacturer. For example, the engine mounts on a car. Their design function is to physically support the engine and decouple engine vibration from the chassis. The only way to validate the engine mount is to assemble it in a car and determine if it isolates engine vibration. None of the specification testing (verification) can absolutely assure that the mount will provide sufficient vibration decoupling (validation).”
      Ref.: http://www.iigsystems.com/pdf/Verification%20vs%20Validation.pdf

      I still got to read through the whole thing a dozen times and check that the definitions serve the intended purpose. I will also have to check through the definitions to see that the definitions comply with common definitions of the words. It might still be a bit premature, but I would like you to see this version now.

      Thanks again for engaging – I wish you a merry Christmas 🙂

      Like

Leave a Reply

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s