This site is dedicated to the work: The rules of science.
“The rules of science” was established simply because a set of rules for science did not exist.
One could imagine that the great philosophers, or one of the scientific societies, would have left behind or made a consistent and comprehensive set of well-defined and logically valid rules for science. To my knowledge, something like this has not been made readily available.
Maybe they did not think of it, or maybe they thought that it could not be done.
I think I have demonstrated that it can be done and I think it is valuable.
Judge for yourself.
Anyhow, I would be very happy to hear about it if you know about such set of rules – leave a comment if you do.
“The rules of Science” was established by “Science or Fiction?” with invaluable criticism, guidance and support from “Gnomish”. Science or Fiction? and Gnomish do not know each other´s identity – and it doesn´t really matter. A proper argument is a proper argument – it doesn´t matter who states it.
All kinds of feedback will be welcomed.
If you have an idea for improvement, or if you think there is something wrong with the rules of science – leave a comment.
If you like this work tell others about it.
Who am I?
Does it really matter? What you see are all that counts.
Regard proper arguments as valuable.
Disregard or discredit illogical or improper arguments, regardless of who is stating them.
However – I have a university master degree in physics (5 years study).
By pure interest I also have
– 6 months worth of additional university courses in organisation psychology
(earned while working).
– been through everything on the reading list for a 1-year study in philosophy
(By pure interest after I graduated – no exam).
My profession is within measurement.
The thing about measurement is that measurement is science in a nutshell:
“A model based instrument must have a well-defined capability within a well-defined context. The instrument must be based on rules of physics that are logically valid conclusions – deduced from premises that are themselves logically valid conclusions or axioms. The instrument can only be validated by comparison of measurements by that instrument with reference measurements, so-called calibrations. Whenever measurements by that instrument differ from reference measurements by more than the combined capabilities of the instrument and the accuracy of the reference – there must be something wrong with the instrument or the test of it. Whenever an instrument is used outside the validated context – we really can not know how well it works – if it works at all. Further, data from calibrations and precise information about how that data has been obtained will be readily available for anyone having rights to the calibration report. In use, a proper measurement report should contain traceable values and units. The accuracy will be quantified and the measurands and the context should be well-defined.”
I am starting to realise that I was kind of lucky with my introductory courses to science – history of philosophy, logic, philosophy of scientific discovery, development of science. My course reached its climax with the ideas of Karl Popper and was rounded off with Kuhn´s ideas about Paradigm shifts.
Now, I was lucky that Gnomish got interested – and invested time in this work.
At the time I studied, I took for granted that every student at every University in the world was taught the same about science – that is not necessarily true. The curriculum depends on the University, the discipline and the professor. I´m not even sure that all students around the world are required to take courses within philosophy.