New Scientific Method

Obviously I have to invent a better name. Something is new only temporarily. Here I start this process of naming the baby.

Method is central for this endeavour.

I think that we have a social construct of reality. Reality in my view, is asymptotically known. Evidence shows we have changed what we mean by reality. I propose to study the method we use for this asymptotic process. This method is closer to us and we have a better chance of knowing it, than reality itself.

Methodological studies are currently being made, to name one, we have the Moscow Methodological Circle, MMC, with the late Gregory Shchedrovitsky, as its creator.

You can read about Shchedrovitsky's method in the NYT.

My hypothesis is that the scientific method, more than presently acknowledged, is a curve fitting method. The least squares method would be one of its predecessors. I also consider, that the use of instruments is fundamental to this method, and in particular, that universal computers are essential for an understanding of reality.

Another author guiding my thoughts is Oxford physics professor David Deutsch.

With so many S,C, and Hs, I should call my method, the SCH method. Maybe SHC? That will depend and which one of this gentlemen wins my heart and mind. Oh well.

We need a new demarcation principle also, Michael Schemer has one: Has to be generative. Read in Sciam what he means: [link].

"This demarcation criterion of usefulness has the advantage of being bottom-up instead of top-down, egalitarian instead of elitist, nondiscriminatory instead of prejudicial. Let science consumers in the marketplace of ideas determine what constitutes good science, starting with the scientists themselves and filtering through the editors, educators and readers. As for potential consumers of pseudo­science, that’s what skeptics are for, but as always, caveat emptor."