Can we agree on this much?
Posted 19 November 2003 - 11:41 AM
The spirit of science is to search for the truth, not to substantiate a theory( I conceed this point to any skeptic). A good scientist always goes about his business with a skeptical and open mind. There's no such thing as the right answer, only an answer. In short, if you're going to get involved in amateur science, start now to rid your mind of all preconceived ideas you might have about ghosts and boogeymen.
The scientific method, which has served me well for many years, follows a few simple steps: (1) observation of a phenomenon; (2) formulation of a hypothesis to explain it; (3) analysis of the data; and (4) evaluation of the results. These are all important in the proper investigation of anything.
P.S. There may be some common ground for us all in this method, then again mabey not lol, ;D
Posted 19 November 2003 - 11:57 AM
I also think the steps taken during a police investigation are also worth bringing to the table. This may however be more tied to the interviewing portion of an investigation. YOu get the statements from the eye witnesses, thoroughly go over the location with all of the interviews in hand and walk thru the incident. Study the surroundings, environment, and every detail that could be evidence.
Map this all out, and plan an investigation around it. This is the hunting side of the research. Seeing if you can collect enough data that confirms a particular happening or event.
I think the "hunting" side of things is where you need the scientific method laid down. Then lets apply our ideas to the general protocol.
I wonder if we can do that calmly LOL!
Posted 19 November 2003 - 12:14 PM
(2) formulation of a hypothesis to explain it; (3) analysis of the data
Shouldn't the analysis of the data come before the hypothesis?
Posted 19 November 2003 - 12:26 PM
I can agree with most of this. I would expand (1) into: formulating a relevant research question based on recurrent observations of something anomalous or interesting on which systematic data are unavailable. Between (2) and (3) I would insert what seems to me the most important step: devising a way to put your hypothesis to the test, resulting in a method of datacollection that will provide optimum data to do so while also eliminating as many as possible contaminating influences.
(1) observation of a phenomenon; (2) formulation of a hypothesis to explain it; (3) analysis of the data; and (4) evaluation of the results.
I think the aim of science is to substantiate a theory rather than find the truth. I think science has reconciled itself to the fact that ´truth´ may not exist at all, and if so, is inherently unknowable. We can only approximate it through the testing of theories - and you need theories to formulate your hypotheses.
Posted 19 November 2003 - 12:33 PM
Posted 19 November 2003 - 12:35 PM
But then, I'd also like to see some real concrete data cmoe out of all this, and prove that it's NOT the plumbing or in your head. I think the biggest goal is to come across an interactive situation. Something I am working on at the moment as well ;D
Posted 05 December 2003 - 08:58 PM
Posted 06 December 2003 - 08:47 AM
What I actually did was post the definition of scientific method in order to make a point.
The point is this : The method described applies to the scientific study of any given area of research , not just paranormal phenomenon . Therefore it is the true method of finding facts and is not subject to variation unless an individual decides to do so .
I also use the described method to pattern deer and track their behavior in order to kill them [smiley=cwm19.gif] lol . [smiley=cwm4.gif]
It works well and has yeilded great results
Its simply what I have found to be the best way of doing things after 12 years of research.
Posted 06 December 2003 - 09:27 AM
Take my hand and we'll go riding through the sunshine from above
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users