Scientific Method - Revision history

Aardvark: Text replacement - "|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein↵|username=EricRWeinstein" to "|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein |username=ericweinstein"

2026-05-06T00:41:34Z

Text replacement - "|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein↵|username=EricRWeinstein" to "|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein |username=ericweinstein"

Show changes

Pyrope at 03:36, 19 March 2026

2026-03-19T03:36:06Z

Pyrope: /* On X */

2026-03-19T03:29:48Z

On X

Show changes

Pyrope at 22:23, 16 October 2024

2024-10-16T22:23:31Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 The '''scientific method''' is the process through which ideas are turned into testable hypotheses. Naive invocation of the method is often used to suppress ideas.
 {{#widget:Tweet|id=1355932430503317505}}
 {{#widget:Tweet|id=1355932432562749444}}
@@ Line 6: / Line 14: @@
 {{#widget:Tweet|id=1355932433913266177}}
 {{#widget:Tweet|id=1355932434655707136}}
 {{Stub}}
@@ Line 11: / Line 29: @@
 [[Category:Concepts]]
 [[Category:DISC]]

Aardvark at 22:44, 14 May 2023

2023-05-14T22:44:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 14 May 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~{{Stub}}~~		The '''scientific method''' is the process through which ideas are turned into testable hypotheses. Naive invocation of the method is often used to suppress ideas.
	The '''scientific method''' is the process through which ideas are turned into testable hypotheses. Naive ~~application~~ of the method is often used to suppress ideas.

	{{#widget:Tweet\|id=1355932430503317505}}		{{#widget:Tweet\|id=1355932430503317505}}
Line 7:		Line 6:
	{{#widget:Tweet\|id=1355932433913266177}}		{{#widget:Tweet\|id=1355932433913266177}}
	{{#widget:Tweet\|id=1355932434655707136}}		{{#widget:Tweet\|id=1355932434655707136}}

			{{Stub}}

	[[Category:Concepts]]		[[Category:Concepts]]
	[[Category:DISC]]		[[Category:DISC]]

Pyrope at 05:06, 8 September 2021

2021-09-08T05:06:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:06, 8 September 2021
Line 7:		Line 7:
	{{#widget:Tweet\|id=1355932433913266177}}		{{#widget:Tweet\|id=1355932433913266177}}
	{{#widget:Tweet\|id=1355932434655707136}}		{{#widget:Tweet\|id=1355932434655707136}}

			[[Category:Concepts]]
	[[Category:DISC]]		[[Category:DISC]]

Aardvark at 23:52, 13 February 2021

2021-02-13T23:52:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:52, 13 February 2021
Line 7:		Line 7:
	{{#widget:Tweet\|id=1355932433913266177}}		{{#widget:Tweet\|id=1355932433913266177}}
	{{#widget:Tweet\|id=1355932434655707136}}		{{#widget:Tweet\|id=1355932434655707136}}
			[[Category:DISC]]

Aardvark at 21:33, 1 February 2021

2021-02-01T21:33:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 1 February 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Stub}}
	The '''scientific method''' is the process through which ideas are turned into testable hypotheses. Naive application of the method is often used to suppress ideas.		The '''scientific method''' is the process through which ideas are turned into testable hypotheses. Naive application of the method is often used to suppress ideas.

Aardvark at 17:46, 31 January 2021

2021-01-31T17:46:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:46, 31 January 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The '''scientific method''' is the process through which ideas are turned into testable hypotheses.		The '''scientific method''' is the process through which ideas are turned into testable hypotheses. Naive application of the method is often used to suppress ideas.

	{{#widget:Tweet\|id=1355932430503317505}}		{{#widget:Tweet\|id=1355932430503317505}}

Aardvark: Created page with "The '''scientific method''' is the process through which ideas are turned into testable hypotheses. {{#widget:Tweet|id=1355932430503317505}} {{#widget:Tweet|id=13559324325627..."

2021-01-31T17:45:49Z

Created page with "The '''scientific method''' is the process through which ideas are turned into testable hypotheses. {{#widget:Tweet|id=1355932430503317505}} {{#widget:Tweet|id=13559324325627..."

New page

The '''scientific method''' is the process through which ideas are turned into testable hypotheses.

{{#widget:Tweet|id=1355932430503317505}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1355932432562749444}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1355932433217069059}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1355932433913266177}}
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1355932434655707136}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:36, 19 March 2026
Line 93:		Line 93:
	\|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein		\|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
	\|username=EricRWeinstein		\|username=EricRWeinstein
	\|content=@mavericktheori1 Let’s imagine your sample set is too small to yield to statistical or scientific methods. What do you do? Do you give up? Do you complain about data? Do you resign your position? Do you call your mommy or give a note to your teacher?		\|content=@mavericktheori1 Let’s imagine your sample set is too small to yield to statistical or [[Scientific Method\|scientific methods]]. What do you do? Do you give up? Do you complain about data? Do you resign your position? Do you call your mommy or give a note to your teacher?

	Or do you suck it up and genius your way out.		Or do you suck it up and genius your way out.
Line 137:		Line 137:
	\|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein		\|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
	\|username=EricRWeinstein		\|username=EricRWeinstein
	\|content=Correct. Peer review entered only recently & devitalized science. There is now a massive campaign by people who use it to their advantage to rewrite scientific history as if it has always been there as part of the scientific method.		\|content=Correct. Peer review entered only recently & devitalized science. There is now a massive campaign by people who use it to their advantage to rewrite scientific history as if it has always been there as part of the [[Scientific Method\|scientific method]].

	This is modern propaganda. A cult. Madness.		This is modern propaganda. A cult. Madness.
Line 187:		Line 187:
	\|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein		\|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
	\|username=EricRWeinstein		\|username=EricRWeinstein
	\|content=So why do we keep making this error. Because the real issue is keeping out bad ideas and keeping order. The Scientific Method can be invoked selectively against loons and heretics and suspended selectively for those we believe in. Read Dirac on Schrodinger. Or Einstein&Grossman.		\|content=So why do we keep making this error. Because the real issue is keeping out bad ideas and keeping order. The [[Scientific Method]] can be invoked selectively against loons and heretics and suspended selectively for those we believe in. Read Dirac on Schrodinger. Or Einstein&Grossman.
	\|timestamp=5:34 PM · Jan 31, 2021		\|timestamp=5:34 PM · Jan 31, 2021
	}}		}}
Line 196:		Line 196:
	\|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein		\|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
	\|username=EricRWeinstein		\|username=EricRWeinstein
	\|content=The bottomline is that the scientific method doesn’t work on ideas. It only works on instantiations of ideas & executions of experiments. That is why I call the Scientific Method the “Radio Edit of Great Science”. It’s science’s Golden Calf. It isn’t how top science works at all.		\|content=The bottomline is that the [[Scientific Method\|scientific method]] doesn’t work on ideas. It only works on instantiations of ideas & executions of experiments. That is why I call the [[The Scientific Method is the Radio Edit of Great Science\|Scientific Method the “Radio Edit of Great Science”]]. It’s science’s Golden Calf. It isn’t how top science works at all.
	\|timestamp=5:34 PM · Jan 31, 2021		\|timestamp=5:34 PM · Jan 31, 2021
	}}		}}
Line 237:		Line 237:
	\|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein		\|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
	\|username=EricRWeinstein		\|username=EricRWeinstein
	\|content=Forgive my nutty belief that peer review in science has more to do with Ghislaine Maxwell’s father’s diabolical scheme to gouge scientific publishing for ravenous rent extraction than the scientific method & innovation.		\|content=Forgive my nutty belief that peer review in science has more to do with Ghislaine Maxwell’s father’s diabolical scheme to gouge scientific publishing for ravenous rent extraction than the [[Scientific Method\|scientific method]] & innovation.

	What did science ever do before Peer Review? Amiright? ;-)		What did science ever do before Peer Review? Amiright? ;-)
Line 251:		Line 251:

	I’d like to apologize for my informed & researched view which flies in the face of your common knowledge that Peer Review has always been essential in science. https://t.co/YImiToCPkg		I’d like to apologize for my informed & researched view which flies in the face of your common knowledge that Peer Review has always been essential in science. https://t.co/YImiToCPkg
	\|media=~~EricRWeinstein~~-X-post-1407607032853766150-E4jTIlqXwAQPW9L.jpg		\|media=ERW-X-post-1407607032853766150-E4jTIlqXwAQPW9L.jpg
	\|timestamp=7:50 AM · Jun 23, 2021		\|timestamp=7:50 AM · Jun 23, 2021
	}}		}}
Line 264:		Line 264:
	\|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein		\|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
	\|username=EricRWeinstein		\|username=EricRWeinstein
	\|content=The scientific method violates Twitters Terms of Service. CNN spreads vaccine hesitancy.		\|content=The [[Scientific Method\|scientific method]] violates Twitters Terms of Service. CNN spreads vaccine hesitancy.

	Can we stop forcing smart people to pretend that these vaccines are simply a slam dunk? I’d like to hear everything Pfizer, Fauci, et al really know about what isn’t working so well.		Can we stop forcing smart people to pretend that these vaccines are simply a slam dunk? I’d like to hear everything Pfizer, Fauci, et al really know about what isn’t working so well.
Line 291:		Line 291:
	\|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein		\|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
	\|username=EricRWeinstein		\|username=EricRWeinstein
	\|content=Excited to see this from @DrBrianKeating. The most interesting aspect here is that Brian is more steeped in theory than many experimentalists, and, as a student of Galileo, is keenly aware of some of the new challenges to what typically gets called “the scientific method”.		\|content=Excited to see this from @DrBrianKeating. The most interesting aspect here is that Brian is more steeped in theory than many experimentalists, and, as a student of Galileo, is keenly aware of some of the new challenges to what typically gets called [[Scientific Method\|“the scientific method”]].
	\|timestamp=5:59 PM · Nov 26, 2021		\|timestamp=5:59 PM · Nov 26, 2021
	}}		}}
Line 350:		Line 350:
	\|content=Thought experiment: how would we study them if they were not only unexpectedly smarter than us, but also determined to study us before we understood them?		\|content=Thought experiment: how would we study them if they were not only unexpectedly smarter than us, but also determined to study us before we understood them?

	The general question is this: will the scientific method work w/o alteration on avoidant system of higher intelligence?		The general question is this: will the [[Scientific Method\|scientific method]] work w/o alteration on avoidant system of higher intelligence?
	\|timestamp=6:50 PM · Jan 19, 2022		\|timestamp=6:50 PM · Jan 19, 2022
	}}		}}
Line 421:		Line 421:
	That is simply untrue. I mean it sounds superficially reasonable in a kind of Wolfgang Pauli hard ass way…but it is clearly wrong. And I gave 3 examples which I could be sure we both knew. I could have given 10 more without too much effort. Feel free to challenge them.		That is simply untrue. I mean it sounds superficially reasonable in a kind of Wolfgang Pauli hard ass way…but it is clearly wrong. And I gave 3 examples which I could be sure we both knew. I could have given 10 more without too much effort. Feel free to challenge them.

	Combatting this hardline belief and any simplistic reliance on the Scientific Method was the entire point of Dirac’s famous 1963 essay quote about mathematical beauty being more important than agreement with experiment. We don’t appreciate Dirac’s revolutionary point if all we repeat is the quote. Here is the context for the quote which makes the argument against the danger of letting experiment or consistency dictate that something is ‘fundamentally wrong’ as you say in your reponse to Elon:		Combatting this hardline belief and any simplistic reliance on the [[Scientific Method]] was the entire point of Dirac’s famous 1963 essay quote about mathematical beauty being more important than agreement with experiment. We don’t appreciate Dirac’s revolutionary point if all we repeat is the quote. Here is the context for the quote which makes the argument against the danger of letting experiment or consistency dictate that something is ‘fundamentally wrong’ as you say in your reponse to Elon:

	“I think there is a moral to this story, namely that it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment. If Schrodinger had been more confident of his work, he could have published it some months earlier, and he could have published a more accurate equation. That equation is now known as the Klein-Gordon equation, although it was really discovered by Schrodinger, and in fact was discovered by Schrodinger before he discovered his nonrelativistic treatment of the hydrogen atom. It seems that if one is working from the point of view of getting beauty in one's equations, and if one has really a sound insight, one is on a sure line of progress. If there is not complete agreement between the results of one's work and experiment, one should not allow oneself to be too discouraged, because the discrepancy may well be due to minor features that are not properly taken into account and that will get cleared up with further developments of the theory.”		“I think there is a moral to this story, namely that it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment. If Schrodinger had been more confident of his work, he could have published it some months earlier, and he could have published a more accurate equation. That equation is now known as the Klein-Gordon equation, although it was really discovered by Schrodinger, and in fact was discovered by Schrodinger before he discovered his nonrelativistic treatment of the hydrogen atom. It seems that if one is working from the point of view of getting beauty in one's equations, and if one has really a sound insight, one is on a sure line of progress. If there is not complete agreement between the results of one's work and experiment, one should not allow oneself to be too discouraged, because the discrepancy may well be due to minor features that are not properly taken into account and that will get cleared up with further developments of the theory.”
Line 471:		Line 471:
	We agreed, for the most part, not to elect utopians. We agreed to a measure of pro-social hypocrisy (e.g. “free speech” with speech restrictions, prohibiting violent jihad despite a 1st amendment protection for all religions, moderately regulated free markets). We agreed on underdogs. Etc.		We agreed, for the most part, not to elect utopians. We agreed to a measure of pro-social hypocrisy (e.g. “free speech” with speech restrictions, prohibiting violent jihad despite a 1st amendment protection for all religions, moderately regulated free markets). We agreed on underdogs. Etc.

	So while everyone one else is trying to sell you on free speech or expertise or journalistic standards or the scientific method or whatever….I’ll sit over here and try to wait it out.		So while everyone one else is trying to sell you on free speech or expertise or journalistic standards or the [[Scientific Method\|scientific method]] or whatever….I’ll sit over here and try to wait it out.

	The secret of what made America great, as I see it, had a lot to do with culture and taste. It had to do with being smart, mildly hypocritical, religious without being doctrinaire, open without being wildly open, welcoming without being a doormat, progressive without being psychotic, conservative without being reactionary, modest in interventionism without being isolationist.		The secret of what made America great, as I see it, had a lot to do with culture and taste. It had to do with being smart, mildly hypocritical, religious without being doctrinaire, open without being wildly open, welcoming without being a doormat, progressive without being psychotic, conservative without being reactionary, modest in interventionism without being isolationist.
Line 509:		Line 509:
	\|content=Actually, if you parse carefully you’ll see that the freeways are fine. We drew the wrong inferences from choosing the wrong exits.		\|content=Actually, if you parse carefully you’ll see that the freeways are fine. We drew the wrong inferences from choosing the wrong exits.

	Freeways = Ideas		Freeways = Ideas</br>
	Exits = Instantiations		Exits = Instantiations

	The scientific method too often has a flaw when put into practice. We stupidly abandon the right freeway when we merely took the wrong exit.		The [[Scientific Method\|scientific method]] too often has a flaw when put into practice. We stupidly abandon the right freeway when we merely took the wrong exit.

	Take care my silicon friend. Chag Sameach.		Take care my silicon friend. Chag Sameach.
Line 676:		Line 676:

	Effective Field Theory says “Be modest and learn to live with lack of unique UV completion and a rambling effective Standard Model so many orders of energy away from the Planck Scale because it can’t be guessed from so far away.”		Effective Field Theory says “Be modest and learn to live with lack of unique UV completion and a rambling effective Standard Model so many orders of energy away from the Planck Scale because it can’t be guessed from so far away.”
	\|media=~~EricRWeinstein~~-X-post-1986803710551290047-G5KLccDboAAWxiM.jpg		\|media=ERW-X-post-1986803710551290047-G5KLccDboAAWxiM.jpg
	\|timestamp=2:31 PM · Nov 07, 2025		\|timestamp=2:31 PM · Nov 07, 2025
	}}		}}
Line 731:		Line 731:
	\|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein		\|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
	\|username=EricRWeinstein		\|username=EricRWeinstein
	\|content=@grok Okay @grok. Are you familiar with the de facto critique of the limitations of the scientific method the great Paul Dirac slipped into an article he wrote for Scientific American in 1963? Specifically illustrated with Schrödinger’s hesitation to be minorlu wrong in print?		\|content=@grok Okay @grok. Are you familiar with the de facto critique of the limitations of the [[Scientific Method\|scientific method]] the great Paul Dirac slipped into an article he wrote for Scientific American in 1963? Specifically illustrated with Schrödinger’s hesitation to be minorlu wrong in print?
	\|timestamp=3:07 PM · Nov 07, 2025		\|timestamp=3:07 PM · Nov 07, 2025
	}}		}}