Authors: Alexander Krauss
Journal: PNAS Nexus
Scientific, medical, and technological knowledge has transformed our world, but we still poorly understand the nature of scientific methodology. Science textbooks, science dictionaries, and science institutions often state that scientists follow, and should follow, the universal scientific method of testing hypotheses using observation and experimentation. Yet, scientific methodology has not been systematically analyzed using large-scale data and scientific methods themselves as it is viewed as not easily amenable to scientific study. Using data on all major discoveries across science including all Nobel Prize and major non-Nobel Prize discoveries, we can address the question of the extent to which "the scientific method" is actually applied in making science's groundbreaking research and whether we need to expand this central concept of science. This study reveals that 25% of all discoveries since 1900 did not apply the common scientific method (all three features)-with 6% of discoveries using no observation, 23% using no experimentation, and 17% not testing a hypothesis. Empirical evidence thus challenges the common view of the scientific method. Adhering to it as a guiding principle would constrain us in developing many new scientific ideas and breakthroughs. Instead, assessing all major discoveries, we identify here a general, common feature that the method of science can be reduced to: making all major discoveries has required using sophisticated methods and instruments of science. These include statistical methods, particle accelerators, and X-ray methods. Such methods extend our mind and generally make observing, experimenting, and testing hypotheses in science possible, doing so in new ways and ensure their replicability. This provides a new perspective to the scientific method-embedded in our sophisticated methods and instruments-and suggests that we need to reform and extend the way we view the scientific method and discovery process.
科学、医学和技术知识已经改变了我们的世界，但我们对科学方法论的本质仍然知之甚少。科学教科书、科学词典和科学机构经常声明，科学家遵循并应该遵循利用观察和实验来检验假设的普遍科学方法。然而，由于科学方法论被认为不容易用于科学研究，因此尚未使用大规模数据和科学方法对其进行系统分析。利用科学领域所有重大发现的数据，包括所有诺贝尔奖和非诺贝尔奖的重大发现，我们可以探讨“科学方法”在开展突破性科学研究中的实际应用程度，以及我们是否需要扩展这一科学核心概念的问题。本研究发现，自1900年以来，所有发现中有25%并没有采用常用的科学方法（所有三个特征），其中6%的发现没有采用观察，23%没有采用实验，17%没有验证假设。因此，经验证据对科学方法的普遍观点提出了挑战。坚持这一指导原则将会限制我们产生许多新的科学思想和突破。相反，通过评估所有重大发现，本文确定了一个普遍的、共同的特征，即科学方法可以归纳为：形成所有重大发现都需要使用科学的精实方法和仪器。这些方法包括统计方法、粒子加速器和X射线方法。这些方法拓展了我们的思维，通常使科学中的观察、实验和验证假设成为可能，以新的方式进行，并确保它们的重现性。这为科学方法提供了一个新的视角，嵌入在我们的精实方法和仪器中，并提示我们需要改革和拓展我们看待科学方法和发现过程的方式。
（实习生周皓悦编译）
