Science is a method in order to establsh certain facts into a doctrine. This method involves the process that some times runs into centuries like that of finding a God Particle in Physics. It has its own rigorous frames for an idea, fact, development, to pass through to become a doctrine.

Dear Konduri,

You are right, but doctrine without scientific method is not science. What I mean is that the essential part Of science is method. Without scientific method doctrine is simply credence. In other words, I modify your claim as follows: science is a method in order to stablish certain facts into a scientific doctrine. The same doctrine without scientific method is doctrine but it is not science.

Dear Juan-Esteban

I agree that science is a mehod not a doctrine, but do you agree with me that there are (scientific)doctrines on the(scientific) method?! This is what I have concluded from your introduction and the discussion above. I hardly know anything on the subject but your question aroused my interest. Or have I completely got it wrong?!

Your are right!!!!

Of course the scientific method is a doctrine, but it is a very special doctrine. I will try to describe its oddness.

In general, dogmatic doctrines are not falsifiable, this means that if some empiric data from Real World contradicts them, the believer negates data, but keeps his dogma.

By contrast, scientific method gives preference to data. In fact any scientific truth is the limit of an endless sequence of corrected errors. Thus, when the sequence goes forwards, there is less errors in it.

In addition, scientifc method is tested continuously. Every time that a scientific fact is corroborated empirically, it is also corroborated the underlying method; accordingly since there are a lot of scientific matter that every day is tested, every day is also tested its underlying method. For instance, if there are n scientific doctrines, and each of which is tested once a day, then scientific method is not tested once, it is tested n times.

Thank you so much. I very much appreciate the explanation. I now have a much better grasp of the topic.

I do not agree "doctrine without scientific method is doctrine but it is not science" . Every hypothesis neceesites a theory (i.e doctrine), For example your formulas are not the proof of gravity. They explain possibliity of the objects that may fall down. Your observation for falling objects might be inductive knowledge for every try. It does never give scientific knowled unless you propose an univesal like Gravity rules that beyonds of observations. Gravity rules, since correceted can be used deductively... Scientific methods such as observations, calculations, comparisions are not enough to make explanations which might lead us such doctrine(s)...

Dear Buhara Yucesan,

Is your message addressed to me?

If so, I am very astonished. You have said "your formulas are not the proof of gravity"…..

Really you can find any formula of mine in my post? Notice, that in my message there is only two formulas. The first one is by Newton's and the second formula is by Einstein. By no means I have misappropriated any of them. In addition, you have said that these formulas are not the proof of gravity. As far as I can see, the only claim I have written is, that from the Newton's formula the three Kepler's laws can be deduced. No word about proving gravity I can find in my message. Perhaps there is a new scientific method, that I do not know, in which you are expert. Perhaps I am so old to know new methods….

In any case , excuse me if you do not understand my sense of humor.

Best regards

:) . Thanks for your friendly reply. Probably language problem I have encountered with. I tried to claim Science is a doctrine (almost doctrine) underlying metodology and explanations respectively. Explanatinations should derive from scientific doctrines, not the methodolgy. The method you said and my methodology as a term make that misunderstanding... nice to talk with you

This is an interesting and complex topic. There's an excellent (almost popular level) book by Alan Chalmers: "What's This Thing Called Science?", which explains the benefits and pitfalls of simple empiricism and more modern approaches to Science. As many of you know, some philosophers have claimed (and keep on claiming) that Science is actually closer to a doctrine than anything else. There are some strong arguments to this extent; even in exact (mathematical) sciences there is a disturbing social structure that somewhat resembles a religion ("Einstein is God"). To my opinion, however, this does not diminish the value of the scientific method, but just shows that Science is another human enterprise, and to err is human :). By this I don't imply that Einstein was wrong - he wasn't :).

Of course, there is a scientific method, and this is generally accepted. However, this does not defend us against a parallel fenomenon, doctrine building. There are many unproved facts (conjectures, work hypotheses, also some common sense assumptions that have been never proved) that evolved to strong doctrines that maybe restrain the evolution of science. I can give some examples. Most computer scientists believe that P =/= NP and do not try to prove the equality. P =/= NP has been a common sense assumption but proved almost impossible to be proven. The same Thing happened in the past, when allmost all people believed that PRIMES are not in P, since it has been surprisngly proven. In physics string theory became a strong doctrine, which is now more and more contradicted by facts. ETC.... Science is an Institution composed by human beings. The beliefs of leading people in this institution become obligatory for other scientists who need money or other kind of support. It is always difficult to publish if it happens to contradict the main doctrine of your peer reviewer. But I am optimist because we had faced all the time similar situations, but finally the progress succeeded to impose against false doctrines.

Dear Mihai,

I think that Science is not  what scientists believe,  but what somebody can prove.

Perhaps scientific doctrine is a shared set of beliefs held by members of the scientific community concerning the validity and utility of the scientific method. This construal supports the co-existence of a scientific doctrine and a scientific method, and poses an alternative to notion that scientific doctrine is the body of knowledge generated through scientific practice, which may be better referred to as scientific knowledge.

Science also follows some theory to rely on as well as it has most cases experimental evidence to proof the concepts.