There is no well defined "method", but there are lots of limitations in the way science is currently practised. The big ones for me are:
The topics which are actually researched - funding is complicated, but based on what is politically (due to outside funding) and socially (since individuals need to make a choice) acceptable. The funding for certain medical disorders for example is way out of wack with the expected benefits to patients.
Likewise, it is difficult to find funding for controversial studies.
Secondly, there are many biases to do with the communication of scientific knowledge.
Even on the low level, there are many flaws to do with publishing and the peer review system.
I don't have the time to go into detail, but here is a few of my bookmarks (actually, I lost all my old ones recently, so..)
http://www.the-scientist.com/templa...year=2010&page=36&month=8&o_url=2010/8/1/36/1 "I Hate Your Paper"
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010271 "Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/27/pharmaceuticalindustry "A quick fix would stop drug firms bending the truth"
I think that scientists should register there experiments and publish their hypothesis before they actually do them and are obligated to publish their results no matter how unimpressive they are. That way there can be no cherry picking of results. Often papers are watered down and different (lesser) measures of outcomes are stressed because the main outcomes did not have the expected change. I think this change in tact should be made explicit.
The problem is most journals don't want to publish unimpressive results.
There are better truth finding methods out there, most famously formal logic, but everyday empirical methods and rational ones outside of science are underestimated in how effective they can be (they are responsible for the majority of technology).
Formal logic is impotent because it deals with truths - truths that must be 'proven' by science (or other methods) first. The problem is that science doesn't prove truths. It attempts to prove them, but it doesn't ever prove them without a doubt. For a working philosophy, see
pancritical rationalism.
That said, there have been many triumphs of theoretical (hypothetical) science, so... "method", but there are lots of limitations in the way science is currently practised. The big ones for me are:
The topics which are researched - funding is complicated, but based on what is politically (due to outside funding) and socially (since individuals need to make a choice) acceptable. The funding for certain medical disorders for example is way out of wack with the expected benefits to patients.
Likewise, it is difficult to find funding for controversial studies.
Secondly, there are many biases to do with the communication of scientific knowledge.
Even on the low level, there are many flaws to do with publishing and the peer review system.
I don't have the time to go into detail, but here is a few of my bookmarks (actually, I lost all my old ones, so..)
http://www.the-scientist.com/templa...year=2010&page=36&month=8&o_url=2010/8/1/36/1 "I Hate Your Paper"
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010271 "Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data"
There are better truth finding methods out there, most famously formal logic, but everyday empirical methods and rational ones outside of science are underestimated in how effective they can be (they are responsible for the majority of technology).
Formal logic is impotent because it deals with truths - truths that must be 'proven' by science first. The problem is that science doesn't prove truths. It attempts to prove them, but it doesn't ever prove them without a doubt. For a working philosophy, see pancritical rationalism.
That said, there have been many triumphs of theoretical (hypothetical) science, so...