What is the relation of reproducibility and the lack of contigencies with the scientific method?

Quantum mechanics and Statistical physics/mechanics are vurnerable/suspectible to contigencies. We have Heisenberg's Princible to thank for that and the very nature of Statistical physics/mechanics.

Relativistic physics and Astrophysics are vurnerable to the lack of reproducibility. We have not experienced ourselves or produced relativistic speeds with our current technology and we can never attain the speed of light as long as the Lorentz Transform holds. We can only observe stars we cannot reproduce them.

Photonics then are vulnerable to both. We are dealing with particles for which the Heisenberg Principle holds that travel with the speed of light that we can only "attain" by producing photons and have not yet reached relativistic speeds in any other way.

Physics is the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of science, scientific method and scientific theory.

  • 2
    Scientific method it is a loose collection of approaches that vary from discipline to discipline and change over time, there is no applying it "purely". In any case, predictivity and reproducibility depend on the nature of the subject the discipline studies, and that determines what its scientific method amounts to, not the other way around. – Conifold Mar 23 '20 at 17:55
  • 1
    Like Conifold just said, there is no such thing as a pure application of the scientific method. – Bryan Krause Mar 23 '20 at 18:34
  • 1
    @user96931 It sounds like you are agreeing with me rather than disagreeing, and yet have chosen to present that as disagreement. – Bryan Krause Mar 23 '20 at 18:43
  • 1
    @user96931 It does not seem to be self-evident to the OP, who first brought up "pure" application of the scientific method, and to whom my comment was directed. – Bryan Krause Mar 23 '20 at 18:50
  • 2
    Absolute adherence and 0 divergence are even worse, one can not absolutely adhere to and 0 diverge from a shifty cloud. There is a sensibility, somewhat outdated, positivist philosophers of science used to have that physics should be "the model" of doing science, and some characteristics of its method Wikipedia lists were elevated to a paradigm. However, they are not universal even in physics, and Wikipedia says in the paragraph right after:"Some philosophers and sociologists of science have questioned the relationship between these characteristics and perceived hardness or softness." – Conifold Mar 23 '20 at 19:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.