II. Scientists must create operational definitions of the terms
they wish to use so they can communicate effectively with themselves, with
other scientists, and with nonscientists. [2 & 3]
Operational definitions are definitions which
present the observations and/or measurements [descriptions] of the people/objects/events
who/which are natural phenomena; operational definitions can be used to
define complex and abstract concepts, principles and techniques. [ 2, 3 &
4] For example, children often use sentence structures of "_____ [concept/principle
being defined] is when _____ [observation/measurement/description of the actions/reactions
of people/objects/events being operationally defined]." A child may create
an operational definition of love in the following way: "Love
is when someone says they like you and they do nice things for you and
with you ." The child's observation/measurement/description of the
actions/reactions of someone who loves provides an operational definition
of the term love .
III. Scientists must follow the scientific method in determining
the causality of people/objects/events.
IV. Scientific Proof:
A. Physical Evidence: People/things/events who/which can be seen/heard/touched/smelled/tasted and thus observed and measured directly or indirectly through the use of machines such as telescopes/microscopes/audio amplifiers/etc., or who/which can be inferred by their observed/measured/verified effects upon natural/physical phenomena (people/objects/events comprised of matter/energy and who/which therefore exist in contrast to being the subject matter/content of ideas/dreams/fantasies/etc.)
B. Eyewitness Reports: Testimonies by credible individuals (individuals not known to lie or deceive, and who have no known reasons/motivation to lie or deceive) corroborated by corroborating reports by credible corroborators.
C. Logical Arguments: Arguments in which premises which are verifiable/falsifiable/verified lead logically to conclusions which are true if the premises are true; wherein the premises must answer the begged question: Is this premise true?; wherein verification of the premises must be based upon physical evidence and/or eyewitness reports.
V. Scientists must list the scientific principles they have determined to be scientific principles/laws of nature, so other people can know what the scientists claim to be knowledge. Moreover, scientists must publish/present the observations and measurements of natural phenomena (units of study) by which they created and by which they confirmed/verified their causal hypotheses in order that other scientists may replicate/duplicate their observations and measurements to confirm/deny their causal hypotheses and claims of scientific principles.
When scientists are required to provide detailed descriptions of their
observations and experiments, other scientists can replicate their observations
and experiments and thereby confirm their claims of scientific knowledge.
By this process of constant checking of claims of knowledge, the Code of
Science and the scientific method produce an increasing body of scientific
knowledge. Scientific knowledge created by scientists who follow the Code
of Science and the scientific method may overturn the claims of "experts"
or "authorities" including priests. That has happened throughout the centuries.
People must have the truth--the facts--for making rational decisions, and
the Code of Science including the scientific method offers a way to discover
and learn the truth/facts that is more reliable than the claims of those who
refuse to observe and experiment with the real world people/objects/events
who/which are natural phenomena.
Notes:
[1] Charles Proteus Steinmetz.
Four Lectures on Relativity and Space.
Dover Publications, Inc., 180 Varick Street, New York, NY 10014 1967
pp. 49–50.
The fundamental law of physics is the law of inertia. "A body keeps the same
state as long as there is no cause to change its state." That is, it remains
at rest or continues the same kind of motion—that is, motion with the same
velocity in the same direction—until some cause changes it, and such cause
we call a 'force.' " [Quotes in the original, but not attributed to anyone.]
This is really not merely a law of physics, but it is the fundamental law
of logic. It is the law of cause and effect: "Any effect must have a cause,
and without cause there can be no effect." This is axiomatic and is the fundamental
conception of all knowledge, because all knowledge consists in finding the
cause of some effect or the effect of some cause, and therefore must presuppose
that every effect has some cause, and inversely. [Quotes in the original
but not attributed to anyone.]
[2] Stanovich, Keith
How To Think Straight About Psychology
Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL, 1989
“... In short, the explanation of phenomena, not the analysis of language,
is the goal of the scientist. The key to progress in all the sciences has
been to abandon essentialism and to adopt operationalism ... . [p. 39.]
Where ... does the meaning of concepts in science come from if not from
discussions about language? What are the criteria for the appropriate usage
of a scientific concept? To answer these questions, we must discuss operationism,
an idea that is crucial for the construction of theory in science, and one
that is especially important for evaluating theoretical claims in psychology.”
[p. 39.]
“Although there are different forms of operationism, it is most useful
... to think of it in the most general way. Operationism is simply the idea
the concepts in scientific theories must in some way be grounded in, or
linked to, observable events that can be measured. Linking the concept to
an observable event is the operational definition of a concept and makes
the concept public. The operational definition removes the concept from
the feelings and intuitions of a particular individual and allows it to
be tested by anyone who can carry out the measurable operations.” [p. 39.]
“The link between concepts and observable operations can vary greatly in
[the] degree of directness or indirectness. Some scientific concepts are
defined almost entirely by observable operations in the real world. [Other]
concepts [are] defined only partially by these direct links. ...[The] use
of some concepts is determined by both a set of operations and the particular
concept’s relationship to other theoretical constructs. [There] are concepts
that are not directly defined by observable operations but are linked to
other concepts that are. These have only an indirect operational definition,
one that comes from other concepts that are defined more directly by observable
operations.” [p. 40.]
“Thus, although theoretical concepts differ in how closely they are linked
to observations, all concepts acquire their meaning partially through their
link to such observations, a point emphasized by noted Harvard philosopher
W. V. Quine: ‘The sentences of science, no matter how theoretical, acquire
what meaning they have through a network of sentence-to-sentence links whose
starting point is sensory stimulation. All evidence for the truth of a scientific
theory, moreover, is drawn from sensory observation through the same network.’
(1985, p. 32.) In short, operationism, not debate about language, determines
the meaning of concepts in science.” [p. 40.]
“[Operationism] is not unique to psychology. It is characteristic of all
sciences. ... This is what makes possible the public nature of science,
one of its defining features. Two different scientists agree on the same
operational definition so that is possible for one to replicate the other’s
results.” [p. 43.]
[3] Greene, Brian
The Elegant Universe
Vintage Books, Random House, Inc. New York, 2000
p. 249.
The most meaningful definitions in physics are those that are operational—that
is, definitions that provide a means, at least in principle, for measuring
whatever is being defined. After all, no matter how abstract a concept is,
having an operational definition allows us to boil down its meaning to an
experimental procedure for measuring its value.
[4] Greene, Brian
The Elegant Universe
Vintage Books, Random House, Inc. New York, 2000
p. 203
"The physicist Ernest Rutherford once said, in essence, that if you can't
explain a result in simple, nontechnical terms, then you really don't understand
it. He wasn't saying that this means your result is wrong; rather, he was
saying that it means you do not fully understand its origin, meaning, or
implications."