THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD EXPLAINED SUCCINCTLY No, given the epistemic necessity of

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD EXPLAINED SUCCINCTLY
No, given the epistemic necessity of observation, auto association, ideation, hypothesis, theory, surviving theory, where statements can be undecidable, possibly true, or decidably false, science consists of the discipline of producing testifiable testimony (empiricism) within a domain, using physical and logical instrumentation, and their use in data collection (statistical approximation), use of the epistemic sequence, until by verisimilitude (market survival from intellectual competition) we discover the first principles (irreducible laws) of recombination at that stage of constant relations (disciplines), at which point we can produce a formal operational computational (causal) logic of falsification in that domain (specialization).

Survival from falsification requires passing tests of 1) realism, 2) naturalism, 3) identity consistency (unambiguity), 4) internal (logical) consistency, 5) operational (possible) consistency 6) external (observable) consistency, 7) rational choice given knowledge in time, 8) reciprocal rational choice, 9) stated limits and full accounting within those limits (full accounting), 10) and coherence with the first principles of the lower order of constant relations and the upper order of constant relations 11) within the limits of warrantability, liability, and resetitutability.

Now to understand the first principles that are constant at all scales requires understanding ternary logic of the universe, and evolutionary computation of every set of recombinations in the hierarchy of evolutionary complexity that we call the disciplines.

There are roughly twenty laws of ternary logic of evolutionary computation in that hierarchy, covering all the sciences, both logical(formal), physical, behavioral, and evolutionary, that most people can memorize with a bit of effort.

It takes about as much effort to learn this scientific method as any other advanced stem degree, and about as much time, for the simple reason that we must overcome our natural cognitive biases more so than as in mathematics we must learn new ones, and it requires knowledge of multiple disciplines.

It is, in general, unwise to assume I ever assert anything I can’t demonstrate by construction from first principles of the laws of the universe. If I can’t I don’t claim it.

Thank you for the opportunity to demonstrate the meaning of the word ‘science’, and the scientific method.

Hopefully, you’ve learned something.

Cheers