II. THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
II.1. What is the scientific method?
The first characteristic of the scientific method is its conventional nature which serves as a framework of the generation of objective knowledge. That is why multiple characteristics exist according to the perspective with which they are classified, studied, and even named.
The expression scientific method is used with different meanings, and, very often, abuses it in order to justify a specific personal or social position with relative ignorance about the complexity of the concept. As its very name indicates, it represents the methodology that defines and differentiates scientific knowledge from other types of knowledge.
The philosophy of science creates the scientific method in order to exclude all that has subjective nature and, therefore, is not capable of forming part of what is called scientific knowledge. In the last analysis, that which is accepted by common sense itself is why it obtains general acceptance by the scientific community and society.
Clearly not everyone will agree with the previous paragraph as there are various trends of the philosophy of science that are, in turn, derived from the different concepts about reality, perception, theories, etc.
On the other hand, we know that there are things whose nature is precisely subjective. The scientific approach to these elements is complex and normally carried out through the lesser scientific methods which are designed for specific branches of knowledge.
It deals with those three basic types of scientific method (inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, and hypothetic-deductive or hypothesis testing) that tend to be applied in the natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) in contrast to the commonly categorized social sciences (economics, politics, etc.) Among these methods we can cite: hermeneutical, phenomenological, dialectical, functionalism, structuralism, etc.
What is scientific method? Actually, despite receiving the same designation as scientific methods, we are referring to things that are no longer different but situated on a different scale. Paradoxically, if we talk about the world of transportation technology, these nominative clones were referred to in a case as types of basic parts like nuts or bolts, and in another as types of vehicles like motorcycles, cars, trucks, boats, planes, rockets, etc.
In other words, there are three basic types and the rest are types composed from the previous that try to define a complex structure and that, therefore, are found on a macroscopic scale relating to the first.
Likewise, it is obvious that the concept of time is associated with that of life and, by extension, with that of love. But the existence of love is not scientific! Nor do we know very well what life is about. And what are the vital impulse systems?
Here we come to an existential problem with certain branches of science that don’t want to and can’t recognize that life and love exist with the corresponding exercise of their freedom. It is as if freedom were the enemy of knowledge and science in that it attempts to discover laws that explain events and where it fails it imposes its personal god: randomness.
We find a prototype of agnosticism in Laplace (1749-1827) when he says: "If in a particular instance we become aware of the exact situation and velocity of all of the particles of the universe, we could deduce through calculations all of its past and future". In my opinion, this affirmation needs a greater act of faith than the contrary simply because although freedom may not be very scientific I feel deep down that it is.
Most likely, it is about time to change and perfect the very concept of science and what is the scientific method. Not always when being very orthodox or theoretically rigid best practical results are achieved; frequently, the relation is reversed when a certain limit is surpassed.