Q: Is a scientific method a body of techniques for investigating phenomena? ¶
A: Yes, and acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
Q: Is a scientific method often presented as a fixed sequence of steps? ¶
A: Yes, and it represents rather a set of general principles.
Q: Is a scientific method not a single recipe: it requires intelligence? ¶
A: Yes, and imagination, and creativity.
Q: Is a scientific method thus what make it well suited for identifying such persistent systematic errors? ¶
A: Yes.
Q: Is a scientific method iterative? ¶
A: Yes.
Q: Is a scientific method the process by which science is carried out? ¶
A: Yes.
Q: Is a scientific method best suited to theoretical research, which in turn should not be trammeled by the other methods and practical ends? ¶
A: Yes, reason's "first rule" is that, in order to learn, one must desire to learn and, as a corollary, must not block the way of inquiry.
Q: Is a scientific method an iterative? ¶
A: Yes, and cyclical process through which information is continually revised.
Q: Is a scientific method more than resistant or tough – it actually benefits from such randomness in many ways? ¶
A: Yes, Taleb believes that the more anti-fragile the system, the more it will flourish in the real world.
Q: Is a scientific method used to expand the frontiers of knowledge? ¶
A: Yes, and research into areas that are outside the mainstream will yield most new discoveries.
Q: Is a scientific method often presented as a fixed sequence of steps? ¶
A: Yes, and these actions are better considered as general principles.
Q: Is a scientific method subject to peer review for possible mistakes? ¶
A: Yes.
Q: Is a scientific method yester-year's debate? ¶
A: Yes, and the continuation of which can be summed up as yet more of the proverbial deceased equine castigation.
Q: Is a scientific method employed not only by a single person? ¶
A: Yes, but also by several people cooperating directly or indirectly.