Traditionally–going back to the classics of Ancient Greece–the classification was based on the subject of study such as zoology, psychology, physics, chemistry etc.

In this century most studies are multi-disciplinary and a new system of classification of sciences is very necessary. The first thing one should take into account now is not the subject but the scientist, the mind of the scientist is the primary concern.

These scientific minds are attached to bodies that drive cars etc. and need money, these bodies carry IDs and are subject to governments and other pressure groups.

Most scientific endeavors are multi-disciplinary, therefore the key classification of science now becomes:

A) Public Science

this is what is done and published by independent individuals, scientists at universities and is published in books that can be found in the public domain, moderately financed. It is what one sees in such magazins as New Scientist, Scientific American etc.

B) Private Science

this is the advanced science and research known and done by scientists of the military, governmental, ‘national security’ guarded establishments and/or contractors, it is highly protected and secret and there are no known limits to funding.

One could also say there are free scientists and ‘captive’ scientists. Some scientists are free in the start of their careers and cease to be so. Victor Schauberger, who was forced to work for the Nazis was a typical example. There are also scientists who self-determinedly choose to work for governments, some captive scientists are posing as free scientists, just as is the case with their journalistic colleagues. And there are fortunately still a few advanced scientists, usually not main stream, who made it anyway into the public domain.

But keep the above separation in science in mind, it is symptomatic of the contemporary competitive culture on Earth.

de Nada

In this article I will argue that it is urgently necessary to discard the phrase in the title. When we speak of the scientific method in this day and age, we mean the following:

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge and obtaining the necessary permissions and financial support for the whole setup. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

The first italicized part of the above definition is usually omitted, but is the actual context of modern scientific inquiry. This means that to evaluate scientific results means that the policies of sources of university funding, corporate funding, government funding as well as specific research project funding have to be taken into account.

Another even more important aspect becomes visible once we examine the key concepts which are the empirical and the measurable. In other words objective. If empirical and measurable are defined within the context of the human senses and the conceived three dimensional reality, science could never advance beyond these artificial limits.

Since the emergence of quantum physics we know that the results of ‘empirical’ observation and experimentation can only be interpreted in the context of the observer, which introduces a certain subjectivity. It has even become scientifically questionable to assume the very existence of an objective universe.

A generalization of the scientific method therefore would have to include evidence in a broader category. Consciousness for example is something that cannot be proven to exist in the former scientific sense. This is based on the fact that consciousness itself is part of the proof.

Let us assume the following definition of science:”Science is the consideration and action of forming conceptual systems of comprehension of different aspects of reality. Sciences are systematic conceptualizations.”

Taking off from this definition of science any reality could be the subject of scientific inquiry. Therefore I propose to include anything that can be experienced as reality to be a valid domain of inquiry and therefore evidence that can be experienced and shared should be taken into account.

So let us stop using the extremely provincial phrase, “The Scientific Method” realizing it is just A scientific method and instead opt for many scientific methods. This would do more justice to the very definition of science itself which means – etymologically- just knowing.

Therefore what is known as official science can now officially be suspected of being, slanted by the context of financial interests as well as the self-imposed limitation of only accepting evidence from a viewpoint that does not even include consciousness itself.

As has been said many times ‘Context is the key’.

Science is the consideration and action of forming conceptual systems of comprehension of different aspects of reality. Sciences are systematic conceptualizations.

de Nada