Suspicion, Proof and Fact

[Veritas Aequitas]

From the common and conventional perspective, yes, what constitutes a scientific fact lies outside the scientific method.

However, I presumed you are familiar with the Modern Physics of Einstein and Quantum Mechanics where the scientific facts and its referent CANNOT be independent of the Scientific Method, e.g.

• Observer_effect
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
  In physics, the observer effect is the theory that the mere observation of a phenomenon inevitably changes that phenomenon.
  
  Observation exists outside the scientific method as well considering much of what is observed does not apply the scientific method. Factuality thus lies outside the method.

What are you talking about?? observations are part and parcel processes of the Scientific Methods.

I had stated the common and conventional perspectives do take it that the referents and objects of factuality are external to the methodology.
But the degree of veracity from common and conventional methodology are not of the highest precision, i.e. crude.
Therefore you are using lower grade knowledge in trying to counter my points on the Scientific Methods which is the most reliable methodology for knowledge.

Wave function collapse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse
In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation". [/list]

In Modern Physics there is also no absolute reality but rather reality is dependent on the Model used to interact with it.

And models of observation, such as analysis as the break down of a phenomenon to its constituent parts, exist outside of the method.

Again, what are you talking about??
You are off point here.
I am talking about observations in Quantum Mechanics where the resultant referent cannot be totally independent of observations and the methodology, thus the experimenters.

• Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2] The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.[3]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

There is no model that determines the scientific method, except the scientific method which paradoxically is not applied to itself.

Again you are very lost.
The determination of the reliability of the Scientific method or any method of knowledge is based on its degree of its structure and processes that generate objectivity, testability, repeatability, falsifiability, peer review and other criteria.

Your above response is like a malfunctioned robot which goes cranky and generates all sorts of nonsensical answers and responses.

[Eodnhoj7]

From the common and conventional perspective, yes, what constitutes a scientific fact lies outside the scientific method.

However, I presumed you are familiar with the Modern Physics of Einstein and Quantum Mechanics where the scientific facts and its referent CANNOT be independent of the Scientific Method, e.g.

• Observer_effect
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
  In physics, the observer effect is the theory that the mere observation of a phenomenon inevitably changes that phenomenon.
  
  Observation exists outside the scientific method as well considering much of what is observed does not apply the scientific method. Factuality thus lies outside the method.

What are you talking about?? observations are part and parcel processes of the Scientific Methods.

Observation exists as beyond the scientific method considering the act of observation itself is not limited to the scientific method. Observation is the act of assuming a phenomenon. A form is imprinted on the formless nature of mind and is inverted into forms.

For example the form of a castle is assumed, the form is inverted into a new form abstractly such as extensions on the castle. This form then acts as a pattern for how rocks are assumed. These rocks then are empirically inverted, through the pattern assumed, into extensions of the castle.
Observation is a cycle between what is received and what is projected.

This universal cyclical nature to observation necessitates observation as ground in a form which is not testable without applying the same form used in testing on the testing itself. Observation is the creation of forms in one respect. Dually this cyclical nature of observation necessitates observation as existing through a form beyond it. Observation, as the assumption of forms, is in itself a form. Reality is a series of recursive forms.


I had stated the common and conventional perspectives do take it that the referents and objects of factuality are external to the methodology.
But the degree of veracity from common and conventional methodology are not of the highest precision, i.e. crude.
Therefore you are using lower grade knowledge in trying to counter my points on the Scientific Methods which is the most reliable methodology for knowledge.

See above. Reception and projection is the most universal act of observation. Observation is circular.

Wave function collapse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse
In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation". [/list]

In Modern Physics there is also no absolute reality but rather reality is dependent on the Model used to interact with it.

And models of observation, such as analysis as the break down of a phenomenon to its constituent parts, exist outside of the method.

Again, what are you talking about??
You are off point here.
I am talking about observations in Quantum Mechanics where the resultant referent cannot be totally independent of observations and the methodology, thus the experimenters.

The act of analysis, which is the breaking down of assumptions, exists as beyond the method thus the method is subject to a higher form or reasoning rather than the scientific method itself. Analysis, which is a universal part of observation given assumptions are broken down to further assumptions, necessitates basic observation as the grounding of truth values and what is deemed as true cannot be limited to the scientific method.

• Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2] The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.[3]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

There is no model that determines the scientific method, except the scientific method which paradoxically is not applied to itself.

Again you are very lost.
The determination of the reliability of the Scientific method or any method of knowledge is based on its degree of its structure and processes that generate objectivity, testability, repeatability, falsifiability, peer review and other criteria.

There are few to no studies done on the scientific method using the scientific method. The cycle of the method necessitates it as existing a part of the larger cycle of observation yet this cyclical nature necessitates it as having to be applied to itself. The structure of the method is not determined by any scientific application of the method on the method itself. Structure, objectivity, testability and repeatability are terms which are strictly assumed. However even though this cycle is necessary for its identity, if a cycle is applied to the method a contradiction of circularity occurs under conventional logic. It is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Your above response is like a malfunctioned robot which goes cranky and generates all sorts of nonsensical answers and responses.

How are the brain parasites going?...lol.