A
meta‑methodological framework arguing that “the scientific method” is not a
single, universal procedure but a family of practices each operating under specific parameters (hypothesis formulation, experimental design, data analysis) and reference frames (disciplinary norms, available technology). Different fields use different methods, and
even within a field, methods evolve. The theory advocates for methodological pluralism and transparency about which method‑frame is being employed.
Example: “The theory of parameters and reference frames of the scientific method explains why a
field ecologist’s methods differ from a molecular biologist’s – they operate in different frames, each appropriate to its domain.”
Theory of Parameters and Reference Frames of Scientific Consensus
A framework that
treats scientific consensus as a phenomenon relative to specific parameters (which scientists are included, what counts as agreement, how consensus is measured) and reference frames (the
field’s
history, institutional pressures, funding sources). Consensus is real and epistemically significant, but its meaning depends on these frames. The theory cautions against treating consensus as absolute
truth without examining the parameters that produced it.
Example: “Consensus on climate change is robust across most parameters, but the theory reminds
us to
ask: who was surveyed? Which questions? Consensus is powerful, but it is still frame‑dependent.”
