Scientific Research & Self-Development Activism
"The one constant in life is change." -- Heraclitus of Ephesus (c.535 BC - 475 BC)
Jim: He said scientists seek for the truth, I told him that science is constantly proving everything it thought was true to be false
Luke: We've only discovered that certain laws are subsets to other laws, not that what was previously thought to be true is false. It's more that what we thought was true for all things is only true for some things.
Jim: Does this mean "true science" is only laws, or anything from the standard approach?
Luke: Not necessarily. Science can performed and not come up with a law. Laws are mathematical, and not all studies and experiments can be converted to laws. Psychology and sociology are good examples, they can only achieve the status of theories when there's a lot of supporting evidence. "True science" isn't a term, and there's no distinction between "science" and "true science". It's science or it isn't.
For your "will the scientific method every change?" question, I say no. If you don't have controls and repeatability then you can't learn anything. Everything then becomes uncertain.
"...all containing the fundamental steps however."
"The core concept will remain the same..."
So how's the scientific method change then? I think what you're saying is changing are experimental methods.
This TED-talk might be a bit enlightening for you:
"Biochemist Kary Mullis talks about the basis of modern science: The Experiment. Sharing tales from the 17th century and from his own backyard-rocketry days, Mullis celebrates the curiosity, inspiration and rigor of good science in all its forms."
what you are discussing is a very old debate about realism and anti-realism. Some scientist think that science describes how the world is truly working, being realists they can accept theories of being true or actually existing as a fact.
While anti-realists believe that science can never describe the nature of the world as it truly is since science and theories are just human interpretations of natural events. To the anti-realist, a theory can never be factual, and a theory can never really exist.
Personally I like the anti-realist idea, since it has more perspective towards ourselves as humans, it accepts that we may be wrong but that theories can still be used to predict natural events. I think it's in general useful to be skeptical to allow for new and maybe better theories to arise before the natural need for a new theory as the main theory gets disproven and calls for a new theory. Anyways there is no answer to this question, it's sort of a stand every scientist take.
"Will the scientific method change?"
Hopefully, since that would mean we found a better way to describe our surroundings :D
I doubt, if the scientific method, of peer review, and bombarding a theory with all types of situations, to see if it withstands etc.. will never change!! and I'm 99% sure about that!!
apart from that, defining what is Science(or "true Science") and what is not, is a big mistake, because just look at the last 100 years, and the areas that were unknown, and are now very well explained!!, we should not predict or falsify what we yet do not fully understand!!(Consciousness)