Critical rationalism faces difficulty in Karl Popper’s Socratic formulation: “I may be wrong, and you may be right, and by an effort, we may find the truth.” But the Socratic elenchus, using refutations, can only give us negative knowledge of general principles, which is not the wisdom we seek. Affirmatively, we can only find a collection of opinions to be coherent, which is one of many. Francis Bacon proposed an improved elenchus to find general truths. You must take up a limited topic to study, then cross-examine your evidence for and against its apparent nature. Experiments contrary to evidence and presumed knowledge are entered as self-contradictions in tables of opposition recorded in an “experimental and natural history.” Such an account highlights a challenging puzzle if the account is to be made coherent. With enough problematized evidence, a coherent reading, or a solution of the puzzle, will be unique. Being both coherent and unique, it will be the truth about that limited reality being investigated. Unlike the METHOD of hypothesis (“Anticipating Nature”), deciphering a coherent model is “Interpreting Nature,” allowing us to find a general truth on a limited topic. Isaac Newton achieved great success using Robert Boyle’s mechanistic version of this METHOD. Using the “experimental philosophy,” he discovered general principles of optics and astronomy.

It is generally supposed that from the beginning of his inquiries, Newton applied a special METHOD in his scholarly researches on the nature and his two influential works, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and Optics, are the product of applying such a.METHOD. However, Einstein has warned us that if want to know the physicists' METHODs, we should pay attention to their actions not ta their speeches. Keeping his warning in view, the author firstly attempts to evaluate Newton's SCIENTIFIC METHODology appeared in the different editions of his Optics. Secondly, he tries to present what Newton has done in reality, which divulges the contradictions between what he has expressed and what he has done, and which reveals that there weren't any set of METHODological principles in the beginning.

Darwin’s view on science was different from his inductivist contemporaries. After a glimpse to this difference, in section one his first three geological hypotheses will be refered. We could see there that how did he understand that analoy cannot provide any proof for a theory. Section two is devoted to Darwin’s argument (s) in the origin of species. We find there that his SCIENTIFIC METHOD is in accordance with critical rationalism.

Amongst longstanding, and sometimes vexing debates around the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, the explication, and analysis of the concept of METHOD received scant attention. In this paper, I have tried to suggest a clear account of the METHOD. My proposed account is closely tied to the concepts of “, descriptive ought/ought not”,and “, cognitive purposes”, . In consequence, I have pinned down these two concepts. In the next section, I have indicated how logic is related to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. According to my suggestion, the logic differs from the SCIENTIFIC METHOD in that the former fulfills a more general and comprehensive cognitive purpose than the latter. Logic is a precondition for gaining any sort of knowledge, that is, knowledge as such. On the contrary, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is required to obtain proper knowledge in a specific domain. Then, I have considered the sorts of relation there might be between ethics and the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. In the last section, I have got into considering what my suggestions yield to when applied to social science.

SCIENTIFIC literacy is an indispensable component in every educational field within the SCIENTIFIC community and is regarded as one of the fundamental factors in the development and advancement of human knowledge. Similar to communication knowledge, which requires understanding something beyond the coding system and information transmission, SCIENTIFIC literacy also necessitates comprehension and awareness of deeper aspects beyond merely a set of facts and information. In other words, if communication knowledge is an awareness of the main factors and constituents of communication at a broader level, SCIENTIFIC literacy also entails being aware of the structure and principles of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD as a foundation for analysis and research across all domains. This article aims to provide a deeper perspective on the SCIENTIFIC METHOD and offer a fresh understanding of it. Although it may appear pretentious to adopt a single METHOD for all sciences, placing content within a SCIENTIFIC framework requires justification and reasoning that is capable of creating sufficient epistemic substance. Ultimately, this article intends to introduce a different structure in the traditional SCIENTIFIC METHOD in the humanities, particularly in the field of communication psychology, and to present new dimensions of research METHODs to researchers in this field. This rethinking can not only contribute to the SCIENTIFIC richness of future research but also lead to the development of innovative and creative approaches in research and educational domains.

Evaluating the conformity of Newton’ s METHODological statements with his actual practice of science is the prime goal of this article. The importance of the question is that despite much researches about Newton’ s SCIENTIFIC METHOD in the last quarter of a century, there is still not even a rough picture of what that METHOD looks like. I have surmised that part of the explanation for this inscrutability lies in the fact that Newton’ s words and deeds may, for good reasons, be on the whole not quite coherent. Thus, I want to raise and answer this question: Is it possible that a large share of the inscrutability of Newton’ s METHOD rests on the fact that some of Newton’ s proclaimed METHODological rules do not quite cohere with his practiced rules. But more so, in some cases, these two kinds of proclaimed and practiced rules may simply be inconsistent. For this, I have mainly relied on scrutiny of Newton’ s two classic works, The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and Optics, and some of his relevant correspondence.

Professor Mousaviyan spent his research life in the field of Islamic economics, which began in earnest around 1373 SH, in the subject of usury, banking and Islamic financial markets, and he has done less research and writing in other subjects of Islamic economics. His SCIENTIFIC METHOD in dealing with Islamic banking and finance has undergone changes from the first books and articles he wrote in this field to the latest works left by him. In this article, these developments are examined by analyzing the text of his articles and books, and by reviewing the works of Professor Mousaviyan (may God have mercy on him), it is shown that in his study METHOD in the field of banking and financial markets, he has moved from the jurisprudence-based METHOD to the Islam-oriented METHOD. In the jurisprudence-based METHOD, two stages of jurisprudence-making METHOD and jurisprudential establishment METHOD have been passed, and in the Islam-oriented METHOD, two stages of Islamization and establishment based on Islamic principles can be seen in his works. Finally, his METHOD has been criticized.

In this article, it has been tried to analyse and classify the principles and concepts in the field of political geography in terms of epistemology and science philosophy.The statements and propositions in this field are divided into two parts:1- descriptive statements, 2- prescriptive statements, in terms of their link and the way of changing so, this enables us to know the general features of SCIENTIFIC knowledge and match them to the contents of political geography and explain the logic and the SCIENTIFIC essence of this field.METHODology: This article is based on the suppositional-conclusive METHOD which are the same as induction and deduction twins.This article has also used  some library sources and texts. This article is fundamental and theoretical.

Phenomenology, considered either as METHODology or ideology has attracted much attention in the last century; so much so, that many philosophers and sociologists have used the term to define philosophical and social objects. On the other hand, some postmodernists like Heidegger, Gadamer, Deleuze and Baudelaire have criticized phenomenology and have considered it to be one of the last remnants of Cartesian philosophy. Our intention in this article is to take another look at phenomenology and consider it, not by ideological attitude but as a SCIENTIFIC METHOD. We have started with the genealogy of phenomenology and then moved onto to Husserl's understanding of phenomenology especially his theory of "intentional consciousness." Then we have taken a look at some post-Husserl METHODological advances particularly at the Heidegger's and Gadamer's hermeneutical phenomenology.