ABSTRACT
A trained scientist can instantly identify the traces of the bungling amateur, or the crank, by the absence of ‘method’ revealed in a report of his work. The root of the difficulty in any discussion of method is that it involves an attempt to render explicit that which is largely tacit. The conception of method which has generally prevailed has been a combination of two elements: a simplified pattern of argument, and a commitment to simple, preferably quantifiable data. A full discussion of ‘methods’ requires mention of two more senses of the term, which are important in the historical development of modern science, and which are relevant whenever a new field is brought into being. The special character of these proclamations of method also derives from their particular concerns. The technical tasks of investigating problems in a field are subsidiary to a larger philosophical mission; and this may be imbued with a touch of the prophetic as well.
