From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Dec 11 2002 - 10:52:38 MST
Lee Corbin wrote:
> ...
>
>Hi Olga!
>
>First, I dispute that there really is anything called
>"the scientific method", or, if there is, that it is
>anything practiced regularly by human beings.
>
There certainly isn't a "the scientific method", there are, instead,
several, each adapted to particular fields of study. They do, however,
have certain features in common (necessary, but not sufficient). And no
individual human practices it. It is rather a communal process,
depending on social stuructures and feedback systems.
>
>>From http://phyun5.ucr.edu/wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000
>
>1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
>2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis,
> that is consistent with what you have observed.
>3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
>4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations
> and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
>
Step 4 is limited to the experimental sciences. The "further
observations" is merely a loop back to step 1, without a loop exit
termination condition. Step 4 is more properly "Evaluate your results
until you are satisfied."
Step 4.5: Publish your results. This is a crucial step, as without it
social critiques are not possible. Here "publish" has a specific
meaning, i.e., write about you observations/theories in sufficient
detail that others CAN (at least in principle) evaluate them and
reproduce them. (If it isn't reproducible, it isn't science. It may be
a fact, but it isn't science.)
>5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between
> theory and experiment and/or observation.
>
Step 5 never reaches completion. It you test the voltage of a battery.
the voltage changes. etc. And one must expect unpredicted errors.
What one can do is refine things so that the magnitude of the errors
decreases, or is at least itself predictable.
>Ahem, well, I don't believe that the history of science
>(or of anything else, for that matter) supports this
>idea of how science is done.
>
>Nobody does that! Scientists are like bookkeepers, detectives,
>brick-layers, auto mechanics, and good historians. They run
>across things, either out of interest or necessity, and either
>want to explain them or put them to use some way.
>
And the engineering arts also develop in a cumulative process. But
bricklaying is constrained to only consider bricklaying. Thus
engineering is a creative art, but bricklaying is a craft. (Now a
bricklayer could also be an architect, but that's a separate matter.)
>...
>Nobody does that. They get some kind of hunch, usually non-verbal,
>
True. It's a complex social interaction.
>about what is happening, and never formalize it into an hypothesis.
>
Umnh... a hypothesis is a sort of a first stab at a theory. You can
have a hypothesis before you even go looking for evidence. If you want
to translate it into common english, the best word would probably be guess.
>It's only after years that someone has failed to prove something
>they badly wanted to, e.g., Cantor's continuum, that it gets called
>an "hypothesis" out of sheer frustration.
>
Nope. Hypothesis is the very first thing it gets called. You probably
mean theory (as distinct from theorum).
>...
>So in conclusion, the scientific method is a humbug.
>
Even were I to grant your statements along the way... the proof of the
pudding is in the eating. As a result of a **blend** of science and
engineering we now have cars (thermodynamics), tv sets (quantum theory),
etc. Mind you, plain engineering gave us plumbing, but it was chemistry
and biology that explained why you shouldn't make pipes out of lead
(plumbum).
Too much is made of grand theories. I'll give you that. Most of
science is a relatively mundane piecing together of minor facts, pieces,
and theories, like assembling a complex jig-saw. But the combined
effect is major. And it's a social process, not an individual process.
I can't think of any single person that ever practiced it. But I can
think of groups that do.
>To replace it? We just keep trucking, trying to concentrate,
>trying to think, trying to keep an open mind, trying to admit
>(especially to ourselves) when we have been wrong, and trying
>to keep on living. Even if it means getting frozen.
>
>Lee
>
People aren't good about admitting, even to themselves, when they have
been wrong. Otherwise science wouldn't be as important. But people
don't change just because they see other people making mistakes. Newton
believed in alchemy and astrology until his death. And he knew how to
test ideas. And he knew that many of his most respected associates
thought that he was being silly.
Science is engineering applied to the realm of ideas. That's the best
one sentence definition that I can give. And it may be important enough
to either kill us all or save us all. Mind you, which it will do
*ISN'T* a scientific choice.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:40 MST