From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Dec 11 2002 - 18:01:18 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker writes
> > So in conclusion, the scientific method is a humbug.
>
> So the method is humbug because while scientists are doing it
> they don't call things by their formal names or use the numbered
> steps in order? That's a pretty silly objection. While I
> certainly agree that 90% of working scientists aren't consciously
> following a method-like-a-recipe, that doesn't mean the method
> isn't there.
It's an epistemological problem, to me. What they are doing
is no different from what everyone else does, and it should
not be touted as such. Doing so gives rise to scientism,
and a stupid mystique that has bad effects on everyone,
even the scientists who enjoy it.
> The fact that many scientists may not think in those [specific]
> terms is irrelevant. The fact is that they /do/ form hypotheses
> and they /do/ create falsifying experiments
and so do detectives and do the people who fix highways.
> and the /do/ rely on things like statistical tests and earlier
> methods and results that also used these methods.
This definitely should not be used to put them in a class
apart. I will agree that the term "scientist" can be a
good one, and used to effectively communicate. But it
can be used quite badly, and the silly "rules" of the
so-called scientific method---nothing more than an afterthought
by philosophers, really---never do anyone any good when
enshrined in a list and gloriously entitled.
> Further, the codification of the method is not meant to be a
> revealed truth from on high or anything--it's just a hypothesis
> in its own right about what works, and is being tested all the
> time. But it's important to have an underlying philosophy of
> science because sometimes it's not clear what a result means or
> how to interpret it, or what tests would further enlighten.
That's all quite so.
> People have been "trying things out" informally for thousands
> of years, and that's given us shamans, faith healers, acupuncture,
> ayurveda, and piles of dead bodies
don't forget to mention all the wonderful inventions of ancient
and medieval times too! And while you are at it, carefully
consider the difference between Roman engineers designing and
building elaborate siege engines and physicists working on
atomic weapons.
> For over 10,000 years of human history, a kid with leukemia
> died 100% of the time, no exceptions. Because of modern
> science, now /most/ kids with leukemia survive.
Quite right.
> And that science was, both informally and formally,
> based on the philosophical foundations laid down by
> Bacon, Popper, and other philosophers of science.
Choke. Gasp. You cannot be serious! These worthies
did nothing but document and explain what was happening
in their respective cultures. They have utterly no
effect whatsoever on progress, (except to those few
of us with academic interests who consider literature
and good explanations to be a fine hallmark of progress).
> /Something/ is different about what scientists are doing
> today, that works, and what they had been doing for 10,000
> years, which didn't work. Calling that difference "scientific
> method" is a good way to identify it. Do you have a better
> term?
Yes, I do. It's called accumulated knowledge.
Lee Corbin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:40 MST