From: chris hibbert (chris@pancrit.org)
Date: Tue Dec 17 2002 - 00:18:24 MST
My take on this conversation is that the difference between those
participating in the scientific process and detectives, engineers, and
short order cooks is that the former are adding to the scientific
literature. It isn't necessary that every scientist form explicit
hypotheses, make clear predictions or identify events that would
constitute contrary evidence, but if they contribute to the literature,
then someone else can put in the rigor that makes it a scientific
result. The more rigor that is included by an early author, the
smaller the remaining work before it can serve as a basis for further
theories.
Detectives participate in a process that resembles science in many
ways, but the proof of the pudding for them is what happens in court
for the most part. There's no implication for society's knowledge
after the trial. Even those who study trials are mostly interested in
the evolution of law, not of methods of detection.
Engineers have a literature that overlaps with science. Most engineers
don't publish, and thus don't add to the scientific literature. Others
publish, but are merely saying "this worked for me." When engineers
say "we tried x and y in similar situations, and observed z", then
they're contributing to the scientific literature. Other than that,
it's just recipes.
Oversimplifying,
Chris
--
Currently reading: Michael D. Coe, Breaking the Maya Code; David
Freidel et. al, Maya Cosmos; Esther Freisner, Psalms of Herod
Chris Hibbert
chris@pancrit.org
http://discuss.foresight.org/~hibbert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:46 MST