From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Dec 22 2002 - 14:55:32 MST
Chris writes
> 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.
Yes, you've made quite explicit what distinguishes science
from other arenas of human knowledge. It's an accumulation
of standard, repeatable, yet often profound and arcane
knowledge.
(It's most interesting to me, incidentally, how the existence
of certain common and widely used terms, be it "science",
"race", or "hypnosis", provides interesting testimony as
to the actual existence of those things. Usually claims by
theoreticians that "science is no different", "race does not
exist", or "hypnosis is a sham" are over-wrought, and the
theoreticians have managed to delude themselves by excess
ideological zeal. Yet indeed sometimes those things in
fact do not exist, and are the result of a kind of culture-
induced mass hysteria. One of our best tests at present is
to determine through anthropological studies if these things
are present in most cultures, or only a few.)
> 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.
Yes, and to the degree that someone is interested in the
methods of detection, we often call it a "science", as in
forensic science.
The primary thesis under discussion here, however, is
whether this built-up literature, this body of knowledge
is investigated by special processes not present in other
fields of inquiry---that is, in other situations where
people are trying to find out what is going on.
My claim is still that there is not. In other words,
that what is advertised as different in the "scientific
method" is false, and what is intelligent, rational,
objective, and sensible in it is not new.
The most damaging flak that I've taken so far is, IMO,
that scientific research is often accompanied by heavy
reliance on statistical methods, and non-scientific ways
of knowing never is.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:50 MST