Defintion of the scientific method
Kent
The scientific method is the building of logical and self consistent
models to describe nature. The models are constrained by past
observations and judged by their ability to correctly predict new
observations and interesting phenomena. Observations do not prove
models correct or falsify them but rather provide a means to rank
models: models with more ability to predict observations are ranked
higher. The observations must be carefully done and reproducible to
minimize errors. They exist independent of the models but acquire
their meaning from their context within a model. Model assumptions
that do not lead to testable predictions are rejected as unnecessary.
Both observations and models should be peer reviewed for error
For a detailed discussion of the reasoning behind this definition see:
Omar Gmail
Tks.
Sam Carana
My first impression is that this seems like a good description (rather
than definition) of science, in line with the very idea expressed in
this description of models that exist next to each other.
This calls up questions such as how ranking of such models is best done
and whether peer review and dogmatic application of Occam's Razor
constitute a level a bias that could be improved by changing the way
science is organized and funded.
Note that this has been discussed here quite a few times. In fact, I
just posted a response that touches on diferences between the
scientific and epistemological approach.
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/msg/370ec6f96fd1f16d
If you like, go over some of the earlier disucssions under the topic:
What is science?
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/browse_thread/thread/2148f647930dabb5
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Kent
> This calls up questions such as how ranking of such models is best done
> and whether peer review and dogmatic application of Occam's Razor
> constitute a level a bias that could be improved by changing the way
> science is organized and funded.
>
I notice I left the word "control" off the end of the last sentance.
Neither peer review nor Occam's razor should be treated as overly
profound. Peer review is simply two things: first two heads are better
than one. Second if you want to learn if model for raising pigs makes
sense you ask a pig farmer not a nuclear physicist. Occam's razor is
largely one of convenience. Why make your model more complicated that
necessary? It just makes extra work. The real way of ranking models is
through their ability to make sucessful predictions.
Jan Braeken
Thank you for your comment.
I have a question for you.
Can you tell me what the use is of endlessly making (new) predictions and
endlessly ranking models if they reduce our infinitely complex reality into
simple things that do not reflect that reality at all ?
Cheers.
Jan
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens Kent
Verzonden: woensdag 2 augustus 2006 4:22
Aan: Epistemology
Onderwerp: [epistemology 3174] Re: Defintion of the scientific method
einseele
To reach simplicity is not opposed to "complex", much on the contrary
"Simple is hard"
Kent
Jan Braeken wrote:
> Hello Kent,
>
> Thank you for your comment.
> I have a question for you.
> Can you tell me what the use is of endlessly making (new) predictions and
> endlessly ranking models if they reduce our infinitely complex reality into
> simple things that do not reflect that reality at all ?
>
The models are all we know about reality. Ultimate reality is unknown
and probably unknowable. The models, do however, systematize what is
known. One of the joys of learning physics is that what appears as
unrelated observations and random correlation can be seen to be the
consequences of a few more general postulates.
Byron
Omar Gmail
The models are all we know about reality. Ultimate reality is unknown
and probably unknowable.
There, the states of knowledge or ignorance themselves would disappear.
Reality is not just an intellectual matter; it encompasses all our "states"
of being. The models are interesting instruments as long as they stay
instruments and are discarded once they have served their purpose in the
evolutionary process towards ultimate reality... they must not become
objectives in themselves....
The models, do however, systematize what is
known. One of the joys of learning physics is that what appears as
unrelated observations and random correlation can be seen to be the
consequences of a few more general postulates.
[>> omar>>] physics itself is a model... a beautiful one indeed.
Byron
Omar Gmail
-----Original Message-----
From: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Souvik
Now there's a sane, clear answer to Sam's lifelong query. :-)
-Souvik
Sam Carana
Omar Gmail
Hi Sam,
Please choose another forum to expand your political social or budgetary propositions as they have nothing to do with epistemology.
Tks,
omar
Jan Braeken
Omar,
Please choose another life to expand your mind.
Epistemology is about everything, since everything can be considered as knowledge. Anything else is a reduction for that matter.
Jan Braeken
Jan Braeken
Good reaction Sam. Let us work together here to put these reductive, simplistic, quick thoughts and their even faster simplistic arguments in the Museum of Simplistic Ideas.
I might add that the innocent, childish idea of a beautiful, extremely sexy science being for ever idealistic and beneficial for all mankind can only come from the same kind of minds that seem to have no connection whatsoever with our present catastrophically violent world in which we are living. Apparently not even 6,5 billion heads together seem enough today to stop this violence. We need something more than ‘heads together’ if these heads don’t work properly and cannot communicate properly. And what pig farmers are concerned : there is much more to pig farming than the incredibly simplistic idea of a ‘model’. Here in Belgium we know that perfectly well now, after our monstrous national Dioxin crisis a few years ago, that revealed a million times more than a ‘model’ could ever explain, whether scientific or not. For those who don’t understand : this Dioxin crisis was not about a bad scientific model or good predictions, but about money, power, criminal deceit, a gigantic swindle, sleeping public awareness, sleeping politicians with names that could not be revealed, wide spread corruption, the incredibly stupid ‘laws of economy’, the illusion of a ‘free market’, the despicable ‘Belgian Culture’, national (and international after some time) health, etc, etc, etc. No model could have ever ‘predicted’ this crisis my friends, and no model ever will because it is a REDUCTION.
Cheers !
Jan Braeken
Kent
Sam Carana wrote:
> On 8/1/06, Kent <musqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sam Carana wrote:
> >
> > > This calls up questions such as how ranking of such models is best done
> > > and whether peer review and dogmatic application of Occam's Razor
> > > constitute a level a bias that could be improved by changing the way
> > > science is organized and funded.
> > >
> >
> > I notice I left the word "control" off the end of the last sentance.
> > Neither peer review nor Occam's razor should be treated as overly
> > profound. Peer review is simply two things: first two heads are better
> > than one. Second if you want to learn if model for raising pigs makes
> > sense you ask a pig farmer not a nuclear physicist. Occam's razor is
> > largely one of convenience. Why make your model more complicated that
> > necessary? It just makes extra work. The real way of ranking models is
> > through their ability to make sucessful predictions.
>
>
> We don't let pig farmers decide what is to happen with billions of dollars
> of taxpayers money, don't we, if it turns out that the pig farmers collude
> to run a racket that provides them a nice income WITHOUT raising pigs in the
> most successful way. Indeed, who decides what models are more successful
> than others? How to measure success? One way to measure success is in terms
> of getting (further) funding.
When it comes to pig farming you do not let nuclear physicists decide
what to do. That would be a disaster, The idea is very simple: in any
field ideas should be checked by people in that field to see if they
make sense. If you say that is not 100% reliable you are correct but it
is a part of the error control prodedure.
As I said just before your comments, in science models are judged by
their ability to make predictions. In capitalism they are judged by the
ability to make people money.
Currently, funding of science is largely
> decided by a bureaucratic military-industrial complex that follows a
> specific strategy. But that model of measuring success is quite similar to
> the way the bureaucracy in communist Eastern Germany once decided that the
> Trabant was the only car to be manufactured and sold there, isn't it? Why
> not drag science out of that, into the modern world?
>
> Cheers!
> Sam Carana
>
> ------=_Part_92284_22381554.1154855654509
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
> X-Google-AttachSize: 2144
>
> <div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/1/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Kent</b> <<a href="mailto:musqu...@gmail.com">musqu...@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>Sam Carana wrote:<br><br>> This calls up questions such as how ranking of such models is best done<br>
> > and whether peer review and dogmatic application of Occam's Razor<br>> constitute a level a bias that could be improved by changing the way<br>> science is organized and funded.<br>><br><br>I notice I left the word "control" off the end of the last sentance.
> <br>Neither peer review nor Occam's razor should be treated as overly<br>profound. Peer review is simply two things: first two heads are better<br>than one. Second if you want to learn if model for raising pigs makes<br>sense you ask a pig farmer not a nuclear physicist. Occam's razor is
> <br>largely one of convenience. Why make your model more complicated that<br>necessary? It just makes extra work. The real way of ranking models is<br>through their ability to make sucessful predictions.</blockquote>
> <div> </div>
> <div>We don't let pig farmers decide what is to happen with billions of dollars of taxpayers money, don't we, if it turns out that the pig farmers collude to run a racket that provides them a nice income WITHOUT raising pigs in the most successful way. Indeed, who decides what models are more successful than others? How to measure success? One way to measure success is in terms of getting (further) funding. Currently, funding of science is largely decided by a bureaucratic military-industrial complex that follows a specific strategy. But that model of measuring success is quite similar to the way the bureaucracy in communist Eastern Germany once decided that the Trabant was the only car to be manufactured and sold there, isn't it? Why not drag science out of that, into the modern world?
> </div>
> <div> </div>
> <div>Cheers!</div>
> <div>Sam Carana</div>
> <div> </div>
> <div> </div><br> </div>
>
> ------=_Part_92284_22381554.1154855654509--
Kent
Jan Braeken wrote:
> Good reaction Sam. Let us work together here to put these reductive,
> simplistic, quick thoughts and their even faster simplistic arguments in the
> Museum of Simplistic Ideas.
>
>
>
> I might add that the innocent, childish idea of a beautiful, extremely sexy
> science being for ever idealistic and beneficial for all mankind can only
> come from the same kind of minds that seem to have no connection whatsoever
> with our present catastrophically violent world in which we are living.
> Apparently not even 6,5 billion heads together seem enough today to stop
> this violence. We need something more than 'heads together' if these heads
> don't work properly and cannot communicate properly. And what pig farmers
> are concerned : there is much more to pig farming than the incredibly
> simplistic idea of a 'model'. Here in Belgium we know that perfectly well
> now, after our monstrous national Dioxin crisis a few years ago, that
> revealed a million times more than a 'model' could ever explain, whether
> scientific or not. For those who don't understand : this Dioxin crisis was
> not about a bad scientific model or good predictions, but about money,
> power, criminal deceit, a gigantic swindle, sleeping public awareness,
> sleeping politicians with names that could not be revealed, wide spread
> corruption, the incredibly stupid 'laws of economy', the illusion of a 'free
> market', the despicable 'Belgian Culture', national (and international after
> some time) health, etc, etc, etc. No model could have ever 'predicted' this
> crisis my friends, and no model ever will because it is a REDUCTION.
>
There was not claim that science is benificial, only that it produces
models with greater and greater predictive power. sometimes it is used
for good sometimes for evil. Frequently it is not clear which is which.
That people do things you do not like has nothing to do with science
per say.
The idea of "model" is not simplcitic but rather very complicated and
subtle. A model of of a capitalist economic would predict that some
people would do what ever it takes to make money.
Nothing particularly strang there. Models may or not be reductionist.
Jan Braeken
My comments below.
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens Kent
Verzonden: zondag 6 augustus 2006 16:17
Aan: Epistemology
Onderwerp: [epistemology 3198] Re: Definition of the scientific method
> On 8/1/06, Kent <musqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Sam Carana wrote:
> > > This calls up questions such as how ranking of such models is best
done
> > > and whether peer review and dogmatic application of Occam's Razor
> > > constitute a level a bias that could be improved by changing the way
> > > science is organized and funded.
> > >
> > I notice I left the word "control" off the end of the last sentence.
> > Neither peer review nor Occam's razor should be treated as overly
> > profound. Peer review is simply two things: first two heads are better
> > than one. Second if you want to learn if model for raising pigs makes
> > sense you ask a pig farmer not a nuclear physicist. Occam's razor is
> > largely one of convenience. Why make your model more complicated that
> > necessary? It just makes extra work. The real way of ranking models is
> > through their ability to make successful predictions.
>
> We don't let pig farmers decide what is to happen with billions of dollars
> of taxpayers money, don't we, if it turns out that the pig farmers collude
> to run a racket that provides them a nice income WITHOUT raising pigs in
the
> most successful way. Indeed, who decides what models are more successful
> than others? How to measure success? One way to measure success is in
terms
> of getting (further) funding.
Kent Wrote :
When it comes to pig farming you do not let nuclear physicists decide
what to do. That would be a disaster, The idea is very simple: in any
field ideas should be checked by people in that field to see if they
make sense. If you say that is not 100% reliable you are correct but it
is a part of the error control procedure.
As I said just before your comments, in science models are judged by
their ability to make predictions. In capitalism they are judged by the
ability to make people money.
Jan :
I believe any scientific model in any field should not only be checked by
peers, but foremost by preferably all other fields, since they are all
connected. This is the postmodern way of science called
'interdisciplinarity' in our 21st century, and it is very well known in
science in the meantime. The logical evolution in science in our near future
(hopefully) will be OMNIdisciplinarity, since no (non)scientific discipline
inside any other can be considered ontologically redundant, and since every
discipline has to be considered fundamentally, ontologically and inseparably
additive to all others. Only this way we can truly call our science
ontologically abundant, true, sound and logically predictive in our
omnidisciplinary reality.
So yes pig farming should include nuclear physics - we would be surprised
what nuclear physicists could learn pig farmers and vice versa if we would
try just a little harder - ; it should include every discipline to respect
the biggest whole any phenomenon is. It should include ethical funding,
social respect, ecological health, political awareness, a spiritual world
economy, psychological balance, etc, etc. When we would do that in all our
activities and scientific models, capitalism would disappear naturally
because people would immediately realise that it is self-destructive.
Cheers.
Jan Braeken
Omar Gmail
Nonsense Jan.
lang=NL>
Sam Carana
> > > > This calls up questions such as how ranking of such models is best done
> > > > and whether peer review and dogmatic application of Occam's Razor
> > > > constitute a level a bias that could be improved by changing the way
> > > > science is organized and funded.
> > > >
> > > I notice I left the word "control" off the end of the last sentance.
> > > Neither peer review nor Occam's razor should be treated as overly
> > > profound. Peer review is simply two things: first two heads are better
> > > than one. Second if you want to learn if model for raising pigs makes
> > > sense you ask a pig farmer not a nuclear physicist. Occam's razor is
> > > largely one of convenience. Why make your model more complicated that
> > > necessary? It just makes extra work. The real way of ranking models is
> > > through their ability to make sucessful predictions.
> >
> > We don't let pig farmers decide what is to happen with billions of dollars
> > of taxpayers money, don't we, if it turns out that the pig farmers collude
> > to run a racket that provides them a nice income WITHOUT raising pigs in the
> > most successful way. Indeed, who decides what models are more successful
> > than others? How to measure success? One way to measure success is in terms
> > of getting (further) funding.
>
> When it comes to pig farming you do not let nuclear physicists decide
> what to do. That would be a disaster, The idea is very simple: in any
> field ideas should be checked by people in that field to see if they
> make sense. If you say that is not 100% reliable you are correct but it
> is a part of the error control prodedure.
>
> As I said just before your comments, in science models are judged by
> their ability to make predictions. In capitalism they are judged by the
> ability to make people money.
(Sam:)
And as I said, just before your comments, if it turns out that the pig
farmers collude to run a racket that provides them a nice income
WITHOUT raising pigs in the most successful way, then it does NOT make
sense to let those pigfarmers decide where billions of taxpayers money
should go to. In that case, the situation could be improved by changing
the way
things are organized and funded. So, how can models be ranked? Who
decides what models are more successful than others? How to measure
success? One way to measure success is in terms of getting (further)
funding. Currently, funding of science is largely decided by a
military-industrial complex that cloaks scrutiny over many such
decisions in military secrecy and bureaucracy. Why not organize things
better than that?
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Jan Braeken
See down under.
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens Kent
Verzonden: zondag 6 augustus 2006 16:26
Aan: Epistemology
Onderwerp: [epistemology 3199] Re: Definition of the scientific method
Kent :
There was not claim that science is beneficial, only that it produces
models with greater and greater predictive power. sometimes it is used
for good sometimes for evil. Frequently it is not clear which is which.
That people do things you do not like has nothing to do with science
per say.
If I am correct, you do not seem to care very much if models, scientific or
not, are beneficial to the world. Am I correct ? And if so, why do you do
that ? Is it not important to you what people do or don't do ? If that is
unimportant, it would make you a very strange man ! For me it should be
very, very clear what models are about and what people do with them or aim
at with them - if they is constructive or destructive -, because we cannot
allow everything to happen in this world ! So please be very clear what you
mean here ! Do you like war ? Do you like killing ? Do you like a killer
science and killer models ? If you do, you would be insane !
Kent :
The idea of "model" is not simplistic but rather very complicated and
subtle. A model of a capitalist economic would predict that some
people would do what ever it takes to make money.
Nothing particularly strange there. Models may or not be reductionist.
Models may be extraordinary complicated and infinitely subtle indeed, but
that does not mean they are complicated and subtle enough to reflect and
predict reality. So it is extremely strange indeed what you say here. IMO
models never are complex and subtle enough, so we need to complicate and
subtle them more until they are. And money, the most simplistic attribute of
all to anything, never was, never is and never will be a good criterion for
the truth ! So we should care Kent ! What would happen to us if we do not
care about the truth any more, and just think about money ? We will all die
my friend ! So please be serious about this !
Jan Braeken
Omar Gmail
Knowledge, cool and unbiased analysis, indeed bearing in mind human
priorities, is man's best ally to confront problems, injustices and to help
makes this a better world.
Kent's word are rational, reasonable and very instructive. Your last
warning to him makes no sense at all. I dot know if you realize but you are
tending to use the same level of language that could be heard in the mouth
of a low level preacher in a backward mosq, church, synagogue, temple or
whatever.
We all have basically common objectives of good for humanity so lets try to
be reasonable and make the most of each others experience.
Tks for your attention.
omar
-----Original Message-----
From: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Jan Braeken
Jan Braeken
I WILL BECOME INFINITELY EMOTIONAL HERE OMAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! KNOWLEDGE IS NOT COOL !!!!!!!!!!! YES !!!!!!!!!!
I AM A PREACHER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
J
-----Oorspronkelijk
bericht-----
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens Omar Gmail
Verzonden: maandag 7 augustus 2006 19:03
Aan: episte...@googlegroups.com
Onderwerp: [epistemology 3206] Re: Definition of the scientific method
Jan Braeken
As I said before in one of my posts : words are filled with emotions. That
is only natural. We are human beings, and human beings are the most
emotional of all living creatures. (And I have to exaggerate a little here
to make my point. Of course all animals have the same amount of emotions.
Even stones have them, and our earth, our stars, our infinity ... This is a
matter of feeling all of them.) No science is human without emotions. Being
only 'rational, reasonable and instructive' makes us all less human. My
pledge here is we should be very aware when we make models that exclude
anything that is human and humane. Our history is full of people and
scientific models that didn't take into account the human factor, which is
largely emotional, loving and caring. Such cold, cruel and anti-human
scientific models and people, like e.g. Hitler's scientist who did 'genetic'
experiments on the disabled and on children, should trigger our strongest
emotional reaction possible, to make sure they never happen again. The
Holocaust was, is and always should be an infinite warning from history.
That is why I am convinced : infinite memory is a conditio sine qua non for
world peace and for the survival of humanity.
Jan Braeken
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens Omar Gmail
Verzonden: maandag 7 augustus 2006 19:03
Aan: episte...@googlegroups.com
Onderwerp: [epistemology 3206] Re: Definition of the scientific method
Omar Gmail
partisanship can only be a disservice to knowledge and improvement. Yours
is just a show of words, I don't think you would be as efficient on the
field... you are simply too blinded for any serious analysis allowing to
find positive solutions.
Jan Braeken
You are boring. Can you say something else then 'blind', 'show', 'positive',
etc, because you seem to repeat that so much in your other posts that I
suspect there is little knowledge in your own head.
Bye.
Jan
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens Omar Gmail
Verzonden: dinsdag 8 augustus 2006 2:21
Aan: episte...@googlegroups.com
Onderwerp: [epistemology 3209] Re: Definition of the scientific method
Sam Carana
merely gathering knowledge for the sake of it? Or was the promise of
benefits there when scientists submitted new projects for approval, or
was at least the expectation or potential raised? Let's not kid
ourselves, scientists are well aware that some projects are funded
while others aren't. In fact, some scientists have made it into an art
to present projects in such a way as to maximise their prospect for
approval with the bureaucrats who in turn need to please the
politicians and investors who put them into their positions. This
"management" side of scientific projects may be looked down upon by
scientists, who sometimes appoint people straight from the advertising
sector to do this "promotional stuff", claiming that such emotional
engagement with a project would compromise their objectivity.
But whether science is beneficial to mankind should of course be of
concern to us. To equate science with making predictions is too
simplistic, even in the eyes of a scientists who glorifies simplicity
itself. Many people, from professionals to housekeepers, use methods to
predict the outcome of various approaches, but that doesn't make them
scientists.
Let's face it. Education in science and scientific research are largely
funded by taxpayers money, while students pay inflated fees because
titles act as entry tickets to professions. The whole way science is
organized comes at a huge cost to society, while conversely huge
promises are made in regard to the beneficial aspects of science. While
scientists are keen to accept the funding and the privileges, they use
"objectivity" as a cloak to duck their responsibilities when it comes
to covering the cost of risks associated with research, the harm
inflicted by weapons developed by scientists, etc.
The way science is organized and funded is crucial in defining what
activities are undertaken under the banner of science, and how the
associated risks are dealt with. From an epistemological perspective,
it is our duty to look into the various ways things can be organized
and funded, and we should endeavour to apply some ranking to the
various approaches, rather than to rank a specific scientific model
itself.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Jan Braeken
die because of it. We should all abolish it immediately. Every day the world
lies with money. Children and their parents who do not have it die every
single day because of that fact, nobody cares, and these poor people will
keep on dying until the day we get rid of money. The sooner the better. It
seems to me man has never been able to live truthfully with money, because
there are simply no binding rules that regulate money for the benefit of
everyone. If we look at nature, it functions very well without money. There
has not been a single animal in the history of our planet that had to pay
money to live, our atmosphere has been there for billions of yours without
paying for that, and our sun has been shining for more billions of years
without money. Only the stupid human being invented this stupid idea, and
started to destroy nature for it, meaning he started to destroy his own
habitat and his own living conditions, together with the habitat and living
conditions of every single living creature on this earth. What a stupid
animal man is. The incredibly stupid man started to think he could control
his world with his silly little concept of money, but it got out of control
by that very concept. We see it all around us today. Everything gets more
and more expensive these days, and only the people who keep accumulating
huge amounts of money, out of control, show the least respect for those who
have none at all, and show the least awareness and respect for their own
primary, fundamental condition for living : nature. The contrast between
rich and poor has never been greater and never been more out of control, and
the horrible death toll for that fact, human and animal, has never been
greater. We live in a world of deceit and lies that spiral out of control
and are always connected to money, so people will finally have to decide
what to do : keep on lying the rest of their lives, or abolish money for
ever. Only a world without money will be free and peaceful at last.
Jan Braeken
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens Sam Carana
Verzonden: dinsdag 8 augustus 2006 5:57
Aan: Epistemology
Onderwerp: [epistemology 3211] Re: Definition of the scientific method
Omar Gmail
-----Original Message-----
From: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Jan Braeken
einseele
(abstraction) on the other.
At the sound end there is all kind of imagery, knowledge which can not
be thought, no sense, I think madness is in here, dreams, emotions, and
very chaotic boiling pure contents
At the other end there is math, abstraction, also madness I think, pure
thought, no contents
There is science somewhere half way
I think yes, each one of any of these terms are for the sake of it
Jan Braeken
At this moment, I am studying a book called 'THE WORLD SINCE 1945 - A
history of international relations' written by Wayne C. McWilliams and Harry
Piotrowski. Indeed madness can be in both extreme ends of that linear
continuum (or shall we say spirality towards infinity ?) if I place your
line (spiral) above the line of history in that book. That maybe too
complicated for now to explain - where do war and politics fit in here ? -,
but it certainly is something for our infinite imagination to expand and
build upon. In any case, you sparked the flame of complexity again, and that
is good. Maybe happiness is also all around, if we practice enough.
Thanks my friend.
Jan
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: episte...@googlegroups.com [mailto:episte...@googlegroups.com]
Namens einseele
Verzonden: dinsdag 8 augustus 2006 14:02
Aan: Epistemology
Onderwerp: [epistemology 3214] Re: Definition of the scientific method
Gordon Hill
Kent wrote:
> How is the following for a definition of the scientific method
First, I am new to this group and had to look up the definition of
epistemology which I take, from Wordnet, to be "the philosophical
theory of knowledge." With this as my grounding I'll venture forth.
> The scientific method is the building of logical and self consistent
> models to describe nature. The models are constrained by past
> observations and judged by their ability to correctly predict new
> observations and interesting phenomena. Observations do not prove
> models correct or falsify them but rather provide a means to rank
> models: models with more ability to predict observations are ranked
> higher. The observations must be carefully done and reproducible to
> minimize errors. They exist independent of the models but acquire
> their meaning from their context within a model. Model assumptions
> that do not lead to testable predictions are rejected as unnecessary.
> Both observations and models should be peer reviewed for error (control)?
While I like the description, my quarrel is with the identifier,
scientific method, which is specifically defined, widely, as having
four or five steps. I prefer the four step model: (1) Observe, (2)
Form a hypothesis, (3) Test the hypothesis, (4) accept/reject the
hyposthesis or find the testing inconclusive.
That said, what is written in the topic is to me more a scientific
methodology of which the scientific method is the foundation. The
"scientific method" requires none of the details, but contemporary
scientific methodology does. Many scientists do their work oblivious
to the scientific community, ignoring the "niceties" of the methodology
until they are on to something... then they become more rigorous in
their experimentation and more accurate in their measurements.
It's a little like fishing with several lines in the water, watching
them all, but attending only to those which show promise.
> For a detailed discussion of the reasoning behind this definition see:
>
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0607241
I visited the site and read part of the paper. I shall read it
thoroughly later. It has an interesting section on Science and
Religion.
Thank you beyond mere words for directing me to this site. I may run
away and hide there for a while.
All the best, Gordon Hill
Sam Carana
non-scientists? After all, many people, from professionals to
housekeepers, use methods to predict outcomes of various approaches,
observing, hypothesising and testing, but that doesn't make them
scientists, does it? The way people are selected to be scientists and
the way science is funded, isn't that important in regard to what
distinguishes science from other activities? As I said, funding of
science is now largely decided by a bureaucratic military-industrial
complex that follows a specific strategy. Shouldn't we question this,
as part of our epistemogical curiosity?
Cheers!
Sam Carana
zinnic
Sam Carana wrote:
> Hi Gordon! What do you think makes scientists different from
> non-scientists? After all, many people, from professionals to
> housekeepers, use methods to predict outcomes of various approaches,
> observing, hypothesising and testing, but that doesn't make them
> scientists, does it? The way people are selected to be scientists and
> the way science is funded, isn't that important in regard to what
> distinguishes science from other activities? As I said, funding of
> science is now largely decided by a bureaucratic military-industrial
> complex that follows a specific strategy. Shouldn't we question this,
> as part of our epistemogical curiosity?
>
> Cheers!
> Sam Carana
>
non-accountants, engineers and non-engineers, lawyers and non-lawyers,
politicians and non-politicians, epistemologists and
non-epistemologists (etc,etc) ? Is it not important how these "people"
are selected and funded in regard to what distinguishes "these
activities" from scientists? Should'nt we question this, as part of
our epistemological curiosity?
Cheers
Sam Carena (Oops!). I mean ..Zinnic
Gordon Hill
Sam Carana wrote:
> Hi Gordon! What do you think makes scientists different from
> non-scientists?
I don't, but I do believe the scientific approach to problem solving
leads, ultimately to the "scientific method".
> ...After all, many people, from professionals to
> housekeepers, use methods to predict outcomes of various approaches,
> observing, hypothesising and testing, but that doesn't make them
> scientists, does it?
Not unless they are engaged in research leading to the publication of
results as some are. I'm not sure where you got the point that I think
scientists are different. I think I said the scientific approach is
different.
> ...The way people are selected to be scientists and
> the way science is funded, isn't that important in regard to what
> distinguishes science from other activities?
Agreed; however, you are addressing science as a domain. I am speaking
of scientific activity, a behavior.
> ...As I said, funding of
> science is now largely decided by a bureaucratic military-industrial
> complex that follows a specific strategy.
That which we see is, but there is a tremendous amount of scientific
research which is conducted by individuals who are curious, who have no
funding. Often these activities lead to grant requests that are
funded, but the unfunded scientific effort created the program.
> Shouldn't we question this,
> as part of our epistemogical curiosity?
Absolutely.
Thanks for pinging my thinker. Gordon
Gordon Hill
zinnic wrote:
> Sam Carana wrote:
> > Hi Gordon! What do you think makes scientists different from
> > non-scientists? After all, many people, from professionals to
> > housekeepers, use methods to predict outcomes of various approaches,
> > observing, hypothesising and testing, but that doesn't make them
> > scientists, does it? The way people are selected to be scientists and
> > the way science is funded, isn't that important in regard to what
> > distinguishes science from other activities? As I said, funding of
> > science is now largely decided by a bureaucratic military-industrial
> > complex that follows a specific strategy. Shouldn't we question this,
> > as part of our epistemogical curiosity?
> >
> > Cheers!
> > Sam Carana
> >
> Hi Sam! What do you think makes the difference between accountants and
> non-accountants, engineers and non-engineers, lawyers and non-lawyers,
> politicians and non-politicians, epistemologists and
> non-epistemologists (etc,etc) ? Is it not important how these "people"
> are selected and funded in regard to what distinguishes "these
> activities" from scientists? Should'nt we question this, as part of
> our epistemological curiosity?
> Cheers
> Sam Carena (Oops!). I mean ..Zinnic
I'm with you both. Let's question everything as a part of our
epistemological curiosity.
Regards, Gordon
P.S. If we keep top posting, the group cops may rap our knuckles.
zinnic
Sam Carana wrote:
> Was there no claim that science was beneficial to mankind? Is science
> merely gathering knowledge for the sake of it? Or was the promise of
> benefits there when scientists submitted new projects for approval, or
> was at least the expectation or potential raised? Let's not kid
> ourselves, scientists are well aware that some projects are funded
> while others aren't. In fact, some scientists have made it into an art
> to present projects in such a way as to maximise their prospect for
> approval with the bureaucrats who in turn need to please the
> politicians and investors who put them into their positions. This
> "management" side of scientific projects may be looked down upon by
> scientists, who sometimes appoint people straight from the advertising
> sector to do this "promotional stuff", claiming that such emotional
> engagement with a project would compromise their objectivity.
And how does this differ from the strategy and 'hypocrisy' of other
groups competing for financial support from government or private
agencies. You 'demand' higher standards for scientists than you do for
'ordinary' mortals such as professional/academic philosophers
(epistemologists) and fine artists who likewise compete for the
limited funds available for support of their interests.
>
> But whether science is beneficial to mankind should of course be of
> concern to us. To equate science with making predictions is too
> simplistic, even in the eyes of a scientists who glorifies simplicity
> itself. Many people, from professionals to housekeepers, use methods to
> predict the outcome of various approaches, but that doesn't make them
> scientists.
> Let's face it. Education in science and scientific research are largely
> funded by taxpayers money, while students pay inflated fees because
> titles act as entry tickets to professions. The whole way science is
> organized comes at a huge cost to society, while conversely huge
> promises are made in regard to the beneficial aspects of science. While
> scientists are keen to accept the funding and the privileges, they use
> "objectivity" as a cloak to duck their responsibilities when it comes
> to covering the cost of risks associated with research, the harm
> inflicted by weapons developed by scientists, etc.
> The way science is organized and funded is crucial in defining what
> activities are undertaken under the banner of science, and how the
> associated risks are dealt with. From an epistemological perspective,
> it is our duty to look into the various ways things can be organized
> and funded, and we should endeavour to apply some ranking to the
> various approaches, rather than to rank a specific scientific model
> itself.
And Sam Carena will be the judge and jury that will rank and select
"how things" will be organised and funded!!
That there is something wrong and it should be fixed is indisputable!
What is wrong and how it should be fixed is disputable. The solution
lies in the political /social application of valid epistemological
and scientific theories. In other words we do not know the solutions.
All we can do is to carefully test out the programs that are predicted
to be most successful, and be prepared to abandon them when the
predictions prove to be incorrect.
Please advise me if you detect personal abuse in this response. It
remains difficult for me to reconcile disagreement with the personal
abuse you so often claim.I Be assured that I am attempting to
rehabilitate myself in a gross (twelve dozen) step program but so far
I have not managed to recognise the efficacy of your Libertarian and
anti-communalism advocacy ,which claims a right for 'neighbors' to opt
out of paying taxes for a sewage system and a right to dispose of
their wastes as they see fit.
Cheers
Zinnic
zinnic
Gordon Hill wrote:
> zinnic wrote:
> > Sam Carana wrote:
> I'm with you both. Let's question everything as a part of our
> epistemological curiosity.
>
> Regards, Gordon
But let us not spear an alleged Scientist/ Industry/ Government
complex as the 'shark' responsible for all society's ptoblems. There
are many other fish in the sea!.
Zinnic
Sam Carana
Sam: You're welcome to disagree with me on political points, zinnic,
but at least try and do so without twisting my words. What hypocrisy? I
clearly and repeatedly said that I don't want any group to be given
privileges. No person should decide or be the judge or rank on behalf
of other people, at least not without their approval. Instead,
decisions should be taken more directly, rather than go through a
bureaucratic monopoly. Yes, there are plenty of economic indicators
showing that a monopoly is wasteful and inefficient. Furthermore, our
rights should be respected and there are many ethical and moral
considerations speaking against a monopoly. So, what testing and
predictions are you waiting for? Why do you suggest that the monopoly
model should NOT be abandoned, without even coming up with any testing
or indications that this was the best way to go?
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Sam Carana
Let's not take the scientific/military/industrial complex off the hook
without arguments, especially if an apology for its practices implies a
prohibition of alternatives ways. Indeed, there are many problems in
society, but the way science is organized should be of concern in an
epistemological group and it should also be of concern to any people
who call themselves scientists and who exploit the associated
privileges, consume taxpayers money and carry responsibilities for
their work.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Sam Carana
Gordon Hill wrote:
> Sam Carana wrote:
>
>
> > Hi Gordon! What do you think makes scientists different from
> > non-scientists?
>
> I don't, but I do believe the scientific approach to problem solving
> leads, ultimately to the "scientific method".
>
(Sam: )
If anyone can and does practice the scientific method, then why call it
the "scientific" method?
> >
> > ...After all, many people, from professionals to
> > housekeepers, use methods to predict outcomes of various approaches,
> > observing, hypothesising and testing, but that doesn't make them
> > scientists, does it?
>
> Not unless they are engaged in research leading to the publication of
> results as some are. I'm not sure where you got the point that I think
> scientists are different. I think I said the scientific approach is
> different.
>
(Sam: )
So, the "scientific" method is not restricted to drawing conclusions
from past experiences to make predictions, but it now also includes
publication? What about the work scientists do to make a living, isn't
that not scientific after all? What about the scientific research that
never gets published, e.g. findings remain secret, are rejected for
publication or are kept away from competitors. Is that not scientific
after all? What about the many books that get published pretending to
have a scientific flavor? And, to repeat my point, if we are to add
publication, then why not also add the way people are selected for
publication and the way this scientific approach is typically funded
and organized?
> >
> > ...The way people are selected to be scientists and
> > the way science is funded, isn't that important in regard to what
> > distinguishes science from other activities?
>
> Agreed; however, you are addressing science as a domain. I am speaking
> of scientific activity, a behavior.
>
(Sam: )
Again, if science isn't different from other activities, then why speak
about the "scientific" method?
> >
> > ...As I said, funding of
> > science is now largely decided by a bureaucratic military-industrial
> > complex that follows a specific strategy.
>
> That which we see is, but there is a tremendous amount of scientific
> research which is conducted by individuals who are curious, who have no
> funding. Often these activities lead to grant requests that are
> funded, but the unfunded scientific effort created the program.
>
(Sam: )
Well, that's questionable without publication, isn't it? Are or aren't
you saying that anyone could follow the scientific method? Again, if
anyone can and does follow that method, why give it a specific name, as
if it was only for scientists? The concern is that decisions about
funding of the work of most scientists are made by a bureaucratic
octopus with many tentacles, including education, science, politics and
the military-industrial complex. From an epistemological perspective,
the following question emerges. If this bureaucracy determines who is
called scientist and which work gets funded, then isn't whatever the
"scientific" method was largely determined within this bureaucratic
monopoly, thus incorporating all the problems associated with a
monopoly into the scientific method?
> >
> > Shouldn't we question this,
> > as part of our epistemogical curiosity?
>
> Absolutely.
>
> Thanks for pinging my thinker. Gordon
(Sam: )
Thanks for agreeing that it is important to discuss this further. My
suggestion is to split up this octopus. Reform is most urgently needed
in the military.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
zinnic
I did not twist your words. You clearly implied scientists' hypocrisy
in your text. Quote "some scientists have made it into an art to
present projects in such a way as to maximise their prospect for
approval with the bureaucrats who in turn need to please the
politicians and investors who put them into their positions. This
"management" side of scientific projects may be looked down upon by
scientists, who sometimes appoint people straight from the advertising
sector to do this "promotional stuff", claiming that such emotional
engagement with a project would compromise their objectivity." Unquote.
I leave it to readers to judge whether or not I twisted your words!.I
> I clearly and repeatedly said that I don't want any group to be given
> privileges. No person should decide or be the judge or rank on behalf
> of other people, at least not without their approval. Instead,
> decisions should be taken more directly, rather than go through a
> bureaucratic monopoly.
More directly? What format do you suggest? Popular acclamation as to
the fundability of scientific projects?
>Yes, there are plenty of economic indicators
> showing that a monopoly is wasteful and inefficient. Furthermore, our
> rights should be respected and there are many ethical and moral
> considerations speaking against a monopoly. So, what testing and
> predictions are you waiting for? Why do you suggest that the monopoly
> model should NOT be abandoned, without even coming up with any testing
> or indications that this was the best way to go?
>
Scientific funding is not a monopoly any more than is funding or
awards based on peer review in engineering development, literary or
artistic disciplines (Oops! ,I forgot that you don't believe in
discipline).
Regards
Zinnic
Sam Carana
zinnic wrote:
> > I clearly and repeatedly said that I don't want any group to be given
> > privileges. No person should decide or be the judge or rank on behalf
> > of other people, at least not without their approval. Instead,
> > decisions should be taken more directly, rather than go through a
> > bureaucratic monopoly.
>
> More directly? What format do you suggest? Popular acclamation as to
> the fundability of scientific projects?
There, you do it again, you're twisting my words! I never suggested
popular acclamation. I clearly and repeatedly said that I advocate
reform that will allow more direct decisions to be made, instead of by
a bureacratic monstrosity that acts in many respects as a monopoly.
>
> >Yes, there are plenty of economic indicators
> > showing that a monopoly is wasteful and inefficient. Furthermore, our
> > rights should be respected and there are many ethical and moral
> > considerations speaking against a monopoly. So, what testing and
> > predictions are you waiting for? Why do you suggest that the monopoly
> > model should NOT be abandoned, without even coming up with any testing
> > or indications that this was the best way to go?
> >
> Scientific funding is not a monopoly any more than is funding or
> awards based on peer review in engineering development, literary or
> artistic disciplines (Oops! ,I forgot that you don't believe in
> discipline).
> Regards
> Zinnic
You still haven't been able to produce a single argument in favor of
continuation of the bureaucratic monstrosity. An engineer who builds a
bridge that subsequently collapses will face litigation, as discussed
under liability for scientists.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
zinnic
As a scientist I do not disagree with any of the above. But let not
our discontent degenerate into an extremism that demands that
certain citizens be forced to take a pledge that they will not engage
in any practice of their profession that self-appointed
'epistemologists' decide is 'harmful'. Let us regulate, not control.
An elected democratic government regulates but is itself regulated by
the voting booth. Only a government that controls the voting booth
could effectively demand pledges from its citizens..
More Cheers!
Zinnic
zinnic
Sam Carana wrote:
> zinnic wrote:
> > > I clearly and repeatedly said that I don't want any group to be given
> > > privileges. No person should decide or be the judge or rank on behalf
> > > of other people, at least not without their approval. Instead,
> > > decisions should be taken more directly, rather than go through a
> > > bureaucratic monopoly.
> >
> > More directly? What format do you suggest? Popular acclamation as to
> > the fundability of scientific projects?
>
>
> There, you do it again, you're twisting my words! I never suggested
> popular acclamation. I clearly and repeatedly said that I advocate
> reform that will allow more direct decisions to be made, instead of by
> a bureacratic monstrosity that acts in many respects as a monopoly.
There YOU do it again! I never suggested that you suggested popular
acclamation. Do you ignore question marks? Note, the presence of one
at the end of the sentence to which you object makes it non-accusatory
! So again, I ask what specific reform do you suggest?> >
> > >Yes, there are plenty of economic indicators
> > > showing that a monopoly is wasteful and inefficient. Furthermore, our
> > > rights should be respected and there are many ethical and moral
> > > considerations speaking against a monopoly. So, what testing and
> > > predictions are you waiting for? Why do you suggest that the monopoly
> > > model should NOT be abandoned, without even coming up with any testing
> > > or indications that this was the best way to go?
> > >
> > Scientific funding is not a monopoly any more than is funding or
> > awards based on peer review in engineering development, literary or
> > artistic disciplines (Oops! ,I forgot that you don't believe in
> > discipline).
> > Regards
> > Zinnic
>
>
> You still haven't been able to produce a single argument in favor of
> continuation of the bureaucratic monstrosity. An engineer who builds a
> bridge that subsequently collapses will face litigation, as discussed
> under liability for scientists.
I do not "produce a single argument in favor of the continuation" of
the present system because I do not favor its continuation.
Undoubtedly it can be improved. Your obsession with "liability for
scientist" is what I contest.
I doubt that an engineer who designs a bridge that subsequently
collapes will be sued. He may be fired and find it difficult to find
future employment. Litigation will be directed at the deeper pocket of
the construction company on the grounds that they are responsible for
employing an incompetent engineer or for not adhering to the
engineer's specifications.
Zinnic
Sam Carana
Sam Carana wrote:
> zinnic wrote:
> > > I clearly and repeatedly said that I don't want any group to be given
> > > privileges. No person should decide or be the judge or rank on behalf
> > > of other people, at least not without their approval. Instead,
> > > decisions should be taken more directly, rather than go through a
> > > bureaucratic monopoly.
> >
> > More directly? What format do you suggest? Popular acclamation as to
> > the fundability of scientific projects?
>
>
> There, you do it again, you're twisting my words! I never suggested
> popular acclamation. I clearly and repeatedly said that I advocate
> reform that will allow more direct decisions to be made, instead of by
> a bureacratic monstrosity that acts in many respects as a monopoly.
There YOU do it again! I never suggested that you suggested popular
acclamation. Do you ignore question marks? Note, the presence of one
at the end of the sentence to which you object makes it non-accusatory
! So again, I ask what specific reform do you suggest?
> >
> > >Yes, there are plenty of economic indicators
> > > showing that a monopoly is wasteful and inefficient. Furthermore, our
> > > rights should be respected and there are many ethical and moral
> > > considerations speaking against a monopoly. So, what testing and
> > > predictions are you waiting for? Why do you suggest that the monopoly
> > > model should NOT be abandoned, without even coming up with any testing
> > > or indications that this was the best way to go?
> > >
> > Scientific funding is not a monopoly any more than is funding or
> > awards based on peer review in engineering development, literary or
> > artistic disciplines (Oops! ,I forgot that you don't believe in
> > discipline).
> > Regards
> > Zinnic
>
>
> You still haven't been able to produce a single argument in favor of
> continuation of the bureaucratic monstrosity. An engineer who builds a
> bridge that subsequently collapses will face litigation, as discussed
> under liability for scientists.
I do not "produce a single argument in favor of the continuation" of
the present system because I do not favor its continuation.
Undoubtedly it can be improved. Your obsession with "liability for scientist" is what I contest. I doubt that an engineer who designs a bridge that subsequently collapes will be sued. He may be fired and find it difficult to find future employment. Litigation will be directed at the deeper pocket of
the construction company on the grounds that they are responsible for
employing an incompetent engineer or for not adhering to the
engineer's specifications.
Zinnic
Cheers!
Sam Carana
If doctors take an Oath, then why shouldn't other professions make a
Pledge? My point here is that, given the current overprivileged
situation and lack of accountibility for scientists, a Pledge makes
sense. It would be an improvement of the current situation, but it
wouldn't be the more radical reform that is needed. Once the situation
has improved, there would be ever less need for a Pledge, as pratices
and standards would apply as they apply elsewhere in society.
There are many ways in which democracy can be implemented. In my
proposal, decisions are made more directly, rather than to appoint a
bureaucracy to rule over areas like science.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Gordon Hill
Sam Carana wrote:
> Gordon Hill wrote:
> > Sam Carana wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Hi Gordon! What do you think makes scientists different from
> > > non-scientists?
> >
> > I don't, but I do believe the scientific approach to problem solving
> > leads, ultimately to the "scientific method".
> >
>
>
> (Sam: )
> If anyone can and does practice the scientific method, then why call it
> the "scientific" method?
>
>
> > >
> > > ...After all, many people, from professionals to
> > > housekeepers, use methods to predict outcomes of various approaches,
> > > observing, hypothesising and testing, but that doesn't make them
> > > scientists, does it?
> >
> > Not unless they are engaged in research leading to the publication of
> > results as some are. I'm not sure where you got the point that I think
> > scientists are different. I think I said the scientific approach is
> > different.
> >
>
>
> (Sam: )
> So, the "scientific" method is not restricted to drawing conclusions
> from past experiences to make predictions, but it now also includes
> publication?
No. The "scientific method" (note my quotes versus yours) is defined
independent of other methods. The word "scientific" is not an
adjective modifying method. The scientific method is a precisely
described procedure. Doo an Internet Search for "scientific method"
(including the quotes) and study some of the nearly ten million "hits".
Consider this one from the University of California at Riverside
website http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html
which details it as follows:
- - - excerpt - - -
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the
truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like
this:
* 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.
* 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between
theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and
provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of
phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are
explained and predictions are made.
- - - end excerpt - - -
The need for publication is to make findings available for peer review
and as additional information for other scientists.
> What about the work scientists do to make a living, isn't
> that not scientific after all?
The "scientific method" is the lynch pin of science. It prescribes a
methodology, nothing more. It is not the scientific process in a
nutshell. In fact, to my knowledge, the great scientific "discoveries"
begin as happenstance experiences totally removed from the method.
The first step, observe, is the key. People pay attention to what's
happening. The scientist, however, sees something, as a result of and
experiment or accidentally and thinks, "Whoa. What's going on here?
Then they begin their experiments.
One of my favorites is the way Marie Curie discovered X-Rays. Her
observation was, "Whoa, what's ruining my photographic plates?"
> What about the scientific research that
> never gets published, e.g. findings remain secret, are rejected for
> publication or are kept away from competitors. Is that not scientific
> after all? What about the many books that get published pretending to
> have a scientific flavor? And, to repeat my point, if we are to add
> publication, then why not also add the way people are selected for
> publication and the way this scientific approach is typically funded
> and organized?
Publication has nothing to do with the "scientific method", but it is
an essential part of the scientific process which engages the
scientific community.
> > >
> > > ...The way people are selected to be scientists and
> > > the way science is funded, isn't that important in regard to what
> > > distinguishes science from other activities?
> >
> > Agreed; however, you are addressing science as a domain. I am speaking
> > of scientific activity, a behavior.
> >
>
>
> (Sam: )
> Again, if science isn't different from other activities, then why speak
> about the "scientific" method?
It is different and it's not the "scientific" method, it's the
"scientific method". This is a critical distinction.
> > > ...As I said, funding of
> > > science is now largely decided by a bureaucratic military-industrial
> > > complex that follows a specific strategy.
> >
> > That which we see is, but there is a tremendous amount of scientific
> > research which is conducted by individuals who are curious, who have no
> > funding. Often these activities lead to grant requests that are
> > funded, but the unfunded scientific effort created the program.
> >
>
>
> (Sam: )
> Well, that's questionable without publication, isn't it? Are or aren't
> you saying that anyone could follow the scientific method? Again, if
> anyone can and does follow that method, why give it a specific name, as
> if it was only for scientists?
I think you are wandering off topic here, imagining things which so not
apply. It's called the "scientific method" as a reference. No one I
know has said it's just for scientists.
> The concern is that decisions about
> funding of the work of most scientists are made by a bureaucratic
> octopus with many tentacles, including education, science, politics and
> the military-industrial complex.
Not germain to the issue.
> From an epistemological perspective,
> the following question emerges. If this bureaucracy determines who is
> called scientist and which work gets funded, then isn't whatever the
> "scientific" method was largely determined within this bureaucratic
> monopoly, thus incorporating all the problems associated with a
> monopoly into the scientific method?
This is totally of the subject I am addressing, which is the
"scientific method" and how that fits into society.
> > > Shouldn't we question this,
> > > as part of our epistemogical curiosity?
> >
> > Absolutely.
> >
> > Thanks for pinging my thinker. Gordon
>
>
> (Sam: )
> Thanks for agreeing that it is important to discuss this further.
Clarification first. Discussion second.
> My
> suggestion is to split up this octopus. Reform is most urgently needed
> in the military.
Again, off topic for this strand of the thread. As for reform in the
military... refor is needed everywhere. That's where the scientific
method fits in. It is a well defined method for advancing rational
cognition in every area of knowledge.
Gordon Hill
Agreed. Organizations don't muck things up, people do.
Gordon
Sam Carana
(Sam: ) Is there only one way, or are there multiple ways to define the
scientific method? In one such definition, the method seeks to fit
reality into a model in which reality by definition doesn't fit. In
another definition, the method's claims of observing a universe
squeezes reality (in all its inherent diversity) into a model that's
false from the start and continuing down this road may well lead us
into a dead-end street, risking to destroy the world as we know it. In
another definition, the idea that there was only one definition of the
scientific method is in conflict with the very scientific tradition and
spirit. Indeed, in many respects scientists are people who do NOT
blindly follow a prescribed method or procedure, but who instead have
the curiosity and open-mindedness to see the alternatives that are
easily missed. In yet another definition, the scientific method is
inherently dangerous and biased in that it leads to collusive efforts
to hide the inherent diversity of reality and fool people into
collaborating with the deliberate removal of safeguards that have
proven to work effectively elsewhere in society. I like to think that
scientists are people with the presence of mind to recognise the
severity of a problem when it stared them in the eye and who will,
rather than continuing to analyse the problem, act by making the
necessary recommendations to improve the situation.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Gordon Hill
Sam Carana wrote:
<big snip>
> (Sam: ) Is there only one way, or are there multiple ways to define the
> scientific method?
It depends on whether you mean the "scientific method"--in which case
there is basically one way--or "scientific" method--in which case there
can be many.
For example, what is a pound cake? If you mean "pound cake" it has one
basic definition--one pound each of sugar, flour, butter and eggs--or
"pound" cake--which can be any cake that seighs one pound.
You are on to what I consider an essential in epistemology: the
definition of terms.
What do you mean by secientific methos?
> In one such definition, the method seeks to fit
> reality into a model in which reality by definition doesn't fit. In
> another definition, the method's claims of observing a universe
> squeezes reality (in all its inherent diversity) into a model that's
> false from the start and continuing down this road may well lead us
> into a dead-end street, risking to destroy the world as we know it. In
> another definition, the idea that there was only one definition of the
> scientific method is in conflict with the very scientific tradition and
> spirit. Indeed, in many respects scientists are people who do NOT
> blindly follow a prescribed method or procedure, but who instead have
> the curiosity and open-mindedness to see the alternatives that are
> easily missed. In yet another definition, the scientific method is
> inherently dangerous and biased in that it leads to collusive efforts
> to hide the inherent diversity of reality and fool people into
> collaborating with the deliberate removal of safeguards that have
> proven to work effectively elsewhere in society. I like to think that
> scientists are people with the presence of mind to recognise the
> severity of a problem when it stared them in the eye and who will,
> rather than continuing to analyse the problem, act by making the
> necessary recommendations to improve the situation.
Define what you mean and this becomes clear.
Gordon
Sam Carana
Sam Carana wrote:
<big snip>
> In one such definition, the (scientific) method seeks to fit
> reality into a model in which reality by definition doesn't fit. In
> another definition, the method's claims of observing a universe
> squeezes reality (in all its inherent diversity) into a model that's
> false from the start and continuing down this road may well lead us
> into a dead-end street, risking to destroy the world as we know it. In
> another definition, the idea that there was only one definition of the
> scientific method is in conflict with the very scientific tradition and
> spirit. Indeed, in many respects scientists are people who do NOT
> blindly follow a prescribed method or procedure, but who instead have
> the curiosity and open-mindedness to see the alternatives that are
> easily missed. In yet another definition, the scientific method is
> inherently dangerous and biased in that it leads to collusive efforts
> to hide the inherent diversity of reality and fool people into
> collaborating with the deliberate removal of safeguards that have
> proven to work effectively elsewhere in society. I like to think that
> scientists are people with the presence of mind to recognise the
> severity of a problem when it stared them in the eye and who will,
> rather than continuing to analyse the problem, act by making the
> necessary recommendations to improve the situation.
Define what you mean and this becomes clear.
Gordon
Cheers!
Gordon Hill
Nothing unclear in what you said. The uncertainty lies in what you
mean by scientific method.
In reviewing the original posting I think I misconstrued the premise as
follows:
- - - In the Original Topic - - -
Kent wrote:
> How is the following for a definition of the scientific method
>
> The scientific method is the building of logical and self consistent
> models to describe nature...
- - - End of excerpt - - -
My first response began:
"While I like the description, my quarrel is with the identifier,
scientific method, which is specifically defined, widely, as having
four or five steps. I prefer the four step model: (1) Observe, (2)
Form a hypothesis, (3) Test the hypothesis, (4) accept/reject the
hyposthesis or find the testing inconclusive.
That said, what is written in the topic is to me more a scientific
methodology of which the scientific method is the foundation..."
And that is my only point in this topic, that the use of the phrase
"scientific method" instead of "scientific methodology" or "scientific
process" is a potential confusion factor because the scientific method
is a specific identifier and using it otherwise may be best done by
changing the second word.
That's all.
The tangential discussion regarding the funding of science, etc. is of
little interest to me as it is too specific regarding a broad issue
which can not be reduced to fifty words or less.
>
> Cheers!
> Sam Carana
>
> ------=_Part_67868_20236989.1155530784087
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
> X-Google-AttachSize: 2043
>
> <div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/13/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Gordon Hill</b> <<a href="mailto:gor...@explainer.com">gor...@explainer.com</a>> wrote:</span>
> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>Sam Carana wrote:<br><big snip><br>> In one such definition, the (scientific) method seeks to fit
> <br>> reality into a model in which reality by definition doesn't fit. In<br>> another definition, the method's claims of observing a universe<br>> squeezes reality (in all its inherent diversity) into a model that's
> <br>> false from the start and continuing down this road may well lead us<br>> into a dead-end street, risking to destroy the world as we know it. In<br>> another definition, the idea that there was only one definition of the
> <br>> scientific method is in conflict with the very scientific tradition and<br>> spirit. Indeed, in many respects scientists are people who do NOT<br>> blindly follow a prescribed method or procedure, but who instead have
> <br>> the curiosity and open-mindedness to see the alternatives that are<br>> easily missed. In yet another definition, the scientific method is<br>> inherently dangerous and biased in that it leads to collusive efforts
> <br>> to hide the inherent diversity of reality and fool people into<br>> collaborating with the deliberate removal of safeguards that have<br>> proven to work effectively elsewhere in society. I like to think that
> <br>> scientists are people with the presence of mind to recognise the<br>> severity of a problem when it stared them in the eye and who will,<br>> rather than continuing to analyse the problem, act by making the
> <br>> necessary recommendations to improve the situation.<br><br>Define what you mean and this becomes clear.<br><br>Gordon</blockquote>
> <div> </div>
> <div> </div>
> <div>Mhm, was there anything unclear about that? </div><br>Cheers!</div>
> <div>Sam Carana</div>
>
> ------=_Part_67868_20236989.1155530784087--
Sam Carana
Gordon Hill
Sam Carana wrote:
<big snip and into the meat>
> I agree that it can be confusing when various terms and phrases are used
> with some apparent overlap, e.g.:
> scientific method
> scientific methodology
> science
> testing
> research
> scientific research
> scientific process
> scientific procedure
> scientific work
> publication
> peer review
> etc.
>
> My point is that - in the light of that confusion - it may be helpful to
> look at things that shape science and its method(ology). Funding is such a
> thing in the sense that it will be hard to attract funding from scientific
> budgets for work that doesn't follow the scientific method.
So true. Interestingly some of the most exciting scientific work is
discovered on the periphery.
> The interesting epistemological question is whether some projects don't get
> funded because they do not (sufficiently) follow the scientific method, or
> whether it's the other way around, i.e. that all projects that were funded
> are deemed to follow the scientific method, because they received funding.
> In other words, does the bureaucracy that funds scientific projects
> determine what the scientific method was.
This is an interesting subject and one I am unqualified to answer.
> Indeed, isn't it one of the aspects of the scientific method that one
> shouldn't take something for granted, without testing or without at least
> making an effort to think things through and consider the validity of the
> various alternatives?
The four step "scientific method" begins with observation, paying
attention. The next step, form a hyposthesis, does not come into play
until the "scientist" sees something worth investigating. This point
is too often ignored in discussing the method. The scientists I have
worked with spend a great deal of time paying attention and very little
time forming hypotheses, but when they do, they are tenatious,
sometimes working around the clock in pursuit of experimental results.
> Curiously, while there are plenty of indicators that
> monopolies should be avoided, there are few studies into the way science is
> typically funded, i.e. through a government bureaucracy that is heavily
> influenced by the military-industrial complex, with all the hallmarks of a
> monopoly. So, why is science funded and organized in this way, without
> testing, without even questions asked? Could it be that this monopoly
> refuses to fund such studies, because this is not in its interest? Doesn't
> this situation constitute a conflict of interest? And wouldn't that
> compromise the objectivity that is so often claimed to be an essential part
> of the scientific method?
I'm not sure you are staying with science, but may be moving into
engineering. there is a difference, a huge one. Science is about
proving (without certainty) "what is" while engineering is about
developing what can be made using the science of the day.
The late Charles Kettering liked to say technical advancement is like
weaving cloth with science as the weft and engineering as the warp.
Combining the two in appropriate ways yields a wonderful fabric.
> Perhaps you, as a scientist, aren't interested in how things are funded and
> organized. I can understand that a scientists who is keen to get a project
> off the ground, will care little about such things. But isn't this what
> makes scientists prone to accept a situation that could (and should) be
> improved?
Actually, I am an engineer with a scientific taste and I am interested
in how things are funded, but not in my case because I have put in my
forty five years of full time employment and now can do what I choose
(which I did when working as well and yes I got fired and laid off
several times. so what?)
As I mentioned earlier, I got off track by misreading the opening
topic, but have enjoyed this exchange.
All the best, Gordon
<snip the HTML copy that appeared in this message>