BREEN'S SCIENTIFIC METHOD
stuart
BREEN'S SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Stuart Segan writes: "As hackneyed is the party line that Breen is
the greatest researcher of US numismatics, so too is the rebuttal
in which Breen is reduced to "pure conjecture, speculation,
guesswork, and embellished hypothesis." Further, Moulton's
assertion that "Breen did not necessarily change the face of
American numismatic scholarship for the better" is absurd and
wrong.
Scientific method, and Breen's application of same to American
numismatics, is at the heart of the controversy. Scientific
method is not concerned with facts so much as it is with method
and hence the use of the word method and not fact. If one
formula or way of looking at a situation leads to "truth" we are
closing in on what is known as theory.
To cite one example, Newton developed a theory, often referred
to as the Theory of Gravity. Within limits (no pun intended for
those familiar with the "little rocks") Newton was able to predict
the motion of moving bodies nearly precisely and for a wide
range of moving bodies. The generality of the theory was so
profound it was not proved "wrong" for 150 odd years. To
complete the example, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity
was able to account for some ridiculously small wobble in the
movement of at least one of the planets that was not accounted
for by Newton's theory. While Newton technically was "wrong"
it would be the dilettante that runs around saying "Newton was
wrong, Newton was wrong."
Now back to our humble domain of American numismatics. Breen
to a degree constructed a theory of American numismatics. His
theory when applied to various situations at the US Mint resulted
in predictions that were correct. Needless to say in other cases
the
predictions were wrong - no big deal really. It is the dilettante
that
hangs his hat on Breen's mistakes and looks no further at the
groundwork Breen provided. It is method and not fact with which
we are concerned.
It is sad that this discussion continues. Breen's admirers (and
yes,
I am obviously one of them) at their best understand scientific
method and intuitively appreciate Breen's humble approach to the
overall question of American numismatics. At their worst Breen's
admirers overlook a great deal of flaws both professionally and
personally in order to keep the ideal of his work fresh. Breen's
detractors at their best grant that Breen did some good work but
there are lots of mistakes. At their worst, they lose sight of
scientific method altogether and see only the mistakes.
Breen's method in my opinion flowered around the late 1940s
which makes it about 50 years old. We might quibble that the
"facts" in the Encyclopedia are wrong. It is riddled with method
and that IS Breen's contribution. Breen for this reason changed
the face of American numismatic scholarship most decidedly for
the better."
Mr. Jaggers
My understanding of scientific method is this: Everything begins as a
hypothesis, a/k/a a feeling in one's bones, a WAG, a hunch. When the means
become available for the testing of a hypothesis, testing begins. If
falsifiable evidence emerges which supports the hypothesis, the latter is
promoted to a theory, which then sits on a continuum, its position on which
dependent upon the amount and importance of the evidence that supports it.
As evidence accumulates in its favor, the theory becomes more solid, but
never reaches the status of 100% "proven" (at that point, investigation and
experimentation would necessarily cease, as there would be no purpose in
further effort). However, to quote the late, great Stephen Jay Gould,
"Scientific Fact is a theory that is so thoroughly confirmed that it would
be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
James
Bob F.
Few, if any, numismatists share that assessment.
He attempts to build his reputation (such as it is) by attacking Breen.
He feels that if he discredits Breen then he (Goldie) is the superior
scholar.
IMHO Goldie is to numismatic scholarship as Francine Prilosec is to
numismatic dealers.
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:gufl8...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Mike Marotta
> The E-Sylum: Volume 3, Number 27, July 2, 2000, Article 12
> numismatics, is at the heart of the controversy.
> the face of American numismatic scholarship most decidedly for
> the better."
I found this in the archives and was sorry to have missed it the first
time around. Breen's methodology applies well to another area of
controversy: western assay bars.
Some of these inventions made their way into The Red Book and the
Smithsonian before being condemned.
Much evidence was eventually accumulated and organized. ((See "HOW
THE WEST WAS FAKED," by John Kleeberg and T.V. Buttrey -- 30th March
2004: revised 12th July 2005 -- http://www.fake-gold-bars.co.uk/)
The motivations for that originated in the Henry Clifford Collection
Sale which brought into one catalog, a disparate agglomeration of
objects lacking internal consistency.
By the standards of the scientific method, that was enough to require
more proof from anyone who sought to claim that these ingots were
authentic. It is not possible to prove a negative. But is it possible
to falsify a positive and the Brother Jonathan hoard did just that.
Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
"Cow with Bay Leaves."
Mike Marotta
> Stuart Segan writes: "As hackneyed is the party line that Breen is
> the greatest researcher of US numismatics, so too is the rebuttal
> ... "facts" in the Encyclopedia are wrong. It is riddled with method
> and that IS Breen's contribution. Breen for this reason changed
> the face of American numismatic scholarship most decidedly for
> the better."
Over on CoinTalk one of the topic threads is about an 1870 Pattern
Half Dime. I have both an old an a new Judd, and also Pollock. While
the new Whitman Judd does incorporate many of the excellent features
of the Whitman "Official Red Book" series, it is a different kind of
work than Pollock. Andrew W. Pollock's UNITED STATES PATTERNS AND
RELATED ISSUES actually follows the format of Breen.
Breen's Encyclopedia created a new paradigm for presentation of
numismatic material.
Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
"Compare and contrast"
Frank Provasek
at Arlington) I just have to disagree with claims that Breen's work
encompasses use of the Scientific Method. For the layman, the Wiki
explanation is thus:
;;Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating
phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating
previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must
be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence
subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method
consists of the collection of data through observation and
experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another,
identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other
methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses
as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test
these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to
dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider
domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent
structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups
of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the
conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased
interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to
document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are
available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing
other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to
reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows
statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be
established.::
Breen should be commended for filling in the missing pieces (or
conflicting versions) of numismatic history with something that is
reasonable and provides good continuity. But since it doesn't involve
repeatable observations of natural phenomena, the term "Scientific
Method" is really not appropriate.
----
Frank Provasek Rare Coins
http://www.frankcoins.com Ebay FRANKCOINS
Member ANA, Texas Numismatic Assoc, Texas Coin Dealers Assoc,
PCGS, NGC, & ANACS authorized dealer, Texas Auctioneer Lic 11259
Bob F.
yours to explain why your auctions have been repeatedly cancelled and
your account suspended multiple times by eBay?
Riddle me that, Brainiac!
"Frank Provasek" <fr...@frankcoins.com> wrote in message
news:93e41270-4a5a-4526...@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Mike Marotta
> As the holder of a degree in the sciences (BSEE, University of Texas
> at Arlington) I just have to disagree with claims that Breen's work
> encompasses use of the Scientific Method.
I hold a bachelor of science degree in criminology from Eastern
Michigan University. I taught technical writing in the Technology
Division of Lansing Community College. I worked in manufacturing,
robotics and factory automation for 20 years.
> ;;Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating
> phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating
> previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must
> be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence
> subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method
> consists of the collection of data through observation and
> experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Breen's work does, indeed, meet that standard. Breen found new facts
and corrected previous miscalculations. He always wrapped his work in
a theoretical explanation that led (or could lead) to the discovery of
new facts.
I recently posted at length in a topic called "Truth, Validity, and
Falsehood in Numismatics." That article cited several sources for
explanations of The Scientific Method.
Much more needs to be said about the failure of "postivism" in
science. Many science and engineering curricula fall into this 19th
century fallacy which claims that you can know empirically that the
sun always rises in the east in the morning, but you can never known
WHY it MUST, so you have to continually REPEAT OBSERVATIONS to get
closer to the "truth" but the "truth" is never final. According to
postivism, truth changes. This is the root of the post-modernist
ignorance currently touted in our universities as a superior level of
understanding. They call their method "deconstruction" and its goal
is to prove that you can know nothing except what everyone else tells
you.
When done properly, as Breen did, critical analysis of previously
published works is also an application of the scientific method. It
is not just "filling in the gaps of history." Moreover, anyone who
reads a Breen Encyclopia knows that he invested promethean efforts in
empirical observations by identifiying die varieties.
Breen held a bachelor of arts in mathematics from Johns Hopkins (Phi
Beta Kappa). His master's was from UC Berkeley.
Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
"Objectivism is rational-empiricism"
Frank Provasek
> When done properly, as Breen did, critical analysis of previously
> published works is also an application of the scientific method. It
> is not just "filling in the gaps of history." Moreover, anyone who
> reads a Breen Encyclopia knows that he invested promethean efforts in
> empirical observations by identifiying die varieties.
>
> Breen held a bachelor of arts in mathematics from Johns Hopkins (Phi
> Beta Kappa). His master's was from UC Berkeley.
>
> Mike M.
> Michael E. Marotta
> "Objectivism is rational-empiricism"
It still fails the definition as understood by the university level.
Breen used a combination of deductive reasoning, common sense and
philosphy. Same thing with your CSI television shows. Application of
science doesn't equate with application of the "Scientific Method."
http://books.google.com/books?id=iVkugqNG9dAC&dq=scientific+method&source=bll&ots=1P3SrSPjYH
Bob F.
http://books.google.com/books?id=iVkugqNG9dAC&dq=scientific+method&source=bll&ots=1P3SrSPjYH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't ya just love Francine's new Usenet persona, that of a
pseudo-intellectual scientist?
Guess when your coin business has gone in the crapper it's nice to have
something to fall back on!
Mike Marotta
> It still fails the definition as understood by the university level.
> Breen used a combination of deductive reasoning, common sense and
> philosphy. Same thing with your CSI television shows. Application of
> science doesn't equate with application of the "Scientific Method."
They are not "my" CSI shows. I watched one all the way through once.
But I take your point. Mere application of science is not the
scientific method. I still maintain that Breen practiced the
scientific method. You disagree. Nonetheless, rather than get into a
to-may-to versus to-mah-to argument on this, I will request from my
university library the book you recommended and let you know later
where we are with this. If we have common ground, we can discuss
Breen, otherwise we are no farther down the road.
Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
"Off to see Mr. Wizard"
Mike Marotta
Just to say that this book is apparently authorative. The author,
Hugh G. Gauch, Jr., follows pere who was himself noteworthy in the
life sciences. Fille Gauch has significant publications, as well.
However, among them is this:
Recent Transitions in Natural Theology: The Emergence of a Bolder
Paradigm
Hugh G. Gauch, Jr.
Crop and Soil Sciences
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853-1901
hg...@cornell.edu
June 2006
Cornell, of course, is where Barbara McClintock did her undergraduate
work. Feynman taught there as well.
Mike M.
Bob F.
news:3c13b9ad-0147-42d8...@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>... Feynman taught there as well.
Surely you're joking...
Mr. Jaggers
Carl Sagan taught there as well, but did *not* have Ann Coulter in any of
his classes.
Have you read The Classic Feynman, his autobiography-in-vignettes? He was
brilliant, but what a nut!
James
Mike Marotta
> Carl Sagan taught there as well, but did *not* have Ann Coulter in any of
> his classes.
[At the University of Denver] Rice attended a course on international
politics taught by Josef Korbel, the father of future Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright. This experience sparked her interest in the
Soviet Union and international relations and made her call Korbel "one
of the most central figures in my life."
(wikipediia -- Condoleezza Rice)
Breen delivered a talk at the Coinage of the Americaa 1989 conference
on "Metallic Panaceas: Gold Bugs, Silver Crusaders and the Wizard of
Oz." (See my bibliography on RCC from June 27, 2009, "The Wizard of
Oz as a Gold Fable.") The thesis that L. Frank Baum intended a
parable about populism gained visibilty as the 50th anniversary of the
1939 movie approached. It dates originally to a 1964 paper by Henry
M. Littlefield, “The Wizard of Oz: Parable on Populism.”
American Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Spring, 1964), pp. 47-58.
Seemingly that is an obscure reference, especially from the days
before electronic archiving of academic journal articles. But note
that Johns Hopkins University was Walter Breen's alma mater. Breen
was a consummate reader and at least early in life had a photographic
memory. Did he store that bit of aracana for 25 years?
Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
"One chance in a million is a statement of likelihood, not
impossibilty."
Mike Marotta
> science doesn't equate with application of the "ScientificMethod."
>
I got this via interlibrary loan through my university library. THE
SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN PRACTICE by Hugh G. Gauch, Jr. (Cambridge
University Press, 2003) is an excellent reminder of the obvious.
Seriously ... and we need this.
As for numismatics, it could be a science. We claim that it is.
However, after reading the first 100 pages of this book, I am
confident that I have never read a scientific paper about
numismatics. Like CSI:TV, we apply techniques from sciences. but
never actually "do" science. Breen came close. He hit many of the
benchmarks ... but not all of them. Interestingly, the one he gets
credit for is the one that is most subtle: parsimony. Breen estimated
actual mintages by assuming that the Mint stopped striking current
year coins sometime in or before the fourth quarter, so that Mint
Director reports must refer to some production of the forward calendar
year, which was different from the US government fiscal year.
Mike M.
Michael E. Marotta
Shaving with Ockham's Razor