Hard News: Miracles just rate better, okay?
510 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 17 18 19 20 21 Newer→ Last
-
How about an alternative way of putting it, that two of history's lessons are that from among the broad range of today's quackery only a modest proportion will emerge as tomorrow's orthodoxy.
I guess that's a better way of putting it (except that it seems to be only one lesson). Actually an incredibly small proportion.
The corollary would be not so much that quackery per se must be tolerated, but that one should be careful in assessing non-orthodox practice, insofar as it does no harm, as there may well be some good stuff in there.
I'm giving what I believe to be Feyerabend's corollary, so no, it's not my own approach, as you say. There is the fairly valid criticism that he is trying to legislate against a scientific theory (about the method of science), and his position is thus self-contradictory (a stock standard problem with all kinds of relativism). Also, the complete lack of any guidelines given seems unhelpful, as others have said here. His position seems to be only against another, rather than a position of his own. I felt it was rather like a lot of postmodern thought, but I'm no expert on that. It contains interesting criticism, but doesn't really pose any serious alternative.
To that end, Lakatos had a far better theory. Feyerabend didn't call him a "fellow anarchist" for nothing. He seemed to believe that Lakatos had found a way within the idea of competing research programs to accommodate the possibility of any-view-at-all, whilst still giving guidelines about which views were 'better'. So in the end his own response was basically a polemic warning against the idea of trusting too much in any particular research program, including Lakatos' own one. It built on Kuhn's case study of the Copernican Revolution which showed that many more factors than just the science came to bear in the eventual triumph of Galileo, and it looked in a lot of depth at the actual methods of Galileo, showing just how shonky they would be considered today, compared to the much squarer approach of the Church scientists. His point is that we really judge Galileo on his final results far more than we judge him on his actual methods, but the mythology of science tells a different story because that shonkyness doesn't really sound anywhere near so good as the lovely idea of an all-embracing method.
-
If racism or elitism play any part at all then that undermines quite a lot of the claims of rationality.
No, because we're talking about the reaction of scientists, not science per se. They're human too, and can be swayed by irrational factors, as with anyone. For example, did racism play a role in westerners' dismissal of some other cultures' practices? Yeah, sure. Inasmuch as some westerners were scientists, it may have played some role in their attitude. This could explain some of “the condescending attitudes of many [some] scientists towards alternative traditions” that PF was apparently so indignant about. But there are good scientific reasons to be underwhelemed by astrology and rain dances (or, perhaps more accurately, a lack of reasons to be impressed by them). So the fact that the scientific community considers astrology to be psuedoscience or superstition is not due to racism or elitism.
I'm not so sure it's difficult to prove scientific theories wrong.
But we weren't talking about scientific theories; we were referring to rain dances and astrology as examples of 'alternative traditions' (as the article puts it). And it is difficult for science to conclusively prove such phenomena untrue.
It is their own business what scientists take seriously, but how seriously should their claims that things are bunk be taken, if they have not actually proved that?
It is, as you say, up to each scientist what he or she will consider bunk. But science per se does not say this or that traditional practice or belief is bunk. For example, science doesn't tell us ghosts do not exist; it says that there is no evidence for ghosts that is scientifically compelling. What evidence there may be is largely sporadic and anecdotal and not amenable to scientific methodology. It is up to the individual to decide if they believe in ghosts anyway (perhaps due to a personal experience they feel can't be explained any other way), or dismiss ghosts as superstition, or take some undecided stance. People are entitled to their view, but if someone tries to have public policy changed in some way on the basis of their belief in ghosts (or, say, creationism) then that's another matter.
So for me the question still remains: how much more do you want scientists to do to demostrate that astrology, or ghosts, or intelligent design, or rain dances or leprechauns are not worthy of a lot more of their resources? How many folk tales, myths, religions and traditional practices should scientists take seriously because they haven’t been absolutely, conclusively disproven?
We already had a scientific evangelist on this thread earlier, telling me not to bother doing any alternative research of my own into my skin problem, because science had already proven that nothing else was going to help.
That person's position sounds a bit unreasonable to me. Where was that, btw? - this thread's pretty long now and I don't recall the exchange.
I don't see how we can consider it anything other than an ideology. What else would you call it? A simple truth? Can you even describe what it is?
A method.
Is it humble? I don't think so for a second. It makes claims into the farthest reaches of human knowledge, the highest, the furthermost, the most ancient, the smallest, the most powerful, the fundamental structure of all matter, all molecules, all lifeforms, the makeup of the mind, the possibilities of calculation, etc etc.
It makes claims to be able to provide some knowledge about such things, yes. It doesn't say it has provided final answers; it doesn't assume that it can provide final answers. That's not arrogant.
[Feyerband]'s talking about publicly funded science, for starters, so he's not suggesting that private research be suppressed by order of the people. He's also making the point that some 'conclusions' of science delve into the deeply political and/or highly immoral. Science already self-governs that with various ethics institutions, but I don't think he's a fan of oversight of an institution by the institution and feels such oversight should rest with the people. For instance, a conclusion that every person should be inoculated against some rare disease is something that every person should have some say in.
Don't people already have a say in publicly funded science, in the same way they have a say in any publicly funded endevour in a democracy? Everyone does have a say in whether every person should be inoculated against such and such.
Einstein's mathematics violates Newton's first principle by being far less elegant.
Not necessarily. He said only to admit no more causes than were “sufficient to explain their appearances”. Newton's theories didn't explain all appearances, as you said. To put it a bit simplistically: Einstein's theories seemed to explain some things better. Tests were done. Einstein's theories were ultimately shown to be better. (Newton's theories were, of course, better than what had come before.)
Has anyone around here read 'Why Evolution is True' then?
Sigh. No, but will add it to aforementioned increasingly long list of books to read...
-
Steve, you make a great many claims about what science is here. But that is the very subject under discussion, the very subject that Feyerabend is engaging with. You can't refute him by just saying "No, science is this", without some kind of evidence or analysis of some actual science, a look at the history of science as it actually happened rather than some mythologized account that pretty much says how 'scientists' (whoever they are - again, this is the term under discussion) want it to be understood.
What do you think science is? It's not sufficient to just say "A method", I'm sorry. What is that method? Give me details, perhaps illustrated by some examples. I want a description that is both necessary and sufficient to describe the criteria by which you could call a view scientific, a person a scientist. This criteria will need to show clearly what it is that puts the groups/beliefs you think are unscientific outside of the box, and those who are scientific inside of it.
I know this is a big ask, but if you really want to criticize Against Method by claiming the existence of a method that adequately characterizes all science, it's on you to say what that method is. Make your bold claim. Declare your membership to a research program, your allegiance to a school.
I've already spent many thousands of words here outlining my POV. To summarize, I would pretty much say that I think Lakatos had the best account of the way orthodox science works, but Feyerabend shows the difficulty and dangers of accepting any general method as the final gospel, and instead suggests that it is actually the openness of science, rather than close-minded allegiance to a dogma, that gives it the most lasting strength.
-
Apparently I’ve made a great many claims about what science is already, and yet you want me to make another, bold one!
Seriously, though, I don’t see that I have made a great many claims; I’ve taken the standard approach to what science is. I rather like this summation from Stanford Encyclopedia: “a minimal (necessary but not sufficient) criterion of science, [is] a systematic search for knowledge whose validity does not depend on the particular individual but is open for anyone to check or rediscover”. It is crucial that scientific theories are open and can be subject to repeatable tests. If a system doesn’t meet at least those criteria, it ain’t science. I’m not making any radical claims about science or its methodology. I’m pointing out the flaws in Feyerabend’s criticism of science (as they have been explained here or in that Wiki article), such as his view “...that there is no justification for valuing scientific claims over claims by other ideologies like religions.” Feyerabend seems to place too little stock in what Chris mentioned earlier: that the influence science has “derives from the evidence of its power to explain and accurately predict the physical and biological world...”.[Feyerabend] suggests that it is actually the openness of science, rather than close-minded allegiance to a dogma, that gives it the most lasting strength.
What he hasn't done, from what I've read so far, is explain why we should see science as "closed minded".
Science is a methodology that can be applied to our search for knowledge about the world. It may not be perfect, in the sense that it may not be able to tell us everything about the world, and it is not immune from errors (as scientists are humans, and therefore fallible), but it is extremely useful. As a trite observation, it is an ideology of sorts, but it is of a different order to things like communism, capitalism, monarchism, Christianity, or voodoo. Feyerabend seems to want to treat science the same as those kinds of ideologies. He wants to protect society from the ideology of science. As you alluded to earlier, this is subject to the relativist paradox: we would only be substituting his ‘no method’ ideology. I think that the effect of his approach would be the opposite of what he intends. In as much as science is “on a pedestal”, it is because it has earned it.
I’ve read a little more of Feyerabend’s views, (although I haven’t read Against Method yet), and it does seem my suspicion that I wasn’t going to agree with much of what he said was fair. He’s a social constructionist, and so to answer your earlier question, I’d say ‘Yes’, he is a post modernist. He’s also seems to be a supporter of a kind of cultural relativism related to an incommensurability theory, which I’m against. (I’m more aligned with the critics of incommensurability, such as Selya Benhabib, touched on in this book review.)
-
Apparently I’ve made a great many claims about what science is already, and yet you want me to make another, bold one!
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I want you to make some specific claims about what science is, rather than the kind of nebulous generalizations that play into Feyerabend's hands. Dictionary definitions might cut it in a high school debate, but not when you want to cut down someone who spent their life writing about science and philosophy. I could not take your Stanford encyclopedia definition and work out whether alchemy was more scientific than orthodox chemistry because it is simply not specific enough. You can do your own alchemy to "check or rediscover" if there is any truth in it. Similarly with witchcraft and voodoo. So, according to Stanford, are these things scientific? In being so unspecific, you really are playing his game.
You also need to take care to understand what it is that Feyerabend is arguing against. He is not arguing against science. He is arguing about what science is. He is arguing against the idea of an all-embracing method. It is patently clear from his writing that he admires scientists a great deal. He just thinks that what they do isn't really quite as systematic as is popularly believed. In refusing to define any method, you completely fail to argue against him. Instead you strengthen his point that it is actually very difficult to put a box around it that separates it from a number of other ideologies.
If you don't think it is difficult to construct such a box, then please do so. That was the bold claim I was asking for, in a deliberate reference to Popper, who did indeed suggest a method, one which involved making very strong and specific statements about the world rather than the kind that are hard to pin down, that say very little, and risk almost nothing. In making such a claim you might learn something. In merely claiming that there is a method, but you can't define it, we just come back to definition by analogies and examples, rather than what I asked for, some criteria that would be both necessary and sufficient.
I’ve read a little more of Feyerabend’s views, (although I haven’t read Against Method yet), and it does seem my suspicion that I wasn’t going to agree with much of what he said was fair. He’s a social constructionist, and so to answer your earlier question, I’d say ‘Yes’, he is a post modernist. He’s also seems to be a supporter of a kind of cultural relativism related to an incommensurability theory, which I’m against. (I’m more aligned with the critics of incommensurability, such as Selya Benhabib, touched on in this book review.)
Some interesting stuff there. I'd personally like to hear from someone who claims any kind of sympathy with postmodernism what they think about Feyerabend's postmodernism, although I'm inclined to agree. But that is because I'm a modernist, after all, as I think you are. At least I'd say I'm more sympathetic to modernism, despite recognizing a great many strong criticisms from postmodernists. In saying Feyerabend is postmodern I could just be confessing that I don't understand him.
As for incommensurability, Feyerabend mentions it constantly, but he never really attempted to be that precise. I think he thought it was impossible to be precise about it. Certainly it is an extremely powerful idea, that basically some notions can't be translated between different viewpoints without losing something.
I'm undecided on the matter myself. It seems to me that translation can never be 100% perfect, but it can get close, and that part of the objective of communication is to achieve this end. That said, I totally despair of understanding certain things, because the work involved is simply too great. I doubt, for instance, that I will ever understand Chinese. I think this could happen quite a lot in comparisons between scientific theories.
Furthermore, incommensurability is not always accidental. Very often, people opt to be misunderstood, or to misunderstand others. They usually do this to obtain some advantage, particularly if they can convince other people to buy into the misunderstanding. This is a political dimension to thought from which science is not exempt, nor ever has been.
Being a modernist, I like to think that human understandings can converge, if the parties involved undertake to make it happen with honesty. But there is never any guarantee of that, and modernism is to that extent Utopian, and suffers from all the criticisms that such 'big dreams' always have suffered from. Dreaming don't make it so.
Certainly my own attempts at 'knowledge engineering', a study I pursued for many years both academically and professionally, showed me that powerful forces come into play to make one simplify the ideas and talents of other people, and that in pinning down exactly what it is that people mean by things you often basically kill off what they really meant and replace it with a pale substitute. But just as often, you also expand their understanding, and help to share in it, and automate it. I've seen it go both ways a number of times, and find it impossible to believe it doesn't happen in other sciences just the same way.
-
In making such a claim you might learn something.
I often feel that I learn something when arguing with you Ben. Not necesarily the point you were hoping to get across, but something.
He just thinks that what they do isn't really quite as systematic as is popularly believed.
Wait, that’s it? He just wants to say that what scientists do isn’t really quite as systematic as many think? I don’t disagree with that and hence your request for a specific method that completely and unequivocally covers all things science, while clearly keeping all things pseudoscience at bay, is a straw man.
I never said defining or delineating science was unproblematic. Although I’m sure lots of endeavours are problematic when it comes to tight, all-encompassing definitions, such as history/historian, philosophy/philosopher. Heck, try and define ‘superhero’ in way that keeps all the right people in and out of the box (why is Batman a super hero, but not Zorro?). However, there is broad agreement as to what the scientific method entails.
To recap: what I disagreed with PF about (so far as has been expressed here and elsewhere that I have read) is his dismissal of scientists’ views on rain dances and astrology as racist or elitist; the view that science is extremely arrogant and closed-minded; his conclusion that there is no difference between the claims of science and those of astrology, voodoo, and mythology and such like.
As I said earlier, I haven’t read AM and have will judge the full argument he makes for being against method when I do. However, as best as I can tell so far, he seems to go a bit further than you suggest above.
He is not arguing against science. ... It is patently clear from his writing that he admires scientists a great deal.
That may be true of some of his writing, but not all, it doesn’t seem. For example:
science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit... It is conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, (AM, p. 295).
[From Wiki]Feyerabend advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology
The consensus of various Wikipedia and Standford Encyclopedia articles I’ve read seems to be that he wants to knock science off its supposed pedestal down to the level of magic. It’s hard to see how you’re not “against science” to a degree if you want to compare science to voodoo. Furthermore, it seems to me he is effectively arguing that science is nothing; if you take the method out of science, what’s left?
So, according to Stanford, are these things scientific?
No, it was a “necessary but not sufficient” definition. It makes for a good starting point, but is not the full answer. Like I said, I never claimed defining the scientific method was easy or uncontentious. But it seems to me that it is a methodological approach, and that needs to be recognised. It’s an ideology of sorts, but not the same as Zoroastrianism, communism, or voodoo.
He is arguing about what science is.
And what was his answer?
-
I never said defining or delineating science was unproblematic.
And yet you have made many such delineations with respect to particular instances. On what basis have you done this?
However, there is broad agreement as to what the scientific method entails.
Where is your evidence that this agreement is broad? And even if it is broad, is it true? Do you really think this link gives sufficient detail to decide whether a pursuit is scientific or not? Do you even think they have the right to make such a delineation? Definitely Popper would be proud to have read it, since it is heavily influenced by his thoughts. Kuhn is mentioned, but what he said largely ignored, since his work basically shows that this method was not applied in anything like this way in the Copernican Revolution.
I notice this is "science according to physicists" which is not uncommon when waxing philosophical about science. The bias shows, because some kinds of pursuits commonly called scientific do not, for instance, place anywhere near the level of emphasis on "predictive power". Any study of the past struggles with it, like anthropology, historiography, geology. Furthermore, a number of things called scientific don't involve very much by the way of experiment - I studied computer science for many years, and experiments were few and far between. In that field, as in mathematics, proof of correctness is far more important.
That may be true of some of his writing, but not all, it doesn’t seem. For example:
science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit... It is conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, (AM, p. 295).
[From Wiki]Feyerabend advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology
You presume that Feyerabend dislikes the noisy conspicuous impudence of science. You would be wrong. Like Popper, he saw that as a strength. He is simply countering the idea that it is sober, humble and methodical, as it is commonly portrayed.
In seeking to treat it as an ideology he is simply contrasting it with treating it as truth . It might not be truth. The exact same thing happened to magic, mythology and religion. They were once considered true, and this did them, and humanity, damage. They need to be seen for what they are, a viewpoint.
It’s hard to see how you’re not “against science” to a degree if you want to compare science to voodoo.
It's not hard at all. You could be "for voodoo". I think Feyerabend felt that voodoo had its place.
Furthermore, it seems to me he is effectively arguing that science is nothing; if you take the method out of science, what’s left?
I don't know - you haven't put the method into it yet ;-) But yes, this was a criticism I mentioned above - he fails to characterize science. This is hard to reconcile with his apparent respect for it. What is it that he has respect for? He never really says. He only gives examples (usually of people who were "conspicuous, noisy, and impudent")
It makes for a good starting point, but is not the full answer.
Actually it goes right back to Popper, who is way down the chain of scientific theorists, but not at the end, by any stretch.
It’s an ideology of sorts, but not the same as Zoroastrianism, communism, or voodoo.
Funny you should mention communism. Popper considered that to be a scientific theory - one that had been proven false. I think he would have felt the same way about both Zoroastrianism and voodoo. Feyerabend, on the other hand, would have felt they were simply short on results, but still worthwhile studies for anyone who was interested.
And what was his answer?
Like yours, a series of anecdotes. But his conclusion was that the method was not only not defined, it was indefinable.
-
Ben wrote :
I studied computer science ...
Just because it has "science" in the name doesn't mean that it is necessarily science :-). (I have a BSc and a DipCompSci but little of what I studied at varsity in Computer Science I would consider as science).
I am really enjoying following this discussion.
In seeking to treat it as an ideology he is simply contrasting it with treating it as truth . It might not be truth.
Arguably, science could be an ideology, however it is more than just an ideology. However, it is not a "truth". It is a method. A method for explaining, or establishing, facts (not necessarily 100%, definitely true facts, but 90%+, most likely, may need to be refined further, type facts).
The exact same thing happened to magic, mythology and religion. They were once considered true, and this did them, and humanity, damage. They need to be seen for what they are, a viewpoint.
I cannot see it being replaced with anything else, ever. Refined, adjusted, adapted - yes. But, chucked out and replaced - no. There can be no replacement for looking at something, coming up with an explanation for it, and then testing that explanation to establish under what conditions it seems be true.
So I disagree with Feyerabend (as outlined here), and agree with Steve Parks
... seems to be that he wants to knock science off its supposed pedestal down to the level of magic. It’s hard to see how you’re not “against science” to a degree if you want to ...
...do that.
-
Brent, snap! I was DipCompSci too (although the other was Arts-Philosophy esp Logic). And like you, I didn't find much that was 'scientific' about it, but that does of course depend on your definition, and so it goes around. Are we pseudoscientists, then, as Popper would have it? My own abandoned Master's thesis was to be on the topic of "Is Artificial Intelligence a pseudoscience?". Having been extremely impressed by Popper (not uncommon amongst people who have a logical turn of mind), I was inclined to think that yes, it was a pseudoscience - it had predicted that machines could approximate human intelligence and those predictions had turned out to be false (and still are, IMHO).
But by the end of a year's research, I was far less convinced - it seemed to me that a hell of a lot was going on in pursuit of this goal, that it was being approached, just extremely slowly (I was doing it myself, developing AI solutions in vehicle scheduling). That the approach was "ad hoc" as Popper constantly decried, was in many ways "built in" to AI. Indeed I became so convinced of this fact that I lost all taste for making any kind of claims about what methodology AI research should be forced to submit to. I couldn't see any point in it at all. That led to my sympathy to Feyerabend.
It seemed to me that philosophers really have little place in science, and it seems weird to me that scientists still seem to love Popper. I can only speculate that they are generally philosophically naive, and the idea of having their methodology put onto a logical footing is psychologically attractive, however unexamined that position really is. Certainly when I read books written by famous scientists about science I'm amazed at the fact that the philosophy of the late 20th century appears basically unknown to them. To laypeople who know little of either science or philosophy, the views are even older, vaguely waffling between the views of Newton and those of Pythagoras.
I cannot see it being replaced with anything else, ever. Refined, adjusted, adapted - yes. But, chucked out and replaced - no.
That could just be a failure of imagination, or a failure of clear definition. Certainly when one utterly refuses to define science then it hard to imagine it ever being toppled - what is being toppled? Once can just say "yes, but we never said science was that".
To that end, religion still survives. It can claim never to have been toppled either, it just adapted what it was saying to accommodate the newly discovered facts that it previously had refused. It can slither and slide around any attempts to pin it down, using only anecdotal definition, and it has done this. Indeed, it would seem that religion is as popular today as it ever was.
Religion was, after all, the main custodian of science for centuries. It was not against science at all, as many have claimed. It was just against heretical science. I don't defend this, but you have to see it for what it was, an ideology that looked to philosophers far too much for insights into methodology, and in doing so blinkered itself to what could, in the end, plainly be seen through a telescope. Aristotle had some compelling arguments about why the earth was the center of the universe, in particular the fact that parallax was not observable. It was still not observable during the time of Galileo and perfectly reasonably counted against the Copernican model.
There can be no replacement for looking at something, coming up with an explanation for it, and then testing that explanation to establish under what conditions it seems be true.
There could be many replacements for that. Einstein did not observe the gravitational bending of light and then come up with an explanation for it. No one had observed any such thing at the time, and that very consequence of his theory was a count against it in the early days. But he stuck to his guns, because he was convinced by the mathematics. Having done so, subsequent experiments have shown that the gravitational bending of light does actually happen. This came many years later. But that only served to convince other people of the truth in Einstein's theory - he himself had come up with it in a way that defies explanation by the naive view that science attempts to explain what it observes in the world.
I'm fully open to the idea that many such baffling things will happen in science, and when they do, they will be some of the most profound discoveries of all time. The science that progresses slowly and methodically, is like the book written by a committee, a summary of the past and a consensus on the future, rather than the brilliant, arrogant tearing into all established beliefs that characterized the science that forms the basis of our mythology about the subject. Our scientific heroes did not sit around legislating about who was not scientific - instead they contended with such people, made leaps of faith of their own, and astonished the world with their audacious discoveries. Centuries later, philosophers attempt to understand this, but, not being scientists themselves, they are inclined merely to summarize how the science of the past was, and falsely extrapolate that to the science of the future. Beware of this. Thus spake Feyerabend.
-
And yet you have made many such delineations with respect to particular instances. On what basis have you done this?
With respect to the particulars of the instance, I presume. What instances are you referring to?
Where is your evidence that this agreement is broad?
Well, Wikipedia says so. More to the point, that wiki summary sure looks an awful lot like the first one. And this one. And all of the one’s here that I had a chance read. And the description in the science encyclopedia on my bookshelf from 1985. And the brief one made by Brent.
is it true?
This goes to a point you’ve so far not addressed. I’ll let xkcd answer that one.
He is simply countering the idea that it is sober, humble and methodical, as it is commonly portrayed.
Where’s your evidence that that’s how it is commonly portrayed? These portrayals are common.
You presume that Feyerabend dislikes the noisy conspicuous impudence of science. You would be wrong. Like Popper, he saw that as a strength.
Fair enough on the characterisation he intended. Still, the full quote, in the context of other remarks, sure looks like he’s trying to knock science: “science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit. It is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without ever having examined its advantages and its limits”. Check out that assumption: no one else who disagrees with his conclusion could possibly have examined science’s advantages and limits!
In seeking to treat it as an ideology he is simply contrasting it with treating it as truth.
What happened to contrasting it with treating it as a method?
It's not hard at all. You could be "for voodoo". I think Feyerabend felt that voodoo had its place.
But he wasn’t writing a critique of voodoo. He was criticising the orthodox view of science as a methodological approach. If he doesn’t at least provide an alternative way of saying what science is, it is untenable to claim he wasn’t against science.
There could be many replacements for that [Brent's summary of the scientific method]. Einstein did not observe the gravitational bending of light and then come up with an explanation for it. No one had observed any such thing at the time, and that very consequence of his theory was a count against it in the early days. But he stuck to his guns, because he was convinced by the mathematics. Having done so, subsequent experiments have shown that the gravitational bending of light does actually happen. This came many years later.
So he came up with a theory, and as a consequence of which he made some predictions about the way the universe works. While his maths seemed robust his theories were not simply taken on board by the scientific community uncritically. When the opportunity for testing some of his predictions came up, the observations confirmed his predictions. Subsequently, more tests have been able to be made on his predictions (slowing of time at relativistic speeds, for example) and have further confirmed his theories. Where’s the problem? Your own example belies the claim of science as arrogant, and nothing about it contradicts the scientific method. I have no problem with saying that sometimes, perhaps often, scientists use imagination and intuition. There are no hard and fast rules about how “Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena”, goes. But that you subject these to the other steps in the method is crucial.
The achievements of scientists don’t exclusively come down to methodology, but the methodology is essential. It’s a methodological approach – how else would you describe it? Oh, that’s right: you don’t know. -
Well, Wikipedia says so.
Well, that must be true then.
Seriously dude, how far do you think I have to look to find people making claims about being scientists and what their methods are? Every hair brained crackpot who does some experiments can, and frequently does make such a claim.
Where’s your evidence that that’s how it is commonly portrayed?
What could you even accept as evidence of such a claim? A hundred people saying that? A thousand? So far this thread abounds with claims of the type. Have a read through it.
Check out that assumption: no one else who disagrees with his conclusion could possibly have examined science’s advantages and limits!
No one who claims it is the most superior thought developed by man. But I suspect what he means is that it is impossible to examine those limits, not that people have not tried.
What happened to contrasting it with treating it as a method?
A method that is treated as the source of truth. I don't quite get what you're asking.
But he wasn’t writing a critique of voodoo. He was criticising the orthodox view of science as a methodological approach. If he doesn’t at least provide an alternative way of saying what science is, it is untenable to claim he wasn’t against science.
I don't agree - you can like something without thinking it is a method. I don't think poetry is particularly methodical, for instance, but I like, it, I'm all for it, and I think it contains a lot of truth. I particularly dislike authors who try to claim that something is or is not poetry. In doing so, they merely show the limits of their imagination.
There are no hard and fast rules about how “Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena”, goes.
Dude, there are no hard and fast rules anywhere in science. Everything could be overthrown. In this example, that particular rule, Rule Number One in your methodology that you claim has a broad consensus, was not followed at all by one of the most famous modern scientists, when he made his most famous discovery, and shattered modern understandings of the universe.
The achievements of scientists don’t exclusively come down to methodology, but the methodology is essential.
In Einstein's case, rule Number One was not only not essential, it was not possible.
It’s a methodological approach – how else would you describe it? Oh, that’s right: you don’t know.
I've already answered this question. You just don't like the answer because it isn't "A methodology". I said that I find Lakatos to have the best characterization of how science progresses, in research programmes that each have their own methodologies. There was no 'uber methodology' at all, although he described some conditions by which a program could be called 'progressive' or 'degenerating'. The corollary of this, which Feyerabend rightly saw, is that there is no clear demarcation of what constitutes a scientific research program at all . Voodoo could be called a research program, although Lakatos would no doubt call it 'degenerate'. He is very careful to do this, because of Kuhn's famous case study that showed that if the demarcation criteria suggested by Popper (and seconded and thirded etc by all of your links - although Popper is at least wise enough not to insist on Rule Number One), then the Copernican revolution would never have got off the ground. It would have been shown to be false very early on, by virtue of a number of things:
1. Copernicus was not more accurate in predictions of the motion of heavenly bodies, as was observed at the time. This failure to improve spanned decades.
2. Parallax was not observed, and could not be. This suggested the earth could not possibly be in motion.
3. Any number of ideas about motion were violated by the idea - the fact that things don't fly off the face of the earth from centrifugal force, the fact that objects fall down rather than sideways, the fact that we can't feel the motion of the earth. It took centuries for these issues to be satisfactorily reconciled.
4. The established pool of scientists disagreed with it.It is just as well, according to Kuhn, that no such dogma on what was scientific and what was not existed at that time. There was only the Church, which foolishly insisted on religious dogma, a far less insidious kind, because it is so easily seen.
Having said all of that, I still think Popper is extremely profound, at least as concerns the theory of the growth of knowledge. And the words of Newton and every other scientist talking about their own sciences can't be ignored. I just don't think they can speak for all science, for all time. In short (LOL), I have a nuanced and open view of what science is. I don't claim to know the pan-methodology because every attempt to describe it that I've ever seen has serious flaws.
-
I believe the French consider History a science, and therefore it gets well funded.
-
In short (LOL)
Rofflenui. And brilliant post overall.
-
Homeopathic pudding - maybe you only get a microscopically small slice.
-
I believe the French consider History a science, and therefore it gets well funded.
Australians seem to have the same approach to sport.
-
Homeopathic pudding - maybe you only get a microscopically small slice.
Try this, and check out the pub scene at the very end:
-
Very good, enjoyed that thanks Sam.
Steve, Ben, anyone else still following this thread, the case of the NW Nelson dinosaur foot-prints (audio and photos) with Kim Hill this morning is a good example illustrating the difficulties of defining "the scientific method". The dinosaur foot-prints hypothesis is currently the best explanation for these curious sedimetary structures, further evidence bearing on the subject would be welcome, conceivably there will be viable alternatives, doubtless alternative hypotheses have been considered already by experienced observers and rejected on good grounds, so far.
This is clearly science in action, but not by the same methodological rules that apply to say particle physics. So, the quest for a full, necessary and sufficient definition of *the* scientific method is futile.
Harking back also to an earlier aspect of this thread - on RNZN Touchstone last Sunday was a very interesting but (to me at least) disturbing CBC programme(edit - revised link at BBC - "Christian Creationism 17/10/2009) following creationists teaching their 13-year-old students how to by-pass any engagement with evolutionary science by parroting a pastiche of "the scientific method", in the Denver Museum of Nature and Science.
-
Sorry, second link still doesn't work directly. From Touchstone at RNZ there is a link to BBC Heart and Soul which has the CBC Christian Creationism item a few down the list.
-
Well, Wikipedia says so.
Well, that must be true then.
It was a facetious comment. I didn’t think an emoticon or exclamation mark would be necessary for you - I’ll adjust my posting style.
Seriously dude, how far do you think I have to look to find people making claims about being scientists and what their methods are? Every hair brained crackpot who does some experiments can, and frequently does make such a claim.
I’m not sure what you point is here. Are you saying you could just as easily find an equal number of crackpot sources to “counter” my examples? Why would anyone take your examples seriously given that you yourself just brushed them off as crackpots? Come to think of it, on what basis are you calling anyone a crackpot? Honestly, you can be so elitist, sometimes ;-)
You asked for evidence and I cited some, including a non-cherry picked list of examples from a Google search of 'scientific method' and a poster here who has studied science making much the same outline.
What could you even accept as evidence of such a claim? A hundred people saying that? A thousand?
No one who claims it is the most superior thought developed by man. But I suspect what he means is that it is impossible to examine those limits, not that people have not tried.
No one who claims science is of a different level to voodoo or magic in giving us knowledge about the world. Your second sentence is completely baseless.
In seeking to treat it as an ideology he is simply contrasting it with treating it as truth.
What happened to contrasting it with treating it as a method?A method that is treated as the source of truth. I don't quite get what you're asking.
People treat ideologies as true, too, so nothing is achieved by “contrasting” it with ideology. You seem to be saying there are only those two options: it’s an ideology, or a Truth. It’s a methodological approach that seeks to find out knowledge about the universe that we can rely on and make use of, and creates a body of knowledge that we generally call “true”. The scientific method is true in the sense that it works.
you can like something without thinking it is a method.
Obviously - where did I say otherwise?
Dude, there are no hard and fast rules anywhere in science.
Heh... if you restate the point I know you hold, it will be magically more convincing. Perhaps by voodoo? Feel free to use that in your arguments, by the way.
In Einstein's case, rule Number One was not only not essential, it was not possible.
How did we come to accept Einstein’s theories, again? Would we have accepted them if they hadn’t been able to predict the phenomena they said they would? What will replace this?
And in what way does your version of Einstein’s theorising contradict Brent’s claim: “I cannot see it being replaced with anything else, ever. Refined, adjusted, adapted - - yes. But, chucked out and replaced, no.” All you’ve suggested, with a generous reading of your argument, is a modification or refinement.
In short (LOL), I have a nuanced and open view of what science is. I don't claim to know the pan-methodology because every attempt to describe it that I've ever seen has serious flaws.
This seems to be your approach to many issues, from my experience here. If things have “serious” flaws you throw out the baby with the bathwater. You have an odd “things need to be clear” approach, for someone who claims to appreciate nuance.
So Where’s your evidence that that’s how it is commonly portrayed? [Sober, humble and methodical].
So far this thread abounds with claims of the type. Have a read through it.
Like when you described Einstein coming up with the theory that (consequently) predicted light would bend due to gravity? No, wait, that’s a contrary example. I’m sure there are some portrayals as you say, but the world abounds with portrayals of science as dramatic, noisy, bold, unfathomable, and frankly a bit crazy. This is the Google image result for the word “scientist”.
Your own interpretation of Einstein’s theories is (as you would have it) an example of science not being methodical. Yet it’s that approach that makes up much of the mythology of science today. This idea of geniuses doing these miraculous things no one else can even explain is not any better for science or humanity than the overly-restrictive, methodological approach you are concerned about. But it is certainly popular...And brilliant post overall.
Miracles just rate better, I guess.
-
It was a facetious comment. I didn’t think an emoticon or exclamation mark would be necessary for you - I’ll adjust my posting style.
Nah, it's cool man. You haven't worked out my style is "deadpan" yet. Stick to your way, it works.
I’m not sure what you point is here.
I'm asking you to give some kind of indication of what you could even accept as evidence. Since the position Feyerabed is taking is that orthodox opinions on scientific method are wrong, you're unlikely to find
'creditable', 'mainstream', opinions to support Feyerabend, now are you? But all around the fringes of mainstream science are studies which claim to be scientific - we already have discussed chiropraction in this thread a lot. If chiropractors claim to be scientific, and have a slightly different take on the scientific method, then you can either:
1. Call them unscientific, because of that
2. Widen your definition of science.Feyerabend opts for the latter. You opt for the former.
No one who claims it is the most superior thought developed by man. But I suspect what he means is that it is impossible to examine those limits, not that people have not tried.
No one who claims science is of a different level to voodoo or magic in giving us knowledge about the world. Your second sentence is completely baseless.
I thought this would come up, the tedious reparsing of a cherry picked, out of context piece of something quoted from Wikipedia. It's a sign to me that it's time to exit this debate, before it goes all Kiwiblog. The full quote you made was:
“science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit. It is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without ever having examined its advantages and its limits”
From which you deduced:
Check out that assumption: no one else who disagrees with his conclusion could possibly have examined science’s advantages and limits!
The conclusion in this case is that 'science is not inherently superior to all other forms of thought'. So I stand by my guess that his reason would be for starters because a systematic examination of all forms of thought has not been conducted, and never could be.
People treat ideologies as true, too, so nothing is achieved by “contrasting” it with ideology.
Not all people do. I don't treat Christianity as true, for instance. So there is a lot to be gained by treating Christianity as an ideology, rather than just a truth, and the same goes for science. It means ideas like "the freedom of religion" could be analogously applied to science, and people could be free to choose the scientific ideology they believe in, without persecution, perhaps even without systematized disadvantage.
The scientific method is true in the sense that it works.
Christianity "works" too, man. That's a very weak justification.
you can like something without thinking it is a method.
Obviously - where did I say otherwise?
When you said:
If he doesn’t at least provide an alternative way of saying what science is, it is untenable to claim he wasn’t against science.
It's even quoted conveniently just above the piece you are asking about. You are suggesting that unless he proposes a method, he is against science. That is plain wrong.
Heh... if you restate the point I know you hold, it will be magically more convincing. Perhaps by voodoo? Feel free to use that in your arguments, by the way.
Actually, I'm getting the feeling that by the end of this your opinion will resemble mine almost entirely, you just won't be able to admit it, out of pride. You said there's no hard and fast rules in Rule Number One of your supposed method. Which makes it a No-Method Method. It's the method of working out what science is from anecdotes, and then trying to claim that's systematic.
How did we come to accept Einstein’s theories, again? Would we have accepted them if they hadn’t been able to predict the phenomena they said they would? What will replace this?
You're avoiding the question. Your Rule Number One says start with observation, then frame your hypothesis. Did Einstein do this? No. Did anyone else? No, because Einstein already framed the hypothesis. So this method is not science, the way it happened that time.
This seems to be your approach to many issues, from my experience here. If things have “serious” flaws you throw out the baby with the bathwater. You have an odd “things need to be clear” approach, for someone who claims to appreciate nuance
Your stylistic comments are noted.
the world abounds with portrayals of science as dramatic, noisy, bold, unfathomable, and frankly a bit crazy.
Unlike your portrayal, which is of something that can be clearly understood from one Google search on the matter, and anything else anyone thinks is patently false by virtue of not agreeing with some dictionary definitions and encyclopedia entries on the subject. You don't seem to be able to acknowledge that the subject is incredibly controversial. You've bought into the mythology so thoroughly, that basically, you can't get it. You refuse to.
This idea of geniuses doing these miraculous things no one else can even explain is not any better for science or humanity than the overly-restrictive, methodological approach you are concerned about.
It might be true though. Perhaps the mythology you want everyone to buy into is useful, but ultimately false, like Christianity could be. Which is only ever useful for a short period of time.
-
> This seems to be your approach to many issues, from my experience here. If things have “serious” flaws you throw out the baby with the bathwater. You have an odd “things need to be clear” approach, for someone who claims to appreciate nuance
Your stylistic comments are noted.
I think this bears further comment, but wanted to think about it some more. Ironically, I was bathing both of my children whilst doing this thinking, and both of them survived, although the elder does insist that I at least act like I might throw him out with the bathwater, giggling hysterically as I dangle him upside down over the vortex of water disappearing down the plughole.
I'm guessing this comment comes from my suggestion in the On Morals thread that I find ethical non-cognitivism hard to put down? The baby would in this case be 'ethical statements'? And in this thread the baby is 'scientific method'?
It was off-the-cuff for me to suggest you are making a stylistic comment here, rather than anything with real meat. But it was also on the money, I think. You seem to think that in failing to be convinced about the primal importance of these purely human constructs, that I therefore must lack all ethics, and disavow science. I do not. I simply think that these kinds of beliefs are 'heuristic'. We don't have much else to go on, so we have to use 'rules of thumb' all the time.
When I act, I follow ethics that were mostly trained into me. I don't need to have a grand ethical theory to function - as rules of thumb ethics are useful. I just don't make the intellectual mistake of equating them with the truth - I think such a practice is dangerous and can be foolish.
Similarly, I was trained in science like most kids, and I studied it at university (although some philosophers would like to deny that, along with a massive host of subjects taught in science faculties). I know how to go about the business of my particular science - mostly I'm in the business of discovering algorithms. This is done via a plethora of methods, rules, tricks, experience, luck and research. I just don't make the mistake of thinking I have any grand theory on science because I am involved in one corner of it, and practically my entire existence is based on scientific work. On the contrary, I'm generally mystified by it, and amazed at how damned unpredictable it is. I'm open to any path that could lead to discoveries and new truths.
So when you say I'm chucking out the bathwater, I think this is wholly unfair. Quite the opposite, I think insisting on a grand theory is chucking out the bathwater, because all the other theories could be true. I stick to the position that the existence of serious flaws in an idea are a good enough reason to be skeptical about them, and I remain skeptical about both ethics and science.
This is a stylistic choice. You could opt to mentally commit to various views, despite their flaws, so as to see where they lead. I was very much fond of doing this as a younger man. I was a Rule Utilitarian, Tarskyist, Socialist, Atheist, Popperian, Social Contractarian, who believed P=NP and robots would pass the Turing Test in my lifetime. Now I'm not. I lean toward some of these positions, but recognize their faults. That's what I mean by holding a nuanced view.
-
i) I wish you guys could have had this debate when I had the time to join in.....marking doesn't finish for another week or so.
ii)
Australians seem to have the same approach to sport.
Them's fight'n words....
-
I wish that too 81st. I'm tiring of it now, and it would have been good to hear some criticism by someone who had read Feyerabend. Like I said from the outset, I find his position interesting, rather than thinking it necessarily true. There are other problems with it than what Steve is talking about. He's been doing a good job of providing the groundwork, posing the usual possibilities for the concept of scientific method, that tend to first occur in these kind of debates, and he seems to be a modernist so there's a guarantee of argumentative clash. I'm getting rather tired of acting like I'm not a modernist, just so that Feyerabend doesn't get misunderstood. There are people here who are far more postmodern than I, who might be able to shed a lot more light, if only they would speak up.
-
You haven't worked out my style is "deadpan" yet. Stick to your way, it works.
I’d never really change. I’m too old, and set in my ways, as you say.
I'm asking you to give some kind of indication of what you could even accept as evidence. Since the position Feyerabed is taking is that orthodox opinions on scientific method are wrong, you're unlikely to find
'creditable', 'mainstream', opinions to support Feyerabend, now are you?You asked me for evidence: what will you accept? I said there was broad agreement about what the scientific method entails (as in, what scientists and people who philosophise about science mean by the term). You asked me for evidence that this agreement was broad and I gave some. Obviously not everyone agrees that this broad summary is valid, or we wouldn’t be arguing. But consider the label that came to your mind when describing the sort of people who might engage in research to gain knowledge about the world in ways that significantly deviate from the method outlined: crackpots.
But all around the fringes of mainstream science are studies which claim to be scientific - we already have discussed chiropraction in this thread a lot. If chiropractors claim to be scientific, and have a slightly different take on the scientific method, then you can either:
1. Call them unscientific, because of that
2. Widen your definition of science.
Feyerabend opts for the latter. You opt for the former.Not quite, that’s simplistic. This is a case where I see some element of narrowness and an avoiding of nuance in your position – or at least an inability to judge my position as containing those. I don’t feel the need to make it a clear cut case every time: “such and such discipline wants to be considered scientific, what do we say folks: are they in or are they out?”
I’m not as against all these things as you may think. My girlfriend went to a chiropractor and a physiotherapist. (Apparently, the chiro told her that it’s a common misconception that the two practices are in opposition.) I obviously hoped it would work (it appears did, she’s better) and, come to think of it, must ask if she considered either treatment to be more effective. I agree with ChrisW here: “ ... from among the broad range of today's quackery only a modest proportion will emerge as tomorrow's orthodoxy. The corollary would be not so much that quackery per se must be tolerated, but that one should be careful in assessing non-orthodox practice, insofar as it does no harm, as there may well be some good stuff in there.”
Some ‘alternative’ medical practices seem to have something going for them – chiropraction and acupuncture seem to be examples. But it’s a long way from confirmed, especially for the discipline as a whole. It’s hard to say that all of chiropractic practice would be scientific, but possible that some aspects might be. But I’m okay with some indistinctness sometimes, and with waiting to see how things pan out. As I understand it there’s a “body intelligence” aspect to chiropraction, and a controversy within the discipline about whether that’s a load of nonsense they’d be better to drop outright because it’s not scientific. Practices that want to claim to be scientific try to convince us they are, or have become, like the orthodox scientific process and adhere to scientific method, rather than asking for a widening of the definition.I thought this would come up, the tedious reparsing of a cherry picked, out of context piece of something quoted from Wikipedia.
The only Feyerabend quotes of I’ve “cherry picked” from Wikipedia are from the article you linked to here on this thread, that you used to indicate his views on science.
Btw, the quote in question is not from Wikipedia, it’s from the Standford article on Feyerabend.I don't treat Christianity as true, for instance. So there is a lot to be gained by treating Christianity as an ideology, rather than just a truth, and the same goes for science. It means ideas like "the freedom of religion" could be analogously applied to science, and people could be free to choose the scientific ideology they believe in, without persecution, perhaps even without systematized disadvantage.,
Of course, I don’t want people persecuted for buying into astrology or Hinduism or what have you. I don’t want Creation Science taught in schools, though, and won’t pretend I think they are on equal footing, and that science isn’t more useful in finding truth than the latter. But you seem to be implying those are the two options: Truth, or Ideology. People don’t let the ‘ideology’ label stop them from seeing their ideology as true, so I don’t see what’s gained. (A fundamentalist Christian doesn’t need to see their religion as a method to conclude it is “Truth”.) It’s rhetoric, like your earlier offhand reference to science as a religion, the “science is (just) an ideology” line is really just an attempt knock it down a peg: ‘It’s just another viewpoint – like creationism.’
Christianity "works" too, man. That's a very weak justification.
Just about anything can be said to ‘work’ in some sense, but I didn’t make that statement in isolation. I referred to it as a working in relation to getting us reliable knowledge about the universe. You seriously think science doesn’t work, in the sense I was referring to, better than Christianity?
When you said:
If he doesn’t at least provide an alternative way of saying what science is, it is untenable to claim he wasn’t against science.It's even quoted conveniently just above the piece you are asking about. You are suggesting that unless he proposes a method, he is against science. That is plain wrong.
Nothing you quoted in that exchange shows what you claimed. Read it through again. I’m not suggesting that if he doesn’t propose another method he is against science. I am saying that if he doesn’t at least provide some other (not necessarily method-based) way of describing it he is against science.
Actually, I'm getting the feeling that by the end of this your opinion will resemble mine almost entirely, you just won't be able to admit it, out of pride. You said there's no hard and fast rules in Rule Number One of your supposed method.
I don’t know what “there’s no hard and fast rules in Rule Number One” means.
And it isn’t my method. It’s the generally agreed upon basic outline for the scientific method (not invariable steps – let alone ‘Rules’ as you like to call them for rhetorical purposes) accepted by the scientific community. From the Wiki link: “There are different ways of outlining the basic method used for scientific inquiry. ... [however] the cycle of formulating hypotheses, testing and analyzing the results, and formulating new hypotheses, will resemble the cycle described below.” It then goes on to list “Characterisations” as its step one. Another source simply says “ask a question”. I’m suggesting to you that you may have been a little too literal in seeing “looking at something” as Brent put it, as necessarily looking at an object with you eyes. Einstein took a thought experiment approach, as I understand it, to theorising about some aspects of physics – i.e. some aspects about the world – which was built upon previous accepted theories and led to his hypotheses and consequently some predictions.
You're avoiding the question.
See above, I had given an answer in good faith. If you didn’t accept it just say so, but the false bravado isn’t necessary.
Now to my questions. How did we come to accept Einstein’s theories, again? Would we have accepted them if they hadn’t been able to predict the phenomena they said they would? What will replace this? It is the scientific method that has seen his initial hypotheses become what we consider knowledge – truth, or the closest we can come to at this stage – about the way things work.Your stylistic comments are noted.
Those aren’t stylistic comments. Stylistic comments would be more like noting you use the word “dude” a lot later in an argument. Regards your longer response to this, yes, that was the parallel I was getting at (to On Ethics), but no, I do not think you lack all ethics.
your portrayal, which is of something that can be clearly understood from one Google search on the matter, and anything else anyone thinks is patently false by virtue of not agreeing with some dictionary definitions and encyclopedia entries on the subject. You don't seem to be able to acknowledge that the subject is incredibly controversial.
There are enough straw men there to bring on my hay fever early. I do not think the subject is uncontroversial, as I’ve indicated more than once. I do not have a favoured portrayal of science: you do. That google link was to show your portrayal might not be as typical as you suggest, not to prove any particular contrary view. I only even call science 'humble' here in a relative sense, contrasting it with what I consider more arrogant ideologies. In a general context I would not describe science as noisy and impudent, or as humble and sober. That’s too simplistic. The scientific endeavour is complicated. I think it fair to say, however, we can describe science at its base as a method, a methodological approach that characterises the way we seek to find reliable knowledge about the world, and that in fact it does deliver. (It is also, of course, a way of referring to the body of knowledge itself, or of what scientists do on a day to day basis.)
You've bought into the mythology so thoroughly, that basically, you can't get it.
Ah, so I’m not just disingenuous and prideful, but delusional as well. Good to get your input there.
-
*Thanks for your input. I appreciate it. In arguing this you are at least engaging with it. I don't think you've engaged with more than about 30% of what I've said, but that 30% is 30% more than nothing. I'm guessing the other 70% is because the background reading is not shared - have you read much on the philosophy of science? Have you read Popper and Kuhn? Do you really feel in a position to understand Feyerabend, who is basically answering Lakatos? You admit to not having read Feyerabend, who is the actual subject of most of this debate.
*I don't mind crackpots. A lot of good has come from them. Indeed, a lot of science has come from them. I'd even go so far as to say that a great deal of the very best science would have been so labeled. People who think in ways that fall outside of the mainstream are a massive source of discovery and creativity. It's a good description of some of histories greatest geniuses.
*Persecution takes many forms. It doesn't just have to involve death or jail sentences. Sometimes it's as simple as not allowing people to sell their wares, or to obtain the base materials from which to conduct experiments. Or it can be from the drowning out that occurs when orthodox programs receive 100% of the institutional funding and the alternative ones have to do it entirely out of their own pockets. Or it can be something you suggested above, the refusal to teach alternative ideas to children.
*Treating something as an ideology is only knocking it down a peg if you had already elevated it beyond that, and consider ideology to be a dirty word. I don't do either.
*I don't think you have a theory of science at all. Your opinion on it seems to be 'whatever the majority of scientists think it is', which is of course a circular definition. All of your attempts to show that there is a method fall back on finding some source of authority on the matter. The more you do so, the wider you cast your net of definitions, the less specific your definition of science becomes. You admit of many counterexamples, many diversions from this method. You're even at the point of positing the idea of thought experiments standing in place of 'observation'. It seems to me that you are actually a lot more sympathetic to Feyerabend than you realize. You're getting the inkling that in actual fact, putting a tight yoke around what science is, is impossible, and you're refusing to do so, backing down from the posed challenge that you say what the method is, slithering away from every 'hard and fast rule' to what? Soft, long and fuzzy rules? An elaboration of the methods of every single scientific theory that you consider scientific? Or perhaps just a list of theories you consider scientific? When will your 'refinements' (which in many cases actually chuck out previous principles) end?
> You're avoiding the question.
See above, I had given an answer in good faith. If you didn’t accept it just say so, but the false bravado isn’t necessary.
Now to my questions.And now you're avoiding it again. Basically, in taking account of Einstein, you have changed your position quite a lot. I'm not surprised this happened - such is the history of the philosophy of science. As science progressed, so did the philosophizing about it, although it almost always lags well behind the science. In doing so, it serves a number of purposes. Firstly, it can sometimes help us to understand the science of the past. Secondly, it serves to lend to science an air of legitimacy, as though it rests on a bedrock of philosophical truth, deeply rooted in logic and earnest yet humble philosophizing. This is much like trying to find deep philosophical arguments to support Christian dogma - an activity that takes clever and talented people and sets them to work finding the heretics. Orthodox science programs, as political institutions, have much to gain from such support.
The idea that science may be actually quite inexplicable, that it will follow methodological paths in the future that we can't accept now, is hard for many philosophers to accept (and also hard for laypeople). This is actually a fault of philosophers, rather than scientists, who generally aren't so concerned to understand philosophy, they're more interested in nature, and methodology can come after the fact a lot of the time.
Now to your question: You asked how the world became convinced of the truth of Einstein's theory, and suggested it was because of the scientific method. I can see a plethora of other possibilities. It could be because he discovered something. It could be that physicists were convinced by his mathematics too. It could be because he helped make atomic bombs, and that's just damned impressive. I'm certainly inclined to think it's much more from his results than his method, exactly as it was for Galileo.
*I don't intend to have a debate about the difference between tendency and style. In fact, I don't really like to have debates about how words are commonly used at all. That doesn't shed much light on anything. Perhaps you felt you were making a methodological claim when you said I tend to chuck the baby out with the bathwater. If so, I'd be interested to hear what you think my method is.
*I've never claimed my view on science was typical. Indeed not many of my views on anything are 'typical'. I don't find beliefs being typical, normal, average, common, widely accepted, broadly supported, popular, as being particularly good reasons to agree with them. I never have. This has always made me deeply uncool, but I really don't care.
Ah, so I’m not just disingenuous and prideful, but delusional as well. Good to get your input there.
Don't take it too hard. I think everyone buys into mythology, a series of unproved (and often unprovable) assumptions about the world. It's a vital part of life. Some of us challenge various part of it, where we are interested to do so, but in doing so must leave others untouched. In those areas, we generally don't even realize that we have made assumptions.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.