The Scientific Method (Page 8)
theHating: I am so glad that person posted that.
I was hoping to see some people making personal connections to reality when they saw it.
AchillesSinatra: How do you make an Australian woman orgasm?
The correct answer is: "Who gives a floying faaak, mate?"
chronology: Achilles, oh dear, there was a Aussie woman called Rosalean Norton who trained business men from England how to pleasure her back in the 1960s. Rowie would stand naked in front of the men she was training, she had a long whip in one hand. She would order the men to crawl up to her and give her oral pleasure. If they were not obedient enough during pleasuring her, she would punch them in the face.
Police in Sydney sometimes raided Rowies apartment, and the excuses the men gave for what was happening was often amusing to the detectives. One man told them 'I am just researching what Australian find pleasurable'
A detective laughed at that. 'I mean, they fly 10.000 miles just to do that' .
AchillesSinatra: You'll often hear it said that science proceeds by induction; that science is inductivist in essence; that induction JUST IS "The Scientific Method".
Come to think of it, as pointed out in the OP, you'll often hear a lot of different people saying a lot of very different things about the so-called "Scientific Method", each one convinced that he, and he alone, has nailed it. (cf. page 1, post 3)
Isaac Newton, like so many other of his contemporaries under the prodigious influence of fellow countryman Francis Bacon, represented the staunch inductivist par excellence. The idea goes something like this (my own paraphrase):
"In doing science, one does not -- as the hypothetico-deductive model insists -- construct a hypothesis and then bring it TO the data in order to see how well it fits. Rather, the theory/law/proposition (whatever you want to call it) is somehow "already there" IN the data, and needs simply be extracted through a process of inductive inference."
Newton, like so many of his contemporaries, and unlike most modern day theorists, was openly contemptuous of hypotheses. The great man was adamant that his own most celebrated work resulted from the meticulous, inductive teasing of propositions (laws, theories, whatever) OUT OF the data, as opposed to those -- unworthy of the title "scientist" -- who simply invent a hypothesis (= a guess) and compare it AGAINST the data.
All this is encapsulated in his famous admonishment "hypotheses non fingo" (Newton wrote in Latin), usually translated into English as "I frame no hypotheses", or more colloquially, "I don't make up shit, dude".
(In the following passage, read "deduced" as "induced", and read "experimental philosophy" as "science" )
"Hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from the phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy."
-- Isaac Newton, "Principia"
Once again, Albert Einstein sees further than most; pace Newton and all his fellow inductivists, science cannot be done via induction alone; induction/inductivism cannot possibly be "The Scientific Method".
"We now realize, with special clarity, how much in error are those theorists who believe that theory comes inductively from experience. Even the great Newton could not free himself from this error ("Hypotheses non fingo" ).
There is no inductive method which could lead to the fundamental concepts of physics. Failure to understand this fact constituted the basic philosophical error of so many investigators of the nineteenth century."
- Albert Einstein, essay "Physics and Reality"
(Edited by AchillesSinatra)
AchillesSinatra: You have an amazing gift of muttering inanities, but never producing a counterargument of any substance.