The Scientific Method (Page 9)

kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Yep, I try not to take up pages of space to say little to nothing.
3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Yes, you manage to say nothing in the most succinct way.
3 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Thank you
3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Well, here's your big chance. Do you have any thoughts on "The Scientific Method"?

In no less than 500 words, please.

And no googling.
3 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Other than its a good ideal to approach. and has helped human science and civilization quite a bit.
3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: That's nice. To summarize: "The Scientific Method is way cool, guys".

Er, can you tell us what it is?

Or, is this like "The Theory" that you defend with religious-like zeal, alas seem unable to articulate?
3 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: What is with you , if you want a definition look it up.
3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Oh, I know plenty of definitions. Every dude and his dog has one.

I was hoping you might break the habit of a lifetime and engage in a little autonomous thought.
3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: You are defending something (The Scientific Method) that Steven Weinberg, just to name one, tells us is a chimera. (see page 1)

What do you think his problem is?

Full of hot air like me? Or perhaps he's another one of these sadistic science-deniers that I hear so much about?
(Edited by AchillesSinatra)
3 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Like I said before its an idealized method. Something to be approached, aspired to, but doesn't always work in different situations.
3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Can't you just tell me what it is rather than singing songs of praise?
3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Apparently not

Oh, well, let's get back to your one-liners and mindless slogans then.
3 years ago Report
0
EdwardKing
(Post deleted by staff 3 years ago)
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: I think what she's trying to say is "Convert or die".

Autonomous thought will incur immediate execution.
3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: @ Edward

Here's the problem, at least as I see things.

There are an awful lot of people out there these days like KittyBobo who keep telling me they are in possession of something called "The Theory" (of evolution), and it is suggested, whether implicitly or explicitly, that not to subscribe to it would be an act of irrationality. One would have to be defective or deficient in one way or another.

Now, for all I know, they might be right about this. However, before nailing my colors to the mast of "The Theory", at the very least, I'd like to know the following:

(i) What is it?

and

(ii) How has "The Theory" reached such a degree of epistemic warrant as to compel rational assent?

Despite repeated requests for her to do so, KittyBobo has been unable to answer (i), let alone (ii).


Now, here she is again, in-between telling me that I'm full of hot air, defending "The Scientific Method".

And once again, I find myself quite willing to be persuaded of its merits, if only she'd tell me:

(iii) What is it?

and

(iv) What is the evidence that "The Scientific Method" produces theories that compel belief?

Same old song and dance, alas. KittyBobo, apparently, cannot even address (iii), never mind (iv). All I've been able to tease out of her so far is Trump-like slogans of the "Let's make America great" variety; for example, Kitty tells me "[The Scientific Method] has helped human science and civilization quite a bit". Hardly what I'd describe as an apodeictic argument.


What's most worrying about all this is, it seems people like myself who do not unquestioningly and uncritically surrender to the propaganda are immediately labelled "anti-science", "science-denying", "sadists", and conspiring to put us all back in the Dark Ages again.

Heresy, it seems, will not be tolerated. Sound familiar?

If KittyBobo and her ilk are to be regarded as the acme of Enlightenment thinking, to be quite frank the Dark Ages don't seem so bad right now.

(Edited by AchillesSinatra)
3 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: So per your last comment Achilles, you prefer the dark ages, when science was mostly superstition to the advent of the scientific methods that tests hypothesis in an effort to weed out human biases.
3 years ago Report
1
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Kitty, in your latest post I notice the addition of a small but significant sibilant. Where previously you had been admonishing myself for spewing hot air and not sharing your encomiastic defense of "The Scientific Method", you now speak of "the scientific methodS".

Is this a change of position? Do you now accept that the hot-air-spewer -- miracle of miracles -- was right, you were wrong, and there exists no such thing as "The Scientific Method"?

If so, I'd like it in writing, so that next time I see you disseminating fairytales in these forums I can bring your own retraction to your attentiion.



The addition of that "s" is significant for the following reasons. In the opening post of this thread I wrote:

"The scientific method (hereafter TSM) has been traditionally defined as a single, timeless, invariant set of rules governing empirical inquiry, at least since the time of the so-called Scientific Revolution of around 400 years ago. If real, TSM would be precious indeed: it would (i) serve to unify all the prima facie disconnected scientific disciplines (after all, it's far from obvious that anything links the activities of subatomic physicists with economists, say), it would (ii) act as the demarcation criterion to distinguish bona fide science from pseudoscience or non-science in general, and (iii) it could be appealed to in order to explain the undeniable success of the scientific enterprise."



Now, if as I believe, there is no single, timeless, invariant "Method" of science, but rather a dizzying panoply of discipline-specific methods, in a constant state of flux (not to mention a healthy dose of intuition, creativity and luck) then:

1. Anyone wishing to defend the unity of science will have to appeal to something other than "Method".

2. Anyone wishing to demarcate that which is science from that which is not (e.g., pseudoscience) will have to appeal to something other than "Method".

3. Anyone aspiring to explain the success of science will have to appeal to something other than "Method".

with all of these


Why, it's beginning to sound like science isn't really all that different from what every Tom, Dick and Harry gets up to every day.

". . . scientific methods that tests [sic] hypothesis [sic] in an effort to weed out human biases" you say?

Er, do you know anyone who doesn't formulate and test hypotheses?

3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: As for "weeding out human biases"....

Well, it's another nice Trump-like slogan, the kind by which you're so enamored, and, as always, presented without a shred of evidence to support it, but...

We saw (in another thread) that the finest scientific minds of the 19th and early 20th century concluded -- with proof -- that white males are intellectually superior to (among others) Asiatics, Eskimos, women, and Hottentots, with blacks, needless to say, right at the bottom of the pecking order.

Seems, to me anyway, that human bias wasn't weeded out all that well,

Have we overcome this kind of thing yet? How do you know?
(Edited by AchillesSinatra)
3 years ago Report
0
MJ59
MJ59: lols
3 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: So let me get this straight, because some self proclaimed scientists did not use TSM, then that invalidates its use to bring truth out of biases.
3 years ago Report
1
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Kitty

So let me get this straight: You're not going to give me a straight answer? I asked, immediately above:

"Is this a change of position? Do you now accept that the hot-air-spewer -- miracle of miracles -- was right, you were wrong, and there exists no such thing as "The Scientific Method (TSM)" ? "

You didn't answer. Continual evasion hardly adds to my stockpile of respect -- amounting to roughly zero -- for your intellectual integrity, Kitty.



Re: ". . . some self proclaimed scientists did not use TSM . . ." - you

Well, first of all, if there exists no such thing as TSM, they could scarcely be expected to use it, could they?

As for "self-proclaimed", you're rewriting history to feed your own fantasies, I'm afraid. The researchers involved were widely acknowledged as some of the finest, most highly respected, scientists of the period. Certain of them are STILL widely respected today, e.g. Paul Broca. See S. J. Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" for details.


You're doing precisely what the religious wackos do when, say, their Moslem brethren blow up a crowd of innocent pedestrians .... "Pfft! These people aren't REAL Moslems". . .

. . . in other words, refusing to accept any responsibility for atrocities committed in the name of your own belief system.

(Edited by AchillesSinatra)
3 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Its not a belief system, its a method of digging out the truth that bypasses human biases. Had they really used it they may have come to the same conclusions that scientists have since then.
3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Do you EVER answer a straight question?
3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: On this page alone, Kitty, you have spoken both of "the scientific method" and "the scientific methods"

Assuming no equivocation on the word "method", and that a singularity is not a plurality, this represents a flat-out, in-yer-face contradiction.

Which is it? A single method or a plurality?
(Edited by AchillesSinatra)
3 years ago Report
0
MJ59
MJ59: Tis like reading a thread in the religious forums in here!
3 years ago Report
0