{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1169",
    "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it.  Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.",
    "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'"
  },
  "archive": "urth",
  "thread": {
    "id": 1169,
    "subject": "Science, Her Methods",
    "messages": 2,
    "voices": 2,
    "first": "1998-10-14T00:26:00+00:00",
    "last": "1998-10-14T19:25:21+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0019-0106@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "m.driussi",
        "address": "m.driussi at genie.com"
      },
      "date": "1998-10-14T00:26:00+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Science, Her Methods",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Re: Science, scientists, and the Scientific Method.  I thought that\nScience proceeded by way of cutting edge experiments; said\nexperiments derived from hyptotheses (by definition based upon\nguesses), and by definition these experiments are \"successful\" less\nthan one hundred percent of the time.  In fact, the failures usually\n=outnumber= the successes.  In any event, it is a =guessing= game.\n\nAm I wrong?  Did all that intellectual labor go out with the\nalchemists?  Has Science become some sort of orthodoxy of divine\ntransmission?  Have scientists become a species of cargo cult,\nwaiting for the next Truth to come tumbling out the cornucopia of the\nvast complex?\n\n(Here, let me hook up my 1989 cold fusion reactor to my mid-century\nDean Drive.  Quick trip to see the canals of Mars.)\n\n=mantis="
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0019-0113@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Derek Bell",
        "address": "dbell at maths.tcd.ie"
      },
      "date": "1998-10-14T19:25:21+00:00",
      "subject": "Re: (urth) Science, Her Methods",
      "in_reply_to": "<urth-v0019-0106@digest.urth.net>",
      "reply_link": "subject",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "In message <199810140046.RAA10914 at lists1.best.com>, m.driussi at genie.com writes:"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Re: Science, scientists, and the Scientific Method.  I thought that\nScience proceeded by way of cutting edge experiments; said\nexperiments derived from hyptotheses (by definition based upon\nguesses), and by definition these experiments are \"successful\" less\nthan one hundred percent of the time.  In fact, the failures usually\n=outnumber= the successes.  In any event, it is a =guessing= game."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "\tThe interesting parts are how experiments relate to existing\nknowledge, how that knowledge is constituted and what role it plays in\ndetermining what research should be done. Sometimes old experiments\nare examined again and performed again - about 12 years ago there was\nsome interest in data produced by the Hungarian physicist Eotvos\nearlier this century. The measurements seemed to be all slightly to one side of\nthe expected value, so some physicists in Australia performed the\nexperiments with more sensitive equipment. From what I remember in _New\nScientist_, the results agreed with the standard results, so Eotvos'\nequipment may have been slightly off or maybe the errors were all to\none side by chance.\n\n\tA good introduction to philosophy of science is Alan F. Chalmers'\n_What is this thing called Science?_ He discusses various philosophies\nof science, their strengths and weaknesses and also suggests one of\nhis own. The book has references at the end of most chapters for those\nwho want to read further. He addresses inductivism, Kuhn's theory of\nparadigms, Popper's anarchistic theory of science and Imre Lakatos'\ntheories. The Open University in the UK uses it as a textbook.\n\n\tApologies for this digression!\n\n\tDerek"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}