Science, Her Methods
The Urth list — 2 messages, 2 voices, 14 Oct 1998
https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/1169

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.

==============================================================================

m.driussi — 14 Oct 1998, 00:26

Re: Science, scientists, and the Scientific Method.  I thought that
Science proceeded by way of cutting edge experiments; said
experiments derived from hyptotheses (by definition based upon
guesses), and by definition these experiments are "successful" less
than one hundred percent of the time.  In fact, the failures usually
=outnumber= the successes.  In any event, it is a =guessing= game.

Am I wrong?  Did all that intellectual labor go out with the
alchemists?  Has Science become some sort of orthodoxy of divine
transmission?  Have scientists become a species of cargo cult,
waiting for the next Truth to come tumbling out the cornucopia of the
vast complex?

(Here, let me hook up my 1989 cold fusion reactor to my mid-century
Dean Drive.  Quick trip to see the canals of Mars.)

=mantis=

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Derek Bell — 14 Oct 1998, 19:25
  follows, by subject match m.driussi

In message <199810140046.RAA10914 at lists1.best.com>, m.driussi at genie.com writes:

> Re: Science, scientists, and the Scientific Method.  I thought that
> Science proceeded by way of cutting edge experiments; said
> experiments derived from hyptotheses (by definition based upon
> guesses), and by definition these experiments are "successful" less
> than one hundred percent of the time.  In fact, the failures usually
> =outnumber= the successes.  In any event, it is a =guessing= game.

	The interesting parts are how experiments relate to existing
knowledge, how that knowledge is constituted and what role it plays in
determining what research should be done. Sometimes old experiments
are examined again and performed again - about 12 years ago there was
some interest in data produced by the Hungarian physicist Eotvos
earlier this century. The measurements seemed to be all slightly to one side of
the expected value, so some physicists in Australia performed the
experiments with more sensitive equipment. From what I remember in _New
Scientist_, the results agreed with the standard results, so Eotvos'
equipment may have been slightly off or maybe the errors were all to
one side by chance.

	A good introduction to philosophy of science is Alan F. Chalmers'
_What is this thing called Science?_ He discusses various philosophies
of science, their strengths and weaknesses and also suggests one of
his own. The book has references at the end of most chapters for those
who want to read further. He addresses inductivism, Kuhn's theory of
paradigms, Popper's anarchistic theory of science and Imre Lakatos'
theories. The Open University in the UK uses it as a textbook.

	Apologies for this digression!

	Derek

------------------------------------------------------------------------------