Science Wars

Originally posted by agryson
A book you might enjoy is "What is this thing called Science" by A. F. Chalmers. It is an investigation of both the scientific method, along with the historical alternatives used, with the philosophical reasoning behind rejecting those alternatives. A very good book, with an excellent section on Popperism.

Reading it now.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Reading it now.
Kelly

And I've added it to my Amazon wishlist

Originally posted by Penguin
Freaky was saying that the Professor said that there was and is significant dispute as to what the scientific method was, essentially that there are multiple conflicting methods.

Finally got around to looking for this.

I think you are referring to the first couple of minutes of lecture 2 where the prof says "...while it is commonly said that there is s ...[text shortened]... ou can do it through these lectures, interesting as they are.

--- Penguin.

I'll respond shortly (although not curtly).

Originally posted by Penguin
Freaky was saying that the Professor said that there was and is significant dispute as to what the scientific method was, essentially that there are multiple conflicting methods.

Finally got around to looking for this.

I think you are referring to the first couple of minutes of lecture 2 where the prof says "...while it is commonly said that there is s ...[text shortened]... ou can do it through these lectures, interesting as they are.

--- Penguin.

As you've pointed out, the term is loosely applied to a general concept with 'essential' particulars. The method has not been formulated and reduced to strict particulars, either in impetus for investigation or analysis of results.

Since so much of science has been translated to the universal language of mathematics, is it unreasonable to expect the method employed to follow suit?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As you've pointed out, the term is loosely applied to a general concept with 'essential' particulars. The method has not been formulated and reduced to strict particulars, either in impetus for investigation or analysis of results.

Since so much of science has been translated to the universal language of mathematics, is it unreasonable to expect the method employed to follow suit?

So are you admitting now that there is a single scientific method with broad acceptance within the relevant community?

I will agree that the method does not go into much detail but that is because 'science' is a huge collection of fields ranging from nuclear physics to cosmology and from psychology to mathematics (if you call mathematics a science). The method is a broad one, applicable to all fields of science. As such it cannot go into too much detail. I will also agree that the method is frequently not followed.

The method does not go into how a direction of research is chosen or how results are analysed because the first is not relevant to the method (I think, you may disagree) and the second can only be specified with reference to the particular field of study: you woould not use the same techniques to analyse archeological results as you would biochemical ones.

Since so much of science has been translated to the universal language of mathematics, is it unreasonable to expect the method employed to follow suit?

I think it is unreasonable. Since the method is applicable to all fields of science I think the method should not be expected to be mathmatically described until all the fields it encompasses are so described.

I still maintain that there is one agreed upon scientific method. It is the one I descibed way back in the 'Religious Scientist' thread and I think you have now done a u-turn (for which I respect you) and are agreeing with me.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by Penguin
So are you admitting now that there [b]is a single scientific method with broad acceptance within the relevant community?

I will agree that the method does not go into much detail but that is because 'science' is a huge collection of fields ranging from nuclear physics to cosmology and from psychology to mathematics (if you call mathematics a science) ...[text shortened]... ou have now done a u-turn (for which I respect you) and are agreeing with me.

--- Penguin[/b]

I stand by my original statement. The term is so loosely and generally applied that assuming a specific and defined consensus of meaning will only confuse in the long run.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I stand by my original statement. The term is so loosely and generally applied that assuming a specific and defined consensus of meaning will only confuse in the long run.

It may be generic and people may frequently fail to follow it but it is a method and there is a consensus on what it is and there is not any competing method. Google it or look in any science textbook that describes it and you will find the same method described.

Show me another method that conflicts with the one I described way back and that has backing in the scientific community and I will concede the issue. Otherwise you have no basis on which to stand by your statement other than that you would like it to be so.

--- Penguin.