Talk:Scientific method/Archive 8

message: (William M. Connolley 18:10, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)) From what I can gather above, the NPOV was added by Banno, because of problems he thought Ww had with the article. Meanwhile, I can't tell from the above whether Ww now thinks the article sufficiently POV to keep the header.
So I've removed it, in order to clear the confusion. Please re-insert it if *you* think the article is POV.
:WMC, Things have gotten tangled immediately above and so somewhat obscure, but if you look for a comment from me dated 31 Mar 04, I have there replied to Banno's explanation of what he thought my problem with the POV here was. He in turn was replying to Zandperl's comment/query. Mine there is by way of a correction/clarification as Banno got it somewhat skewed. Indeed, as things stand, I think the article is NPOV. (<<--This is a typo, should have been "POV". ww 1.4.04) And probably it should be so noted.
:I expect that Banno thinks the POV is sufficiently N to remove the banner, and indeed he said so earlier above, and I replied. Others may agree, though I have heard nothing along those lines, but that may not mean much as absence of comment isn't evidence of much of anything. ww 19:00, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Banno, No need for puzzlement. I think so little has changed that the NPOV banner **should** remain. The "I think the article is NPOV..." above is the result of a finger getting out of control and eyes / brain not noticing. Sorry about that!  I have corrected it with a note. ww 15:08, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Z, I think you've got much of it. I do have difficulty w/ the terminology of 1) above in that categorizing a major position on sci meth as 'idealized' (and so 'less than actual' w/o directly saying so) and 'as taught to school children' has the effect of distorting the discussion. Banno's comment below on 3) is cogent, though I think a distinction can probably be made which he does not. Others may feel differently, of course. ww 15:08, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV removed 

message: The third section described above is an impossibility. One cannot have a description of “how scientists actually do or don't use the scientific method”. One can only have theories about the way scientists actually do or don't use the scientific method. So there is no difference between (2) and (3). The idealized scientific method is simply one theory amongst many. Any other account of the activities of science will likewise be an abstraction from the reality. 
Perhaps this misunderstanding underlies much of the debate here. What is needed is an examination of the provenance of  the “idealized method”, in part to demonstrate more clearly that it is a theoretical position, and so as eligible to critique as any other theory.
 Banno 01:11, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Provenance of the &#8220;idealized method&#8221;

message: Just trying to iron out some of the statements about Kuhn's work with differing theories. Sorry if toes were trodden on. (20040302 21:23, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Kuhn Edits

message: In the main article, a large amount of the Evaluation section appears to be concerned with peer review. In fact all but the first paragraph of the Evaluation section could be more appropriately expressed as a component of Reproducibility.
Hence the edit. (20040302 09:54, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reproducibility vs. Evaluation

message: I disagree with the edits of 20040302 earlier today with regard to “Better” and “Useful”. Unfortunately I cannot locate the section of SSR in which Kuhn discusses paradigms as portraits in order to check the language he uses, but… the implication of changing “better” to “useful” is that utility can form a basis for selecting between competing paradigms. This would certainly be against Kuhn’s intentions: As he says, “there is no standard higher than the assent of the relevant community”. For example, a scientific community might choose a more restricted paradigm, that is, one that is less useful, because it solves some particular difficulty; and then seek to generalise it. Banno 21:47, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
:Both "Better" and "Useful" impose a restriction that is not implied in the quote: “there is no standard higher than the assent of the relevant community”, which itself suggests nothing more than a contextualised concurrence. All I wish to do is to qualify that the 'betterness' of a paradigm is 'better' solely within that contextual agreement, so as to avoid interpretations of betterness against some universally acknowledged (or objective) scale of value. (20040302 09:51, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Utility

message: Would it be fair to state that in the narrow context of use in the scientific method, induction is the act of coming up with a hypothesis?
Many criticisms of the scientific method seem to revolve around the inductive part. Incredibly enough, the article didn't mention induction in the process itself at all. This might need to be resolved. Kim Bruning 12:19, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, I would disagree. Where hypotheses come from is a mystery on whihc many have opined. Surely it's true that induction from observation has been the source of many, but not all. Kekule reported a daydream in an omnibus as the source of his hyhpothesis about the structure of the benzene molecule (a ring) and Edison claimed perspiration was important. Perhaps Edison was saying induction in a veiled form, as perspiration results from intense protracted involvement in the matter and surely incidents/evidence accrete to supply a basis for induction. But generally, I would think induction alone inadequate. Poincare, Hadamard, and Polya wrote extensively on creativity (albeit in mathematics which isn't scientific) and what they had to say is of some interest here. Hope that helps some. ww 14:33, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothesis from induction 

message: The -ion suffix was added to three verbs in the The idealized scientific method section to form nouns (consistently) showing action.  Also edited the subsection titled Repeat/reproduce to reflect this change.  
Question:  the sub-headings Definition and Evaluation are not specific items in this section's list of elements ... where these bits are extending previous elements, is a heading necessary?
azwaldo 08:12, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edits 

message: I propose a split: 
# the current article to retain its 2 sections (idealized SM) and (Philosophy in SM). Hopefully the NPOV banner can then get worked out for this article. I am curious how "hegemony of methodology" will work out.
# a new article,  "the scientific enterprise", to quote from the current article, which  might then include 
##the real-world issues of publication and funding, 
##the rise of the SM during the Age of Exploration (1500s onward), big science etc. 
##(One issue I am curious about is why the SM did not arise in China, when that civilization had a lead for centuries, until the 1600s) - the topic of Joseph Needham's book.
## the funding mechanisms - Darwins's great personal wealth (from Wedgewood dishes, I think), Newton's professorship, State support, Corporate support, ...
## the publication mechanisms - private funding from Edmund Halley for Principia Mathematica, Benjamin Franklin's private press, ...
## the political infrastructure that 168 alluded to
One of the advantages of this scheme might possibly be that SM remains at the core, which would properly have a philosphical dimension, but that a scientific enterprise  would include more of the enabling factors, such as a postal system for letters, a Royal Society, Universities, etc.
OK? Would this be acceptable? Ancheta Wis 11:47, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 14:03, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I regret to say that I agree with Chris. there is much about science and its practice that should be explained in an encyclopedia (eg, WP) -- this is, I gather, what is meant by scientific enterprise. But what is it that distinguishes science (eg, physics) from non science (eg, astrology -- sun signs and Mars rising and all that)? It seems to me (and many others) that it is, philosophically unacceptable or not to some, the scientific method and resort to test of hypothesis (however a contingency on much else may seem more important to some). That surely deserves mention in an encypclopedia (eg, WP) as it is one of the most important aspects of fundamental difference of our civilization from say Plato's Athens. How this can be kept out of a scientific enterprise article escapes me. I think such a split would result in duplicative articles after a decent time. I think we're stuck on an unsatisfactory mudflat. And drying out fast. ww 15:52, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 21:38, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 08:36, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, entirely, WMC. Whether I'm (or you're or he's) comfortable with something has nothing to do with its nature as science or the use of the scientific method in approaching it. Both of these, modulo more detailed information/understanding on my part, are exactly equivalent as examples of science and scientific method, in my view. ww 16:04, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: (Ancheta Wis 10:32, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: True, perhaps even tautologically so in the Western economic/political environment, but this has what to do with an explanation/account of scientific method? I'm lost. ww 16:04, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ww, the above items are not solely about the scientific method, but are proposed items for scientific enterprise, which has the scientific method at its core. There is also a dimension to science which is about the men themselves. The ones who practice it. Ancheta Wis 03:33, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[scientific enterprise]]

message: Perhaps the NPOV banner is still on the article because the SM has strong non-religious, perhaps secular roots. I distinctly recall my teachers conveying a secularist viewpoint. Still, there is an ethos which comes along with SM and the scientific enterprise; the sense that what you are doing (in science) is somehow worthwhile and noble.  Ancheta Wis 07:10, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: AC, To the extent that I'm responsible for the notice (it's hard to remember just who put it back the last time), this is not so. I belive this article is NPOV because it overly stresses one philosophical account of scientific method (ie, a post modern one, more or less) at the expense of at least one other. Nothing whatsoever about an secular v non secular root. Unless you feel that objecting to elision of one account of scientific method betrays a religious bias. Nothing there I recognize as religious, nothing in my motivation that's religious, .... I think this is a fox that's going to get entirely away. ww 16:09, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ancheta Wis 02:19, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Secularism

message: I linked to a great picture of the turtle theory. No offense meant; just light-hearted illustration of a concept. Ancheta Wis 00:46, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Great A'Tuin