In article <C5L9ws.Jn2@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com      (Gary Merrill) writes: > >In article <1993Apr16.155919.28040@cs.rochester.edu>, fulk@cs.rochester.edu      (Mark Fulk) writes: > >|> Flights of fancy, and other irrational approaches, are common.  The crucial >|> thing is not to sit around just having fantasies; they aren't of any use >|> unless they make you do some experiments.  .... >|>  >|> (Simple example: Warren Jelinek noticed an extremely heavy band on a DNA >|> electrophoresis gel of human ALU fragments.  He got very excited, ..... > >But why do you characterize this as a "flight of fancy" or a "fantasy"? >While I am unfamiliar with the scientific context here, it appears obvious >that his speculation (for lack of a better or more neutral word) was >at least in significant part a consequence of his knowledge of and acceptance >of current theory coupled with his observations.  It would appear that >something quite rational was going on as he attempted to fit his observation >into that theory (or to tailor the theory to cover the observation).  ...  Whether a scientific idea comes while one is staring out the window, or dreaming, or having a fantasy,  or watching an apple fall (Newton), or sitting in a bath (Archimedes) ... it is ultimately the result of a lot of intense scientific thinking done beforehand.  Letting one's mind roam freely and giving rein to one's intuition can be a useful way of coming up with new ideas, but only when one has done a lot of rational analysis of the problem first.    Scientific intuition is not something one is born with.  It is something that one learns.  Maybe we don't understand completely how it is learned, but training in systematic scientific thinking is certainly one of the  key elements in developing it.    Informal exploration is also often an important element in finding new scientific ideas.  One thinks, for instance, of Darwin's naturalistic studies in the Galapagos islands, which led him to the ideas for the  theory of evolution.    This is why I am offended by a definition of science that emphasizes empirical verification and does not recognize thinking and informal exploration as important scientific work.  I agree that mere speculation does not deserve to be called science.  I also think that mere empirical studies not directed by good scientific thinking are at best a very poor kind of science.    In article <1qk92lINNl55@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu      (Russell Turpin) writes: >    ... >I think that Lee Lady and I are talking at cross purposes. >  ... Lady seems concerned with the contrast between great >science that makes big advances in our knowledge and mediocre >science that makes smaller steps.  In most of this thread, I have >been concerned with the difference between what is science and >what is not.   I don't think that science should be defined in a way that some of the activities that lead to really important science --- namely thinking and informal exploration --- are not recognized as scientific work.    -- In the arguments between behaviorists and cognitivists, psychology seems  less like a science than a collection of competing religious sects.