-*---- In article <C5I2Bo.CG9@news.Hawaii.Edu> lady@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Lee Lady) writes: > The difference between a Nobel Prize level scientist and a mediocre > scientist does not lie in the quality of their empirical methodology.   > It depends on the quality of their THINKING.   > > It really bothers me that so many graduate students seem to believe that > they are doing science merely because they are conducting empirical > studies. ... > > And I'm especially offended by Russell Turpin's repeated assertion that > science amounts to nothing more than avoiding mistakes.  Simply avoiding > mistakes doesn't get you anywhere.    I think that Lee Lady and I are talking at cross purposes. Above, 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.   Lee Lady is correct when she asserts that the difference between Einstein and the average post-doc physicist is the quality of their thought.  But what is the difference between Einstein and a genius who would be a great scientist but whose great thoughts are scientifically screwy?  (Some would give Velikovsky or Korzybski as examples.  If you don't like these, choose your own.)  I say it is the same as the difference between the mediocre physicist and the mediocre proponent of qi.  Both Einstein and the mediocre physcists have disciplined their work from the cumulative knowledge of how previous researchers went wrong. Both Velikovsky and the mediocre proponent of qi have failed to do this.    Let me approach this from a second direction.  When one is asked to review a paper for a journal or conference, there are many kinds of criticism that one can make.  One kind of criticism is that the work is just wrong or misinformed.  Another kind of criticism is that the work, while technically correct, is either not important or not interesting.  The first difference is the one that I have been pointing to.  The second difference is the one that Lee Lady seems to be discussing.   > If good empirical research were done and showed that there is some merit > to homeopathic remedies, this would certainly be valuable information. > But it would still not mean that homeopathy qualifies as a science.  This > is where you and I disagree with Turpin.    I have often pointed out that for homeopathy to be considered  scientific, what is needed is a test of its theoretical claims, not just of some of its proposed remedies.  Similarly, I suspect that traditional Chinese medicine has many remedies that work; what it lacks (as one example) is any experiment that tests the presence of qi.  > ... In order to have science, one must have a theoretical > structure that makes sense, not a mere collection of empirically > validated random hypotheses.  Certainly a "theoretical structure that makes sense" is the goal. In areas where we do not yet have this, I see nothing wrong with forming and testing smaller hypotheses.  Let's face it: we cannot always wait for an Einstein to come along and make everything clear for us.  Sometimes those of us who are not Einstein have to plug along and make small amounts of progress as best we can.