First post from a new member on Philosophy of Science

[Cenderawasih]

Hi all,

I discovered this site by accident after recently being banned from the mirror site scienceforums.net.

(The purported reason given for the ban was that I had been a member several years ago until likewise being banned. Apparently, unknown to myself, banned members are not allowed to return; it falls under their rule against "sock puppets". I suspect, however, the ban had more to do with my contradicting certain rather silly, that is, philosophically naive, claims made by certain moderators.)

First of all, I'm curious as to why the two sites are almost identical, in format at least if not membership. What's the connection?

My own experiences at the other site, I regret to say, were largely negative. There are two sides to every story of course, but my own feeling is that the vast majority of members on the other site, including the moderators, though scientifically knowledgable, tend to be not only ignorant of, but rather savagely hostile to, anything philosophical, which they regard as mere navel-gazing and semantic-rhetorical triviality. 

One unfortunate upshot of this naivete is that philosophically averse scientists (Hawking, Krauss, deGrasse Tyson, Dawkins, just to name a few high profile ones) have an unfortunate habit of saying very silly things about their own vocation, moreover, rehashing antediluvian doctrines long discredited by historians and philosophers of science.

My own interests are more philosophical--the philosophy of science in particular--which did not go down well at all. One almost gets the impression the Old Boys there would rather be wrong in blissful ignorance than to be corrected by (what they see as) an outsider, an intruder on their turf.

So secondly, I'm wondering if it's just my own paranoid delusions LOL. I'd be interested to hear from other members here and their experiences on the other site.

Best regards

Edited October 31, 2021 by OceanBreeze

[OceanBreeze]

Hello and welcome.

Bans from other sites have little meaning here. If you want to be banned from this site, you will need to earn it!😃

Go ahead and post your philosophical ideas in a manner that promotes discussion. The only red flag I detect is your comment that "the Old Boys there would rather be wrong in blissful ignorance than to be corrected by (what they see as) an outsider, an intruder on their turf"

This signals to me that you are absolutely sure of your philosophical ideas and believe you alone are correct, and that you correct others who are totally ignorant. That does not bode well for a useful dialog. I suggest you be a bit less rigid in your own beliefs and a bit more accepting of other people's opinions.

You will find that, generally speaking, this site is quite accepting of ideas that might not be accepted elsewhere, but we do draw the line on blatent crackpottery.

Having said that, please post your ideas in the proper philosophy section and lets see how it goes. Good luck!

[Cenderawasih]

6 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

Go ahead and post your philosophical ideas in a manner that promotes discussion. The only red flag I detect is your comment that "the Old Boys there would rather be wrong in blissful ignorance than to be corrected by (what they see as) an outsider, an intruder on their turf"

This signals to me that you are absolutely sure of your philosophical ideas and believe you alone are correct, and that you correct others who are totally ignorant. That does not bode well for a useful dialog. I suggest you be a bit less rigid in your own beliefs and a bit more accepting of other people's opinions.

 

(My red emphasis)

Actually, quite the opposite, though I can see how the way I phrased myself could be easily (mis)read as arrogance.

Philosophy is hard! Speaking personally, I struggle hard enough to understand what the academic professionals are saying to come up with too many original ideas of my own. 

Oftentimes, then, I find myself somewhat reluctantly in places such as these playing more of a negative role. That is to say, providing evidence in the form of quotations and whatnot to show that the overconfident assertions and sweeping generalizations of other people are unjustified or just plain false.

For example, we frequently see blanket assertions of the type "Science is all about X" or "Science has nothing to do with Y". My own studies over the years have led me to suspect that perhaps the only (true!) generalization that can be made about science is "No true generalizations can be made about science".

Potential counterexamples are invited for discussion!

More particularly, my recent banning from the other site came as I was challenging claims from certain other established members (including some staff)--claims that seemed to me obviously preposterous-- to the effect that "science does not deal with reality", "science does not aim for truth", etc.

Are there scientists who feel this way? Of course! Lots of them -- they're known as scientific antirealists. Meanwhile, there are plenty of others who do not feel this way: the realists. Therefore, the above claims, understood as blanket assertions pertaining to all science and all scientists, are simply false; demonstrably so.

But, as I noted earlier, I suspect that correcting moderators on that other site, backed with evidence or not, tends to result in unpleasant consequences LOL. That was my own experience anyway, hence my wondering about the experience of others.

I'm perfectly happy to continue the discussion here if anyone is interested.

And thanks for the welcome. Glad to join you!
 

[Cenderawasih]

Due to what appears to be a glitch on the site, I've been unable to start a new thread. Perhaps the moderators would be kind enough to move the following to whichever section they see fit, presumably, the philosophy of science. Thanks!

 

 

One of the mantras repeated over and over again by senior members on a rival site with a name very similar to this one is, and has been for years, something to the effect "Science does not deal with truth" or "Science has no interest in truth".

(I'll provide direct quotes and sources if required.)

Two tasks for this thread, then:

1. To demonstrate the falsity of the claim, and
2. More interestingly, to explore why people--who are clearly not unintelligent--would say something that is so obviously false.

Part 1:
---------
 I'll begin my refutation simply by quoting from a very small sample of distinguished scientists who clearly feel that science does deal with truth, that science is interested in truth, whether or not that truth is actually attained. 

 

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck 

"In science, truth once discovered always remains truth"- Robert A. Millikan

"As a scientist I care about searching for truth" - Steven Weinberg

"There arises at once the question: should we consider the search for truth or, more modestly expressed, our efforts to understand the knowable universe through constructive logical thought as an autonomous objective of our work? Or should our search for truth be subordinated to some other objective, for example, to a "practical" one?" - Albert Einstein

 

The above list, all Nobel prize winners, could be extended almost ad infinitum. That said, it's at least logically possible, of course, that the aforementioned scientists, as well as all those like them, are mistaken (I personally consider Prof Millikan's comment challengable) or somehow deluded; that they think they are dealing with truth, but in fact aren't.

Consider, then, statements such as "Dinosaurs once walked the planet" or "The Earth is closer to the Sun than Saturn" or "The brain contains neurons" or countless others which could be adduced. These statements certainly appear to be scientific in nature, and speaking personally, I have not the slightest doubt of their truth. How about other members? At the very least, what we can say is that scientists who make such statements, whether right or wrong, are trying to say something true; they are "interested in" achieving truth.

Finally, one can only wonder what those who deny truth to science would say to audience members attending a meeting, hosted by scientists, educating the public about climate change perhaps or vaccines, who raised their hands at the end to ask:
"Is what you are telling us true? If science doesn't deal with truth, or has no interest in truth, as the experts on a popular science website insist, why should any of us here pay the slightest attention to what you're saying?"

Part 2
--------
This is where it gets interesting. Here's my own theory:

As far as I can tell, the website in question is overwhelmingly dominated by physicists. Modern physics, especially quantum physics, ever since the pioneering days of Bohr, Heisenberg et al, has been overwhelmingly dominated by scientific antirealism -- a grab bag moniker for all those opposed to scientific realism, the position that science aims for truth, scientific theories describe reality, theoretical postulates (e.g. electrons) really do exist, etc., etc.

My suspicion is that the abovementioned truth-deniers have probably read or heard somewhere antirealist doctrine to the effect that the epistemic warrant is insufficient for us to believe in the literal truth of scientific theories -- a fairly reasonable antirealist stance. But due to philosophical naivete, they have erroneously taken this to mean science says nothing true, or science does not deal in truth -- a position that is clearly absurd.

What do other members here think?

Edited October 17, 2021 by Cenderawasih

[Cenderawasih]

P.S. Those who hold the (absurd) view that "Science does not deal with truth" or "Science has no interest in truth", on pain of inconsistency, will also have to refrain from any talk of scientific knowledge or scientific facts. 

Knowledge and facts are both, by definition, true. To exclude truth from ones pursuits is to exclude any possibility of knowledge or facts. 

Ask the local gentry.

You can't have one without the oooooooooooooooooooooooother.

[dennisfrancisblewett]

On 10/12/2021 at 4:47 AM, Cenderawasih said:

Hi all,

I discovered this site by accident after recently being banned from the mirror site scienceforums.net.

(The purported reason given for the ban was that I had been a member several years ago until likewise being banned. Apparently, unknown to myself, banned members are not allowed to return; it falls under their rule against "sock puppets". I suspect, however, the ban had more to do with my contradicting certain rather silly, that is, philosophically naive, claims made by certain moderators.)

First of all, I'm curious as to why the two sites are almost identical, in format at least if not membership. What's the connection?

I would like to see the information related to your ban. Sockpuppeting, what I think it really is, is being a mental health case and your person dissociating into two identities with the two identities talking to each other. Generally (traditionally), people consider yourself to be "knowingly" using two accounts and using both accounts to hold a conversation on the Internet, such as a post in a thread on a forum. If you have a banned account, then it's not possible for that account to communicate with the other account while on the forum.

Maybe you don't get the metaphorical idea behind sockpuppeting. Watch some videos on people putting socks on their hands for ventriloquism acts. That's the general idea. The socks are meant as puppets rather than wooden puppets, etc.. It reminds me of this one MTV show (The Sifl and Olly Show, from what I'm reviewing of Wikipedia on today's date) from way back in the 1990s that I used to watch: link. 

I reason well enough your ban was wrongful. The staff over there have been getting ignorant.

Besides that, kudos for taking a serious interest in the philosophy of science. There was a thread on scienceforums.net that questioned what makes someone a good scientist. In my opinion, what makes someone a good scientist is use of the scientific method, for the scientific method is the foundation for scientific investigation.

Edited October 31, 2021 by dennisfrancisblewett

[Vmedvil2]

On 10/12/2021 at 4:47 PM, Cenderawasih said:

Hi all,

I discovered this site by accident after recently being banned from the mirror site scienceforums.net.

(The purported reason given for the ban was that I had been a member several years ago until likewise being banned. Apparently, unknown to myself, banned members are not allowed to return; it falls under their rule against "sock puppets". I suspect, however, the ban had more to do with my contradicting certain rather silly, that is, philosophically naive, claims made by certain moderators.)

First of all, I'm curious as to why the two sites are almost identical, in format at least if not membership. What's the connection?

My own experiences at the other site, I regret to say, were largely negative. There are two sides to every story of course, but my own feeling is that the vast majority of members on the other site, including the moderators, though scientifically knowledgable, tend to be not only ignorant of, but rather savagely hostile to, anything philosophical, which they regard as mere navel-gazing and semantic-rhetorical triviality. 

One unfortunate upshot of this naivete is that philosophically averse scientists (Hawking, Krauss, deGrasse Tyson, Dawkins, just to name a few high profile ones) have an unfortunate habit of saying very silly things about their own vocation, moreover, rehashing antediluvian doctrines long discredited by historians and philosophers of science.

My own interests are more philosophical--the philosophy of science in particular--which did not go down well at all. One almost gets the impression the Old Boys there would rather be wrong in blissful ignorance than to be corrected by (what they see as) an outsider, an intruder on their turf.

So secondly, I'm wondering if it's just my own paranoid delusions LOL. I'd be interested to hear from other members here and their experiences on the other site.

Best regards

Welcome to the science forums!

 

Edited October 31, 2021 by OceanBreeze
Removed off-topic video

[OceanBreeze]

I don’t see where any serious disagreement should arise over this subject; it really depends on how truth is defined in the context of science. We certainly hope that our scientific facts are true, but are they? The best we can do is accept these facts as true until we have better facts, based on better observations. Science, in that sense, is always seeking to refine our understanding of what is true about our reality, based on our observations, and our observations are not perfect. That constant refinement means that what we know now cannot be truth, it is only on the pathway to truth and since there may never be ultimate truth in science, the pathway is never-ending; the observations and refinements are never-ending. There is always a very fine distinction to be made between what we accept as true and what is truth itself. It may seem like semantics but it really isn’t. If we were to accept what we know now as “truth”, all science would stop! Why would we need to refine truth itself? In that sense, science does not deal in truth; only in facts which we hope to be true, at least until they are shown to be false!

[Cenderawasih]

9 hours ago, dennisfrancisblewett said:

I would like to see the information related to your ban. Sockpuppeting, what I think it really is, is being a mental health case and your person dissociating into two identities with the two identities talking to each other. Generally (traditionally), people consider yourself to be "knowingly" using two accounts and using both accounts to hold a conversation on the Internet, such as a post in a thread on a forum. If you have a banned account, then it's not possible for that account to communicate with the other account while on the forum.

 

Read for yourself. My user name there was Davy_Jones

Frank Sinatra is not a poached egg - General Philosophy - Science Forums

But yes, your notion of sockpuppetry makes more sense to me. On that other site, though, it apparently applies also to a banned user who returns under another name, as I did (after a three year hiatus). I was unaware I was violating a rule by doing so.

 

9 hours ago, dennisfrancisblewett said:

I reason well enough your ban was wrongful. The staff over there have been getting ignorant.

I couldn't agree more!

 

9 hours ago, dennisfrancisblewett said:

Besides that, kudos for taking a serious interest in the philosophy of science. There was a thread on scienceforums.net that questioned what makes someone a good scientist. In my opinion, what makes someone a good scientist is use of the scientific method, for the scientific method is the foundation for scientific investigation.

 

Hmm, it's fairly commonplace nowadays--and I think correct--to hear that there is no such thing as "The Scientific Method", i.e., one single timeless unchanging method unique to science. Not just philosophers of science argue this, but many distinguished scientists themselves. E.g.

 

"I know enough about science to know that there is no such thing as a clear and universal "scientific method". All attempts to formulate one since the time of Francis Bacon have failed to capture the way that science and scientists actually work. Still, under the general heading of scientific method, we can understand that there is meant a commitment to reason, often though not necessarily crystalized as mathematics, and a deference to observation and experiment. Above all, it includes a respect for reality as something outside ourselves, that we explore but do not create."

-- Steven Weinberg (from "Facing Up", essay 4, "Confronting O'Brien")

 

Quite happy to discuss this further, Dennis, if you're interested. Thanks for the input!
 

[Cenderawasih]

7 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

I don’t see where any serious disagreement should arise over this subject; it really depends on how truth is defined in the context of science. We certainly hope that our scientific facts are true, but are they? The best we can do is accept these facts as true until we have better facts, based on better observations. Science, in that sense, is always seeking to refine our understanding of what is true about our reality, based on our observations, and our observations are not perfect. That constant refinement means that what we know now cannot be truth, it is only on the pathway to truth and since there may never be ultimate truth in science, the pathway is never-ending; the observations and refinements are never-ending. There is always a very fine distinction to be made between what we accept as true and what is truth itself. It may seem like semantics but it really isn’t. If we were to accept what we know now as “truth”, all science would stop! Why would we need to refine truth itself? In that sense, science does not deal in truth; only in facts which we hope to be true, at least until they are shown to be false!

 

You're making a lot of sense, Ocean. Indeed, much of what we now take to be knowledge, and is often claimed to be knowledge, will presumably turn out not to be so.  That said, a couple of points . . .

 

re  ". . . . what we know now cannot be truth . . . "

 

If we do indeed know something then it is, by definition, true. That which is untrue cannot be known. (No one knows that Frank Sinatra is US president on the grounds that it is not true that Frank Sinatra is US president.)

 

I think what you're trying to say is that (much of) what we now take to be knowledge is not in fact knowledge; it is not true.

However, presumably a great deal of what we currently think is knowledge is knowledge. To claim otherwise would be to claim that, with regards science, we currently know nothing! Nothing that scientists say (about scientific matters) is true! Surely you wouldn't want to bite that bullet?

 

re "In that sense, science does not deal in truth; only in facts which we hope to be true, at least until they are shown to be false!"

 

I agree that a little intellectual humility is in order. Whether or not scientific claims are actually true, though, seems a little besides the point here. It's at least logically possible, even if highly unlikely, that we're wrong about Saturn being farther from the Sun than the Earth, for example. Having said that, who could possibly deny that scientists are at least trying to get these things right, to hit on the true value, position, etc. 

 

In that sense, then, scientists are interested in truth; science is dealing with truth.

 

But to repeat, and despite your own common sense ("I don’t see where any serious disagreement should arise over this subject"), on the other site we do see intelligent people flat out denying that science/physics has any interest in truth and reality -- clearly a ludicrous position!

Edited November 1, 2021 by Cenderawasih

[OceanBreeze]

I don’t agree with everything you write, for example using a ludicrous example such as we may be “wrong about Saturn being farther from the Sun than the Earth” to make your point about whether or not scientific claims are actually true, only weakens your position.

You might have mentioned something that is less insulting to the intelligence, such as cold fusion, which as you may know is a low-energy nuclear reaction. There were claims made that this was achieved, only to discover there were serious flaws with the experiments, and cold fusion has not been reliably achieved by anyone to this day.  Most scientists today are convinced such a low-energy nuclear reaction is not possible, although there are a few on the fringe who continue to work on it and still others who are crackpots who adamantly claim to have achieved it, even though their work is always shown to be deeply flawed, even fraudulent.

I still am of the opinion there is nothing worthwhile here to argue about, and unfortunately I am slowly coming to the conclusion that you are only trying to use this science forum as a means to attack the other forum where you were banned. I hope I am wrong about that. As I said before, bans on other forums have little meaning on this forum, but at the same time we frown on using this forum for attacking other science forums. I also sometimes post on scienceforums.net., as an ordinary member, not a mod, and I find it to be a very good forum for serious science discussions. (I wish this forum could be as good; it once was) So, go ahead and discuss your ideas on the philosophy of science all you like, but be careful about making any further attacks on scienceforums.net. as that cannot be tolerated here.

[Cenderawasih]

3 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

I don’t agree with everything you write, for example using a ludicrous example such as we may be “wrong about Saturn being farther from the Sun than the Earth” to make your point about whether or not scientific claims are actually true, only weakens your position.

etc.

 

My previous post to you has apparently been misunderstood, possibly my own fault. Let me try again . . .

The situation is this:

It came to my attention--incredible though it may seem--that there exist intelligent, knowledgeable (in their own areas of expertise) people routinely making claims such as "Science/physics does not aim for truth", "Science/physics does not deal with truth and reality", "Science has no interest in truth", and so on.

I consider such claims to be absurd. 

In my previous post I chose the statement "The Earth is closer to the Sun than Saturn" to illustrate the absurdity of the aforementioned claims. This is a case, surely all can agree, of science not only aiming for truth, but almost certainly having actually hit on the truth.

Yes, it's fairly standard, and I think appropriate, nowadays to concede that all scientific knowledge claims are fallible. To say that they are all fallible is not to say they are all false, as you implied yourself two posts ago ("what we know now cannot be truth"), but that they are all potentially false. 

It's a bit like the so-called "prefix paradox" wherein the author of a book cautions the reader in the foreward "This book almost certainly contains errors". She is not saying that every assertion in the book is false; rather, that among the majority of true statements, a few false statements doubtless lurk. It's just that she's in no position to say right now which ones are false.

When it comes to science, no one needs reminding that scientists are wrong at times, indeed are wrong on a fairly regular basis, as your cold fusion example illustrates. Similar examples abound: phlogiston, caloric fluid, luminiferous ether, etc., etc.

What seems to have happened, then, is that you took my Saturn example to be a scientific statement which I consider to be false, or which I consider likely to turn out false.

I'm saying precisely the opposite! What I'm saying is that the Saturn example is as close to certainty as we can come in such matters. While I concede that it is at least logically possible--it is conceivable--that we might be wrong about Saturn, I don't consider it remotely likely!

I'm saying to those who deny that science deals with truth that, as the Saturn example illustrates, and countless similar examples could illustrate, science does deal in truth. Science, in such cases, no matter what one's position on scientific realism vs antirealism, not only aims for truth, but has almost certainly attained it.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Cenderawasih

[Cenderawasih]

4 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

I still am of the opinion there is nothing worthwhile here to argue about [ . . . ]

I'd have said the same thing myself had I not encountered a body of intelligent people--apparently working scientists--who do think there is something to argue about, who do advance apparently ludicrous claims such as "Science has no interest in truth".

I'm therefore left wondering how widespread such a position is.

[Cenderawasih]

4 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

I don’t agree with everything you write, for example using a ludicrous example such as we may be “wrong about Saturn being farther from the Sun than the Earth” to make your point about whether or not scientific claims are actually true, only weakens your position.

Here's where I think the miscommunication arose (correct me if I'm wrong):

You took me to be offering "Saturn is farther from the Sun than the Earth" as an example of a scientific statement which may be false, or which may in time come to be recognized as false; an example of science's fallibility.

You then thought "Hey! If you want examples of science being wrong, why on earth [pardon da pun] are you bringing up Saturn? We already have countless examples of scientific knowledge claims now universally recognized, except for a few cranks, as being false. Take cold fusion . . ."

But that's not what I was doing. The Saturn example was offered not as an illustration of science's fallibility, of which surely no one here needs reminding, but rather as an example of a scientific statement which, though strictly speaking fallible, is almost certainly true!

Are we on the same page now, Ocean?

 

Otherwise, I fail to understand your remarks about the Saturn example being "ludicrous" and "You might have mentioned something that is less insulting to the intelligence such as cold fusion."

Edited November 1, 2021 by Cenderawasih

[Cenderawasih]

5 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

I don’t agree with everything you write, for example using a ludicrous example such as we may be “wrong about Saturn being farther from the Sun than the Earth” to make your point about whether or not scientific claims are actually true, only weakens your position.

You might have mentioned something that is less insulting to the intelligence, such as cold fusion, which as you may know is a low-energy nuclear reaction.

Sorry to drag this out lol, but I just want us to be clear. I think I see the mix-up now.

You're saying "Why didn't you offer a less ludicrous example [than Saturn]? If you wish to illustrate the fallibility of science, why didn't you mention cold fusion, say, as a more sensible example of a scientific claim which, a few crackpots notwithstanding, is not only fallible, but already known to be false?"

But I was not trying to give an example of a scientific statement that may be false, or is already recognized by almost everyone as being false.

Quite the opposite: I was trying to give an example an example [Saturn] of a scientific statement that is almost certainly true!

 

If not, I give up! Lol. Please explain.

Thanks!

[Cenderawasih]

Pleased you could join the party, Mr Vat! As always, your post reeks of good ole-fashioned common sense, leaving me little to add, or for us to fight over LOL.

Howevah, since I've nothing better to do, let me don my insufferable pedant's cap to examine a couple of distinctions that might actually be important, if not when confronted by a hungry tiger in the jungle, at least when discussing such delicate matters.
 

13 hours ago, TheVat said:

Much of science,  to go forward,  relies on such contingent truths . . . 

A philosopher hearing the phrase 'contingent truth' is liable to contrast it with a 'necessary truth'; both are true, as the terms suggest, though the former just happens to be true in our world (to pillage the jargon of possible world semantics), while the latter is true in all possible worlds.

Or for those squeamish about a plurality of worlds, the former is true but could have been otherwise, whereas the latter is true and could not have been otherwise.

It's the difference between "The Pentagon is the headquarters building of the United States Department of Defense" vs. "A pentagon has five sides".

I suspect, though, that many of the millions reading your post will take 'contingent truth' to mean a statement currently considered true, but might turn out to be false. In other words, a contingent truth, in this sense, may not be true at all.

Just so long as we're clear, violence needn't ensue . .  .
 

13 hours ago, TheVat said:

The difference between conjectures and truths is found in the quality of evidence and in its unequivocal nature. 

Here we need to be wary again. This, of course, mustn't be understood as being analogous to the difference between apples and oranges; an apple is not an orange, and vice versa.

A conjecture, on the other hand, like any other statement, is the kind of thing that can be true; it's a candidate for truth, if you like, unlike, say, a question or a command to which the predicates true and false simply do not apply.

By calling something a conjecture, as you rightly note, we're indicating a lack of confidence or a hesitance to commit to making any claims about its truth, pending further evidence -- though it may indeed be true.

Presumably, though, when scientists advance conjectures, they are--at least in some cases--saying something that they think stands a chance of being true (E.g. "There is life on other planets"). They are aiming at the truth, even if not quite ready to nail their colors to the truth mast.

I suppose we might say that a conjecture is to a truth what a suspect is to the culprit. The culprit may or may not be found among the list of suspects. By examining suspects, however, Holmes has every intention of nailing the villain!

You know all this already, of course. The reason I mention it is because I often hear people say peculiar things such as "A belief is not a fact! " as if beliefs cannot be true. Beliefs, like statements, come in two varieties: true and false. Our confidence in these beliefs is another matter.
 

Edited November 4, 2021 by Cenderawasih

[Cenderawasih]

On 10/31/2021 at 9:56 PM, dennisfrancisblewett said:

Besides that, kudos for taking a serious interest in the philosophy of science. There was a thread on scienceforums.net that questioned what makes someone a good scientist. In my opinion, what makes someone a good scientist is use of the scientific method, for the scientific method is the foundation for scientific investigation.

 

 

According to the information on the back sleeve, Stuart Firestein " . . . is Professor and former Chair of the Department of Biological Sciences at Columbia University and serves as an advisor for the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's program for the Public Understanding of Science".

 

In a short, though charming, book "Failure", Firestein has the following, less-than-flattering, remarks to say about "The Scientific Method":

Quote

 

I decried [in my book "Ignorance"] the Scientific Method as a comical concept that no real scientist ever really practices and is taught only to schoolkids, presumably to make science look as uncreative as possible.

[ . . . ]

Even if we accept the Scientific Method as some sort of general description of how science is meant to proceed, it is of little practical help. The steps are as follows: (1) observe; (2) form a hypothesis; (3) design an experiment that manipulates the hypothesized cause and observe the new result; (4) update the hypothesis based on the results, and design new experiments [ . . .] This all sounds good, except that no scientist that I know of actually follows this prescription.

[ . . .]

On the other hand, the most critical step in the whole cycle, the one that requires a magic brew of creativity, thought, inspiration, intuition, rationality, past knowledge, and new thinking--this the Scientific "Method" has nothing to say about. "Form a hypothesis." Very good. How, precisely, does one do that? [ . . .  ] This is like giving an art student a brush and the direction "do painting".

[ . . . ]

So in the end the Scientific Method is more dangerous than just being a quaint approximation of what scientists do--it has that unfortunate trait of seeming to say something when it really says nothing. The result of those sorts of formulations is that everyone is satisfied with the state of things--it's been explained, it gets into the textbooks, it's what students learn and can be tested on--but it's not true or correct or even approximately so. It's a calamity, this "Method."

What should it be replaced with?

The first option to consider is "nothing."It doesn't need to be replaced because it, the Scientific Method, wasn't really there in the first place.

 

(pp119-123)

 

What a bummer, eh?

Given a little reflection, though, I think Firestein's comments can be seen to be not only correct, but also fairly commonsensical.

If there actually existed a step-by-step algorithm for doing science, then presumably any fool with basic training could do it. Why, then, do we require the likes of Newton and Einstein?

It would appear, then, if we are to identify the qualities that make someone a great scientist, we'll have to appeal to something other than slavish adherence to some imaginary "Method".

Moreover, surely the notions of creativity and method stand diametrically opposed to one other: the more of one; the less of the other.

It seems to me that one of the qualities that we admire in the most outstanding of scientists is their creativity, their ability to think in new ways. Their greatness lies precisely in not following the crowd, not toeing the line, not following some prescriptive pedant's idea of how science ought to be done.

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Cenderawasih