file.newsgroup.med.58900 Maven / Gradle / Ivy
From: [email protected] (Lee Lady)
Subject: Re: Science and methodology (was: Homeopathy ... tradition?)
In article [email protected]
(Gary Merrill) writes:
>
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(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 <[email protected]> [email protected]
(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.
[email protected] [email protected]
© 2015 - 2025 Weber Informatics LLC | Privacy Policy