Scientific Rationalization

On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 4:58:56 PM UTC-6, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 08:42:09 -0800 (PST), jerry kraus > wrote: > > >One of the myths perpetrated by the scientific bureaucracy is that > there exists a "scientific method" guaranteeing progress in science > if followed --- i.e. systematic experimentation and "falsifiability" > inevitably lead to progress in science and technology, in a > systematic, incremental fashion. This is pure nonsense of course. > Systematic experimentation is little more than the same trial and > error approach a dog would engage in when looking for food or shelter. > It works up to a point, but, often fails. We have great bursts of > progress in science and technology, such as the period between 1880 > and 1950, and then comparative droughts, such as the one we are > currently experiencing. And, no one knows exactly why. > > Well, no. It is not guaranteed, and I do not recall anyone ever > claiming that it is. Many scientists do claim that it's guaranteed. Simply fund me for my experiments, and I guarantee results in a reasonable period of time. > > >Of course, when pressed on the issue, honest scientists will > > More like, if asked. > > acknowledge the role of talent, intuition, genius and art in science. > The point on the scientific method is that those are not enough. My point is that the "methodology" of science is really no methodology at all, beyond that employed by any sane, sentient human being in attempting to practically deal with the environment around him. And, that much of scientific training consists more in rationalizing and dissembling failure to obtain results, than in finding new and better methods to obtain results. > > Effectively acknowledging that the "scientific method" is actually > little different from the "artistic method", or the "religious method" > -- praying to the Gods for inspiration. > > False. It gives a methodology to use in working for those > results. Not really. It encourages the rationalization of failure to obtain useful results. So, rather than simply saying "no, it doesn't work, and we have no idea why," scientists say "further research is required." Thus, they may continue their current employment, whether they are making any progress, or not. > > >So, what if we really had a scientific method that resulted in > systematic progress in science whenever it was applied. What does > the world look like, then? > > We do have a scientific method. You have just mischaracterised > it. There are no guarantees, but if you check your hunches, ideas, > etc. properly, you can get good results. > Gene, with all due respect, aren't the two statements in this sentence a an implied, logical contradiction? 1. There are no guarantees 2. But if you check your hunches, ideas, etc, properly, you can get good results. True, you say "can get good results", not "will get good results." That would be a direct contradiction. If you "will get good results", then that WOULD be a guarantee! You are hedging your bets. Of course anyone "can get good results." Whatever they do, or don't do. So, either the statement, "There are no guarantees, but if you check your hunches, ideas, etc. properly, you can get good results", is a contradiction, or it conveys absolutely no information whatsoever. That's exactly what I mean by scientific rationalization of failure. A totally meaningless, and/or contradictory statement, that attempts to justify the continuation of the current scientific bureaucracy. Actually, it's a superb example. Thank-you very much, Gene! > Sincerely, > > Gene Wirchenko