Re: Theories, models, and simplifications
From: Perplexed in Peoria (jimmenegay_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 02/04/05
- Next message: John Edser: "Re: The hole in the bucket."
- Previous message: John Edser: "Re: The hole in the bucket."
- In reply to: John Edser: "Re: Theories, models, and simplifications"
- Next in thread: Jim McGinn: "Re: Theories, models, and simplifications"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 01:34:00 -0500 (EST)
"John Edser" <edser@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:cttvi8$1el7$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> > > JE:-
> > > The scientific method requires you to answer
> > > any question that is not illogical. It also
> > > requires you to say when you do not understand
> > > a question and admit it. Also it requires you
> > > to freely admit when you cannot provide
> > > an answer. Endless evasion
> > > is evidence of a lack of integrity. It undermines
> > > the scientific method. If you do not agree then
> > > please list your reasons why.
>
> > JM:-
> > Disagree. I think you have the "scientific method"
> > confused with something that might be called the
> > "philosophical method". But I don't think that your
> > methodology is a good example of the best practices
> > in philosophy.
>
> JE:-
> I am _not_ talking "philosophy". Testing
> refutable ideas against nature is what
> Popper demarks as science. You have agreed
> with Popper. In order to do science you must
> ask and answer questions. I can't imagine
> why you think experimental methodology
> does not require a rational dialogue.
I continue to disagree. What you are doing IS philosophy,
rather than science. You are using the methodology of
philosophy to talk about science. That is, you are doing
epistemology. Just like Popper.
Popper never claimed to be a scientist. He said he was
a philosopher.
Now I definitely am not claiming that you are doing
philosophy *well*. To do philosophy in accordance with
the current understanding of "good practice", you have
to make some attempt to understand the positions of
your critics. You have to adopt an open-minded stance,
rather than a didactic one. You have to be able to
express your argument in your opponent's terminology
rather than insisting on your own. You, John, don't
seem able to do any of these things.
Good communication skills are crucial to a philosopher.
They may also be useful to a scientist, but they are
not crucial. It is possible, though difficult, for
an asocial jerk to to good science. Science doesn't
absolutely require a dialog, though a dialog can be
useful in setting one's thinking back on the right path.
So, since you seem to do the dialog badly, let me
suggest that you abandon philosophy and switch to
doing science. Stop discussing how science should
be done, and start communicating your theories and
experiments regarding how nature operates. You may
find that this generates less resistance than your
current approach, which seems to consist of telling
everyone else that they are going about it wrong.
(Incidentally, in this post, I am telling you that
you are going about it wrong. I am doing philosophy,
not science. My claims are based on reason, rather
than experiment. They are irrefutable.)
- Next message: John Edser: "Re: The hole in the bucket."
- Previous message: John Edser: "Re: The hole in the bucket."
- In reply to: John Edser: "Re: Theories, models, and simplifications"
- Next in thread: Jim McGinn: "Re: Theories, models, and simplifications"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
