How fascinating that so many commenters dismiss the author as "not a scientist" (despite his degree in physics) and display a level of vitriol and prejudice toward non-scientific forms of knowledge that betrays their alleged dedication to open, honest inquiry.
The fact that, as of nearly 100 years, ago, non-material discoveries in physics forced scientists to switch from describing their underlying views as "physicalist" rather than "materialist" (or more recently, "methodological naturalism") shows the utter philosophic bankruptcy underlying so much of the practice of modern science.
Ignorant masses vaguely sense something is wrong, but aim their critique at legitimate aspects of science (climate change, evolution, etc), so their legitimate concerns are dismissed.
There has never been a coherent definition of the word "physical" except "it's what physicists study."
Similarly, Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg admitted (despite desperately attempting to weasel his way out of his well-argued conclusion) that science in fact is only descriptive, it does not explain anything.
I realize in this bastion of well-educated folks, these comments are likely to draw fire. But try walking your talk - look very (very !) carefully at these points and before penning some emotional diatribe, attempt to engage with them logically.
My money is on your failing to do so. In any case, if you wish to take the red pill, consider these points seriously and your world will never be the same.
The fact that, as of nearly 100 years, ago, non-material discoveries in physics forced scientists to switch from describing their underlying views as "physicalist" rather than "materialist" (or more recently, "methodological naturalism") shows the utter philosophic bankruptcy underlying so much of the practice of modern science.
Ignorant masses vaguely sense something is wrong, but aim their critique at legitimate aspects of science (climate change, evolution, etc), so their legitimate concerns are dismissed.
There has never been a coherent definition of the word "physical" except "it's what physicists study."
Similarly, Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg admitted (despite desperately attempting to weasel his way out of his well-argued conclusion) that science in fact is only descriptive, it does not explain anything.
I realize in this bastion of well-educated folks, these comments are likely to draw fire. But try walking your talk - look very (very !) carefully at these points and before penning some emotional diatribe, attempt to engage with them logically.
My money is on your failing to do so. In any case, if you wish to take the red pill, consider these points seriously and your world will never be the same.
2
This essay reveals a total lack of familiarity with the discipline known as science studies, which concerns itself with the empirical study of science. Those who are interested might enjoy Andrew Pickering's The Mangle of Practice or his Science as Practice and Culture. Both give a much more nuanced, empirically grounded, and more interesting analysis of the scientific method than does the author of this essay.
Also, to argue that there it nothing unique about the scientific method ignores the massive revolution in material culture, technology, and understanding of the world that occurred once the "methods" of science began to be widely practiced. Any analysis of science and the scientific method that fails to account for this most obvious of historical facts fails quite severely.
None of this is meant to denigrate poetry or music or drama or literature or any of the arts as values and essential elements of our culture and history. But to say that they are in some way equivalent to science misses what is important and unique about both of them.
Also, to argue that there it nothing unique about the scientific method ignores the massive revolution in material culture, technology, and understanding of the world that occurred once the "methods" of science began to be widely practiced. Any analysis of science and the scientific method that fails to account for this most obvious of historical facts fails quite severely.
None of this is meant to denigrate poetry or music or drama or literature or any of the arts as values and essential elements of our culture and history. But to say that they are in some way equivalent to science misses what is important and unique about both of them.
4
"My essay’s point, however, was to encourage us to think of good investigative thinking and problem solving as spread through all of the disciplines that comprise human knowledge." This summary by the author does not do justice to the author's essay.
His basic point, I'd say, as to counter scientism: the belief "that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints." [Wikipedia}. This belief has led to Hawking's declaration that "philosophy is dead" and to neuroscientists' claims like Eric Kandle's "...consciousness is a biological process that will eventually be explained in terms of molecular signaling pathways used by interacting populations of nerve cells.."
Many writers (Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper, Thomas Nagel...) would agree that the author of this essay is correct in discounting these claims. Scientific theories are subjective creations of the mind, creations not simply forced upon us by the "facts", and the various criteria for their acceptance are subjective heuristics open to discussion on philosophical grounds. The subjective processes of the invention and the critique of scientific theories are subjects that lie outside of science, as do the arts and humanities.
Philosophy is indeed indispensable in these efforts and, while philosophy is renowned for never solving a problem definitively, it is practiced because it widens our awareness of what we are engaged upon.
His basic point, I'd say, as to counter scientism: the belief "that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints." [Wikipedia}. This belief has led to Hawking's declaration that "philosophy is dead" and to neuroscientists' claims like Eric Kandle's "...consciousness is a biological process that will eventually be explained in terms of molecular signaling pathways used by interacting populations of nerve cells.."
Many writers (Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper, Thomas Nagel...) would agree that the author of this essay is correct in discounting these claims. Scientific theories are subjective creations of the mind, creations not simply forced upon us by the "facts", and the various criteria for their acceptance are subjective heuristics open to discussion on philosophical grounds. The subjective processes of the invention and the critique of scientific theories are subjects that lie outside of science, as do the arts and humanities.
Philosophy is indeed indispensable in these efforts and, while philosophy is renowned for never solving a problem definitively, it is practiced because it widens our awareness of what we are engaged upon.
4
In the author's reply to readers, he states his object in showing the commonality between the arts and the sciences. This commonality, as he says, involves a developing consciousness of our experience.
But that creative process so far is beyond our understanding. How is an Einstein led to question our ideas of space and time in a productive way, for example. Kant, and most of the rest of us too, thought they were ideas programmed into our brains that we could not escape. Likewise, the artists blank canvas can be transformed into a profound image, and the composer can transform sounds into profound music.
I don't think we can explain these creative acts so they can be summoned at will or manufactured, either by observing scientists at work, nor by some Zen meditation. However, these acts transcend science and demonstrate the subjective aspects of science involved in its quest for objectivity. I would agree with the authors final remarks, which I understand to suggest the philosopher is helpful in pointing out where subjectivity enters the scientific activity, and in introducing some humility by recognizing the limitations of scientific objectivity.
But that creative process so far is beyond our understanding. How is an Einstein led to question our ideas of space and time in a productive way, for example. Kant, and most of the rest of us too, thought they were ideas programmed into our brains that we could not escape. Likewise, the artists blank canvas can be transformed into a profound image, and the composer can transform sounds into profound music.
I don't think we can explain these creative acts so they can be summoned at will or manufactured, either by observing scientists at work, nor by some Zen meditation. However, these acts transcend science and demonstrate the subjective aspects of science involved in its quest for objectivity. I would agree with the authors final remarks, which I understand to suggest the philosopher is helpful in pointing out where subjectivity enters the scientific activity, and in introducing some humility by recognizing the limitations of scientific objectivity.
1
The author has proceeded to outline his own criteria for creating a "good definition or poem", and applies these criteria to explain how a good scientific theory is arrived upon.
The question of what criteria distinguish a good scientific theory has a very long history, beginning at least as far back as Occam's razor in the 13th century. More recently it has become a serious matter as new physical theories have proliferated and choosing between them is more difficult than in the past. Some authors that have discussed the issue of criteria for a good scientific theory are Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions), Karl Popper (Science as Falsification), and Thomas Nagel (Mind and Cosmos). Some scientists have entered the fray as well.
Although a lot of agreement exists over a list of about 6 criteria, no-one thinks they actually provide a clear decision in every case, because different people apply different weights to the criteria, and no scientific theory known to man satisfies all of them.
A point to be drawn from all that discussion, that fits somewhat with the present author's thesis, is that while science is the best approach we have for achieving objectivity, the criteria for accepting a scientific theory or choosing between them is partly subjective, and the study of these criteria is not itself a subject within the reach of science but lies rather outside it, in the realm of philosophy.
The question of what criteria distinguish a good scientific theory has a very long history, beginning at least as far back as Occam's razor in the 13th century. More recently it has become a serious matter as new physical theories have proliferated and choosing between them is more difficult than in the past. Some authors that have discussed the issue of criteria for a good scientific theory are Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions), Karl Popper (Science as Falsification), and Thomas Nagel (Mind and Cosmos). Some scientists have entered the fray as well.
Although a lot of agreement exists over a list of about 6 criteria, no-one thinks they actually provide a clear decision in every case, because different people apply different weights to the criteria, and no scientific theory known to man satisfies all of them.
A point to be drawn from all that discussion, that fits somewhat with the present author's thesis, is that while science is the best approach we have for achieving objectivity, the criteria for accepting a scientific theory or choosing between them is partly subjective, and the study of these criteria is not itself a subject within the reach of science but lies rather outside it, in the realm of philosophy.
4
"If scientific method is only one form of a general method employed in all human inquiry, how is it that the results of science are more reliable than what is provided by these other forms? I think the answer is that science deals with highly quantified variables and that it is the precision of its results that supplies this reliability."
What an amazing speculation! The difference between general relativity and Newton's law of gravity is demonstrated by small discrepancies between their predictions of certain phenomena, but that is not the ORIGIN of a greater reliability, which is a conceptual matter.
So from where comes the reliability of "scientific method"? That is a philosophical question. It has been explored by Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Thomas Nagel and many others. Some heuristic rules for separating gibberish from a valid scientific theory have been proposed, such as testability, comprehensiveness, simplicity, and others. These rules are intended to provide objectivity via informed, general consensus. It is the resulting consensus that leads to the idea that these theories are reliable. Precise measurement is helpful in generating this consensus, but it is only one factor.
The author's thesis is better served by focusing upon the heuristics developed to critique a proposed theory, and the reliability of these criteria.
What an amazing speculation! The difference between general relativity and Newton's law of gravity is demonstrated by small discrepancies between their predictions of certain phenomena, but that is not the ORIGIN of a greater reliability, which is a conceptual matter.
So from where comes the reliability of "scientific method"? That is a philosophical question. It has been explored by Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Thomas Nagel and many others. Some heuristic rules for separating gibberish from a valid scientific theory have been proposed, such as testability, comprehensiveness, simplicity, and others. These rules are intended to provide objectivity via informed, general consensus. It is the resulting consensus that leads to the idea that these theories are reliable. Precise measurement is helpful in generating this consensus, but it is only one factor.
The author's thesis is better served by focusing upon the heuristics developed to critique a proposed theory, and the reliability of these criteria.
1
Of course, there IS a scientific method. Various criteria have been proposed to test the validity of a scientific theory (usually six or so, some of which were enunciated by Thomas Kuhn, among many other thinkers). They include experimental observation, testability, scope and so forth. To date, no scientific theory exhibits all the desiderata, and every scientific theory satisfies some of them.
The point is, however, that these criteria are man made and man adopted, and while aiming at the objective have undeniably subjective aspects.
What these subjective criteria underscore, as pointed out by Thomas Nagel and others, is that there are aspects of reality that transcend the scientific approach, and they include the very basis for adopting these criteria.
Among the aspects of existence transcending the scientific approach are those mentioned by the author - things like poetry and music and painting. Different criteria apply here, and the value and truth of these pursuits will not be subsumed under any science, no matter how the criteria for valid science evolve.
The point is, however, that these criteria are man made and man adopted, and while aiming at the objective have undeniably subjective aspects.
What these subjective criteria underscore, as pointed out by Thomas Nagel and others, is that there are aspects of reality that transcend the scientific approach, and they include the very basis for adopting these criteria.
Among the aspects of existence transcending the scientific approach are those mentioned by the author - things like poetry and music and painting. Different criteria apply here, and the value and truth of these pursuits will not be subsumed under any science, no matter how the criteria for valid science evolve.
2
John Brews: One of the best sets of comments on science I've ever seen in the Times - better certainly than almost anything that's appeared in the Stone (clearer than Blachowicz' writing, I believe).
You have a remarkable ability to remove yourself from the trance that has overtaken so many "modern" folks (modern, if you consider the 1890s the pinnacle of modernity!)
You have a remarkable ability to remove yourself from the trance that has overtaken so many "modern" folks (modern, if you consider the 1890s the pinnacle of modernity!)
1
As bacillus says, all similarities die when you consider a key aspect of the scientific method, falsifiability: in any hypothesis, there should be an answer to your question that would undermine the truth and/or usefulness. There’s no falsifiability of a poem.
2
Here's the problem. You're HIGHLY educated. You understand and can conceptualize ideas that most of us can never wrap our brains around. The discussion you want to have here would be productive under other circumstances, I'm sure. But right now in Stupid Land, science and facts are under attack on a moment-by-moment basis. Anything that muddies that water in a venue like this is a BAD thing.
2
It is a bad thing to attack the scientific project itself (although that isn't what the writer intends) because it is our best attempt at reaching objectivity. However, it is not a bad thing to suggest an openness of mind toward other very laudable undertakings in our culture. Philosophy among them.
It is my understanding of this essay that it wishes to underscore the importance of creativity in the sciences. It is one thing to ask whether a theory is scientific - and there are criteria to aid that decision - and quite another thing to ask where that theory came from. As you point out yourself, we aren't all Newtons or Einsteins, and that spark of creativity is a mystery much deeper than science can reach.
It is my understanding of this essay that it wishes to underscore the importance of creativity in the sciences. It is one thing to ask whether a theory is scientific - and there are criteria to aid that decision - and quite another thing to ask where that theory came from. As you point out yourself, we aren't all Newtons or Einsteins, and that spark of creativity is a mystery much deeper than science can reach.
1
Science is the bureaucracy of thought. It sets rigid standards and systems to ensure those standards are met. Like a court of law it seems necessary to eliminate all that isn't perceived as pertinent to get at a smaller, less inclusive truth.
"Scientific thinking is limited to a form of thought that cannot question its own premises." See: "Getting Rid of Metaphysics"
by Ronald H. Brady. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/rb/meta/meta.htm#
by Ronald H. Brady. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/rb/meta/meta.htm#
"Scientific thinking" probably includes much more than science, and certainly involves questioning its hypotheses. At least, SOME of its hypothesis. The advances of relativity, for example, were a result of questioning our notions of space and time, taken until then to be intuitions beyond question. These questions were not idle speculations, of course, but very profound explorations that completely transformed our notions of measurements and observations and what they mean. Likewise, quantum mechanics has upset our notions of measurement, suggesting you cannot measure everything accurately, but must choose between measuring position or momentum, for example.
Misleading title--really problematic. When Spender does his creating, it's all from inside his one mind--no peer review...no external repetition. Spender understandably wants to capture what he wants to capture. Scientists are, instead, disinterested in the result, or should be.
The comparison here is weak.
The comparison here is weak.
2
There is no such thing as scientific method. Well I do believe that this method had just been a part of how humans think. In a more philosophical view, questions are answered by another question, Scientific method only gives a more concrete way on how to deal with things. Some tend to think that when there are new discoveries without the use of scientific method, then there is something missing in it. The point is, this method had just been a part of human's thinking. Both viewed in an anthropocentric and cosmocentric views. We tend to believe more on scientific proven things saying that they are the most accurate, but then, we do not realize that these are all just made by humans as well. So why can't we accept things that are not scientifically proven. Scientific method becomes a basis from the past people up until the present. There might or may not be scientific methods, because basically speaking, it is up to ourselves on how do we view things. Without the use of scientific method we can still support thing's truthfullness or how legit they might be. But then, as much as importantly, we could also have this method followed, making other people's standards our own.
Presuming the scientific method itself is a generally a product of philosophy, are there any scientific approaches to developing a scientific method?
Fred, if the "scientific method" is presumed to be a product of philosophy, does not that assumption logically exclude the possibility of a "scientific approach" to that method? That is, philosophy is not a "scientific approach" but transcends it in order to discuss the contents of a "scientific method" that in turn defines the "scientific approach".
1
I loved the article and what it brings forth to attention. However, I particularly disagree with the generalizations made with regards tot the knowledge of scientific method among scientists.
Although I agree that some scientists do indeed not have knowledge of the workings of their "scientific method" but know only how to implement it, at the same time science does not recognize them as experts in the scientific method. They however do earn the title of Doctorate of Philosophy(Ph.D.) in their respective fields, meaning that science recognizes their ability on a particular aspect of the scientific method or the implementation of it. So, even implementation of a tool developed by some other work is recognized as a scientific method. And as I have already mentioned, scientists too like poets are engaging in a philosophy that they themselves help further develop. As we go deeper and deeper into understanding what the sub-sections of a particular scientific field are, we'd realize how the lines between philosophizing and implementing becomes blurred and blurred.
Hypothesizing a theory can immediately be followed up by development of instruments using that theory, confirmation of theory based on previous experiments or using that theory to put existing experimental and theoretical data in a better context. My point being, science and its scientific method are indistinguishable, since invalidation of one raises questions on possible issues in the other.
But, a great article!
Although I agree that some scientists do indeed not have knowledge of the workings of their "scientific method" but know only how to implement it, at the same time science does not recognize them as experts in the scientific method. They however do earn the title of Doctorate of Philosophy(Ph.D.) in their respective fields, meaning that science recognizes their ability on a particular aspect of the scientific method or the implementation of it. So, even implementation of a tool developed by some other work is recognized as a scientific method. And as I have already mentioned, scientists too like poets are engaging in a philosophy that they themselves help further develop. As we go deeper and deeper into understanding what the sub-sections of a particular scientific field are, we'd realize how the lines between philosophizing and implementing becomes blurred and blurred.
Hypothesizing a theory can immediately be followed up by development of instruments using that theory, confirmation of theory based on previous experiments or using that theory to put existing experimental and theoretical data in a better context. My point being, science and its scientific method are indistinguishable, since invalidation of one raises questions on possible issues in the other.
But, a great article!
1
It is hard to read this essay without wondering if this is just another attack on science. I don't know which political party the author favors, or what he thinks about global warming, but Republican anti-science ideologues would probably take comfort in at least the title. A key difference between poetry and science is that science can do a much better job of predicting sea levels and other measurable parameters. The difference is in how science handles data. That's what makes science unique.
3
He states in the article that he believes in global warming and the fruits of scientific investigation. His point is that other forms of human inquiry do the same thing, albeit with less precise data.
Glad to read professor Blachowicz response to the comments regarding his essay.
Must say that his clarification is coherent, clear and addresses directly the problems of his earlier writing.
Agree with him in that other disciplines also have methods of their own which may be more difficult to elucidate that the 'scientific method.'
Also appreciate his courage in responding unapologetically to the controversy he provoked — here he honors the Socratic method.
Must say that his clarification is coherent, clear and addresses directly the problems of his earlier writing.
Agree with him in that other disciplines also have methods of their own which may be more difficult to elucidate that the 'scientific method.'
Also appreciate his courage in responding unapologetically to the controversy he provoked — here he honors the Socratic method.
2
Thank you for the addendum, it does help.
As far as I know, there is no "falsificationist method". The problem with the claim "not falsifiable" is that it often shows up in arguments denying climate science, and it's clear that many people have no idea what they are talking about. That a theory must be testable is not an excuse to condemn a field as difficult and complex as climate science. It's all very fine and large to play with words, but the claim that climate science cannot be tested and is therefore a big lie - a hoax - is unconscionable.
I showed this to my father and he agreed with some of the points made. I was so infuriated by the headline and encouragement of do-it-yourself science misunderstanding that I weighed in boots and all. The short article I linked was a straightforward exposition intended to remove obfuscation rather than to add layers of complex language and academic discussion. Unfortunately, complex discussions can drive people away.
The New York Times includes areas like The Stone which is a place where people interested in ideas can discuss them with equally sophisticated colleagues. Unfortunately, it also provides a platform for outright villainy to stake a claim, and in the arena of climate science this endangers us all. The front page rarely turns up items as rarefied as this one and the headline *is* misleading.
You may be interested in this discussion: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/07/09/the-scientific-met...
As far as I know, there is no "falsificationist method". The problem with the claim "not falsifiable" is that it often shows up in arguments denying climate science, and it's clear that many people have no idea what they are talking about. That a theory must be testable is not an excuse to condemn a field as difficult and complex as climate science. It's all very fine and large to play with words, but the claim that climate science cannot be tested and is therefore a big lie - a hoax - is unconscionable.
I showed this to my father and he agreed with some of the points made. I was so infuriated by the headline and encouragement of do-it-yourself science misunderstanding that I weighed in boots and all. The short article I linked was a straightforward exposition intended to remove obfuscation rather than to add layers of complex language and academic discussion. Unfortunately, complex discussions can drive people away.
The New York Times includes areas like The Stone which is a place where people interested in ideas can discuss them with equally sophisticated colleagues. Unfortunately, it also provides a platform for outright villainy to stake a claim, and in the arena of climate science this endangers us all. The front page rarely turns up items as rarefied as this one and the headline *is* misleading.
You may be interested in this discussion: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/07/09/the-scientific-met...
4
If one were to eliminate all the manipulation and bad faith around questioning these premises, it's a discussion that is deeply interesting to scientists themselves. Science is a living entity, fairly asymmetric, but always tending towards knowledge and understanding and integrity.
The "father" I refer to is PW Anderson. I am normally reluctant to say too much about him; my opinions are my own, but he has thought and written and acted on the creative end of physics. Since I'm making a fuss here, I am being more explicit here so anyone interested can look him up.
Do look up AndThenTheresPhysics: there's a lot of added value in the comments and links there, some negative but many not.
The "father" I refer to is PW Anderson. I am normally reluctant to say too much about him; my opinions are my own, but he has thought and written and acted on the creative end of physics. Since I'm making a fuss here, I am being more explicit here so anyone interested can look him up.
Do look up AndThenTheresPhysics: there's a lot of added value in the comments and links there, some negative but many not.
2
Susan, I follow your impassioned comments on climate change with much delight, and learn a great deal as well. When there was (all too briefly) a special column on climate change, you were particularly active and particularly articulate.
So I was disappointed with your initial knee jerk reaction to this article... which makes me all that much more impressed with the sincere humility with which you are now modifying your initial response.
Any chance you might wish to take some time to infuse some of that humility into Richard's posts?
So I was disappointed with your initial knee jerk reaction to this article... which makes me all that much more impressed with the sincere humility with which you are now modifying your initial response.
Any chance you might wish to take some time to infuse some of that humility into Richard's posts?
this is a spurious sets of analogies. what poets try to do is not what scientists try to do. the reasoning process can seem similar because they both use neurons.
9
Testable hypotheses. You can do experiments based on your theory of the way things work. That really is the difference. I can roll a ball down an inclined plane an infinite number of ways, but I can run an infinite number of experiments on society, an economic system, a human being's psyche, etc.
2
There is a crucial difference between the sciences and poetry. Scientists aim at discovering causal relations, typically. Poets aim at discovering meaning. Prof. Blachowicz chooses his examples to avoid this not insignificant detail. Errors about causal relations matter a lot because of the consequences-- it would be a bad thing if a house or a bridge collapsed because we got the causal relations wrong. Perhaps the same thing can be said about poetry -- perhaps, we are now seeing the consequences of thinking less clearly about meaning. But isn't part of poetry to leave the meaning open? And isn't that what Plato sees as its danger?
3
At this point in the comment section I think we can feel the shear about whats going on. Althought I'm not against his choice of examples, I would preferably talk about this one: If it is like it is said that scientific matter (e.g. methods) are hardly dealt with by the same group that use it (or lacks of imagination to find new ways to express the same idea with different means), why won't philosopher talk about how to eat food? - While there is a science to follow a proper nutrition, there is still an art for it - Does one negate the other, or is there on both side something to learn from? Does breaking my jaw has anything to do with all previous topic, I would still like to know if there is a forbidden fruit that could heal my decaying ''me'' and is yet to be discovered...
Professor Blachowicz is from Loyola Jesuit Catholic University in Chicago. That in itself should tell the reader to watch out, and take his anti-science column with a grain of salt. We know all about the Catholic Church's anti-science stance for about 2,000 years now.
25
lou andrews,
Georges Lemaître was a Jesuit; do you dismiss his work out of hand and/or give Edwin Hubble full credit instead? Gregor Mendel's research was all but completely dismissed in his lifetime, only to be rediscovered and posthumously recognized as a seminal work. Sort of the reverse of what Planck was getting at when he spoke of science advancing one funeral at a time, though perhaps not entirely. Either way, one hopes he wasn't ignored simply because he was an Augustinian.
Georges Lemaître was a Jesuit; do you dismiss his work out of hand and/or give Edwin Hubble full credit instead? Gregor Mendel's research was all but completely dismissed in his lifetime, only to be rediscovered and posthumously recognized as a seminal work. Sort of the reverse of what Planck was getting at when he spoke of science advancing one funeral at a time, though perhaps not entirely. Either way, one hopes he wasn't ignored simply because he was an Augustinian.
1
Historians of science have been making this point for decades. "The Scientific Method" was a fabrication that was picked up by textbooks and repeated endlessly. They continue to do so. The problem is the hopelessly inadequate state of science textbooks. They continue to repeat outmoded "facts" and bogus descriptions of "method." There are many valid methods for testing hypotheses, but not single "method" for generating them. Old news. Ho Hum.
5
Yes, scientific method is the same as effective thinking in other areas. Good thinking always iteratively adjusts ideas until they meet all the known constraints of observables and prior beliefs. But established science is something special also. It is effective thinking about problems that happen to be simple and quantifiable enough that the explanation locks onto reality. When this happens, a theory succeeds in explaining a vast array of new observations that were not known at the time it was proposed. In some sense it is amazing that there are phenomena and explanations that match as exactly as the motion of macroscopic objects matches Newton's laws allowing us to build planes and skyscrapers and submarines. This coherent lock-in is something that can't happen in poetry and seems not to happen in philosophy. It doesn't mean they are not equally important. Just that they are not simple and our current knowledge isn't nearly as firmly established as established science. Philosophers of science need to spend more time studying ideas after the scientific synthesis of classical physics in the mid 19th century. Studying the early scientific revolution easily gives confusing ideas about how a deeply successful scientific theory is adjusted by new facts.
5
To paraphrase psychologist George Kelly: we are all scientists. The scientific method is simply a refinement of our cognitive ability. We all observe, theorize, and make predictions that we then evaluate and refine based on the data. That we do this in our personal relationships, financial endeavors, and of course, scientific inquiry, should not surprise any of us.
16
The last sentence ("It is not scientists who are trained specifically to provide analyses of scientific method") is wrong.
The scientific method is nothing but an analysis of data and methodology. There is no need to be "trained specifically" for it, because running experiments etc. involves questioning the method.
I think what Blachowicz was trying to say is that there are more fundamental things that scientists might accept unquestioningly, and which everyone more or less accepts unquestioningly, which are the proper focus of philosophers (e.g., "why is Occam's razor correct/useful?" etc.) but those things do not include the scientific method itself.
The scientific method is nothing but an analysis of data and methodology. There is no need to be "trained specifically" for it, because running experiments etc. involves questioning the method.
I think what Blachowicz was trying to say is that there are more fundamental things that scientists might accept unquestioningly, and which everyone more or less accepts unquestioningly, which are the proper focus of philosophers (e.g., "why is Occam's razor correct/useful?" etc.) but those things do not include the scientific method itself.
10
Marc, I think you are right in your assessment. As to what these more fundamental things are that the author wishes to apply philosophy to, there seems to me to be some confusion on his part. On one hand, the author seems to want to include among these more fundamental things the critique of scientific theory, like testability, comprehensiveness, logical consistency, and so on. These various criteria are not part of science itself, and philosophy can analyze how these criteria may better achieve the objectivity science desires.
It appears the author wants to insist a similar but perhaps less rigorous set of criteria applies to the arts like poetry, and that confers upon them an claim of truth or value similar to scientific results. Yet, on the other hand, the creative and at least partially subjective aspects of theory formation and evaluation, which are the main basis for placing these matters outside of a scientific study, seem to me to work against his intention of placing the truths of science and art and philosophy all in the same bucket.
So I think I am in agreement with you that he aims to split scientific study from more fundamental issues, but then he does not wish to accept the consequences. These include the inability of philosophy to definitively settle most questions, and acceptance that its value is not there, but is in deepening our understanding.
It appears the author wants to insist a similar but perhaps less rigorous set of criteria applies to the arts like poetry, and that confers upon them an claim of truth or value similar to scientific results. Yet, on the other hand, the creative and at least partially subjective aspects of theory formation and evaluation, which are the main basis for placing these matters outside of a scientific study, seem to me to work against his intention of placing the truths of science and art and philosophy all in the same bucket.
So I think I am in agreement with you that he aims to split scientific study from more fundamental issues, but then he does not wish to accept the consequences. These include the inability of philosophy to definitively settle most questions, and acceptance that its value is not there, but is in deepening our understanding.
"I am not a practicing scientist. "
There lies the explanation for this article.
No practicing scientist would question the difference between science and writing poetry. Not that writing poetry or music is any less in terms of the skills required. It probably utilizes human faculties to the same extent,
But poetry or art are not science.
Science requires statistical significance based on objective measurements. Poetry and art are based on feeling, They have their own logic, but it is not the logic of science. Science is independent of feeling or human bias.
There lies the explanation for this article.
No practicing scientist would question the difference between science and writing poetry. Not that writing poetry or music is any less in terms of the skills required. It probably utilizes human faculties to the same extent,
But poetry or art are not science.
Science requires statistical significance based on objective measurements. Poetry and art are based on feeling, They have their own logic, but it is not the logic of science. Science is independent of feeling or human bias.
46
Can poetry not be taught to a limited extent? I think it can. As the author points out, articulation and knowledge are two separate things. I may not feel anything at all but might be a very good poet.
Teaching someone the right skills to frame their poetry in a way that strikes a chord in the appropriate audience seems like a science to me! I am not saying that this is already possible-I am just saying that the science of poetry would be the amalgamation of biological engineering, psychology and knowledge of the written language-clearly based on logic! We just have not figured it out yet.
Teaching someone the right skills to frame their poetry in a way that strikes a chord in the appropriate audience seems like a science to me! I am not saying that this is already possible-I am just saying that the science of poetry would be the amalgamation of biological engineering, psychology and knowledge of the written language-clearly based on logic! We just have not figured it out yet.
From the title on downward, this is a misleading article based on multiple false premises and is not worthy of this newspaper.
To deal with the most egregious, the author's refutation of straw arguments is despicable. No one thinks of the scientific method in terms of "superiority" in a broad, general sense. The scientific method is what governs the practice of science. The results of that method are quantifiable and repeatable and can form the basis of further investigation. That's all anyone in science claims for the scientific method. Yet, in exactly the same way that one can't write a poem to fix a broken transmission or a leaky pipe, there a host of fact-based conclusions that only scientific methods can reach.
The fact that scientific conclusions are constantly renewed and reevaluated based on new data is the very essence of the pursuit. All of the author's examples are therefore exactly the kind of misleading schoolboy taunts I thought I'd heard the last of in 8th grade.
Philosophers and aesthetes weighing in on scientific truth is no more valid than the numerous, exhaustive attempts to prove that Bach's fugues are "mathematical" when they are nothing other than cultural artifacts that grow out of a set of traditions.
Finally, by bulldozing the many nuances contained in words like "truth" the only thing this article demonstrates is that There is No Editorial Policy at the NY Times.
To deal with the most egregious, the author's refutation of straw arguments is despicable. No one thinks of the scientific method in terms of "superiority" in a broad, general sense. The scientific method is what governs the practice of science. The results of that method are quantifiable and repeatable and can form the basis of further investigation. That's all anyone in science claims for the scientific method. Yet, in exactly the same way that one can't write a poem to fix a broken transmission or a leaky pipe, there a host of fact-based conclusions that only scientific methods can reach.
The fact that scientific conclusions are constantly renewed and reevaluated based on new data is the very essence of the pursuit. All of the author's examples are therefore exactly the kind of misleading schoolboy taunts I thought I'd heard the last of in 8th grade.
Philosophers and aesthetes weighing in on scientific truth is no more valid than the numerous, exhaustive attempts to prove that Bach's fugues are "mathematical" when they are nothing other than cultural artifacts that grow out of a set of traditions.
Finally, by bulldozing the many nuances contained in words like "truth" the only thing this article demonstrates is that There is No Editorial Policy at the NY Times.
114
And yet, it is valid for a scientist to weigh in on aesthetic truths? Closed-minded thinking works both ways.
Methinks thou a 'Platonist,' making a science of poetry. If so, then all awaits discovery and everything is susceptible to the scientific method, for everything is couched away in a perfectly Platonic universe somewhere just waiting for us to apply our method and 'discover' it.
6
I am a practicing scientist. This article has absolutely nothing to do with how science is practiced. I agree with the post describing this piece as "painful to read".
36
I too am a practicing scientist; I agree with Rachel 100% (except I couldn't finish reading it with an open mind). In fact, I couldn't finish reading it because it closed my mind.
3
I, too, am trained as a scientist and also as a member of the clergy. While there were some analogies that were problematic for me, as a whole, I found this piece to be interesting and true. I think you miss the point and did not approach it with an open mind to begin with. Every human endeavor is a process of discovery, observation, experimentation and refinement. Science's great advantage is that is used more precise and quantifiable data and works much faster in the real world.
" He jotted on a blackboard some lines of verse from successive drafts of one of his poems, asking whether these lines (a) expressed what he wanted to express and (b) did so in the desired form. "
This is definitely not similar to the scientific method. This is how advocates pick and choose among stories to give a veneer of 'reality' to their claims.
This is definitely not similar to the scientific method. This is how advocates pick and choose among stories to give a veneer of 'reality' to their claims.
6
"Except when resisted by air" will not work because air is always there. It would be better to say "properly modified by considering air resistance as a second factor."
1
Philosophy is a subject in the humanities. It can be defined as the attempt to discover truth through the analysis of human perception and understanding. It is a method to "describe the elephant" within human boundaries.
Science pays no homage to human perception, understanding or boundaries. It actively challenges the human's ability to perceive or understand reality and demands the highest level of objectivity achievable. It describes the "part of the elephant" being observed without regard for the limits of human understanding.
Science pays no homage to human perception, understanding or boundaries. It actively challenges the human's ability to perceive or understand reality and demands the highest level of objectivity achievable. It describes the "part of the elephant" being observed without regard for the limits of human understanding.
3
So many words to say "Trial and error apply beyond science". "....that there is no DISTINCTLY scientific method" is simply another way of saying that this method may be used in other contexts as well.
The difference between art and science is that in science, the basis for accepting or rejecting a hypothesis is the evidence, whereas in art it is a question of some other value or aesthetic. While the trial and error process of determining whether a hypothesis is borne out by evidence or must be discarded may be similar to the trial and error process by which one decides whether the line of poetry is good or should be reworked, the fact that the process is similar is almost meaningless to the substantive questions.
To answer what is a painfully stupid question to be asked by someone so obviously intelligent, the reason scientific inquiry is so much more reliable than other forms of inquiry is that it derives its legitimacy SOLELY from evidence and accuracy without regard to politics, aesthetics or any other inarticulable value. The product of a scientific inquiry is what it is, whether one likes it or not. The product of an artistic inquiry is subject to something else that may or may not be a shared, universal concept, and therefore is only reliable to the extent that the consumers of the product of inquiry share that indefinable something else.
The difference between art and science is that in science, the basis for accepting or rejecting a hypothesis is the evidence, whereas in art it is a question of some other value or aesthetic. While the trial and error process of determining whether a hypothesis is borne out by evidence or must be discarded may be similar to the trial and error process by which one decides whether the line of poetry is good or should be reworked, the fact that the process is similar is almost meaningless to the substantive questions.
To answer what is a painfully stupid question to be asked by someone so obviously intelligent, the reason scientific inquiry is so much more reliable than other forms of inquiry is that it derives its legitimacy SOLELY from evidence and accuracy without regard to politics, aesthetics or any other inarticulable value. The product of a scientific inquiry is what it is, whether one likes it or not. The product of an artistic inquiry is subject to something else that may or may not be a shared, universal concept, and therefore is only reliable to the extent that the consumers of the product of inquiry share that indefinable something else.
9
Can poetry reliably predict anything? The science, and therefor the scientific process, is all about making preidctions. And the understanding of the world comes from that power to predict. Abstractions and generalizations are only means to that end. As for the creativity being useful in science, we already know that.
5
"Can poetry reliably predict anything?"
Perhaps not as often as we'd like, which may explain why we appreciate poetic justice when it happens. Not that we all agree on the definition of the term, mind, but Socrates might argue that we all know what it means.
Perhaps not as often as we'd like, which may explain why we appreciate poetic justice when it happens. Not that we all agree on the definition of the term, mind, but Socrates might argue that we all know what it means.
The concept of the scientific method?
Science, the scientific method, roughly making a hypothesis as to reality, toward discovering truth rather than creating it (which is considered subjective, realm of art) and then rigorously testing to the point that we all agree that water, for example, is H2O, has acquired such force today that we routinely brush aside the arts, philosophy, literature, not to mention religion.
Apparently we are to theorize about reality and propose experiments to confirm or deny our theories--we are to proceed in such fashion. Fine, I will play along. From reading Darwin I gather that humans evolved. I infer from that further evolution is possible. I see with my own eyes today that humans are hardly responsible stewards of the planet or in sensible relationship with each other (so much greed, disorganization, stupidity).
Therefore I hypothesize a much better human being than average can be described from current evidence of human beings (a composite human of responsibility, intelligence, health, creative power, etc.) and that we should immediately start numerous experiments testing actual working power of these hypothesized superior humans to not only further develop our species but to probably save it, and certainly to have superior minds working toward further advance of science and truth.
Now the question is will scientists, the scientific method, be found compatible with this idea? Why or why not? Or is this just (snicker)...philosophizing?
Science, the scientific method, roughly making a hypothesis as to reality, toward discovering truth rather than creating it (which is considered subjective, realm of art) and then rigorously testing to the point that we all agree that water, for example, is H2O, has acquired such force today that we routinely brush aside the arts, philosophy, literature, not to mention religion.
Apparently we are to theorize about reality and propose experiments to confirm or deny our theories--we are to proceed in such fashion. Fine, I will play along. From reading Darwin I gather that humans evolved. I infer from that further evolution is possible. I see with my own eyes today that humans are hardly responsible stewards of the planet or in sensible relationship with each other (so much greed, disorganization, stupidity).
Therefore I hypothesize a much better human being than average can be described from current evidence of human beings (a composite human of responsibility, intelligence, health, creative power, etc.) and that we should immediately start numerous experiments testing actual working power of these hypothesized superior humans to not only further develop our species but to probably save it, and certainly to have superior minds working toward further advance of science and truth.
Now the question is will scientists, the scientific method, be found compatible with this idea? Why or why not? Or is this just (snicker)...philosophizing?
First we guess, then we compute the consequences of the guess, what it would imply, then we compare the computation results with nature, with experiment or experience, with observation... If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. - it doesn't matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are. - Richard Feynman.
Has anyone described scientific method more consicely and elegantly?
Has anyone described scientific method more consicely and elegantly?
10
Does the discipline of philosophy exist?
8
The difference, it seems to me, is that we can all agree on:
a) Kepler's observed movements of Mars; and
b) the degree to which his equations describe these movements.
We cannot, by contrast, agree on:
a) the author's definition of courage; and
b) the degree to which his definition describes this.
The observability and verifiability of science sets it apart. This should be celebrated as a basis for communal understanding and knowledge, not obscured as a matter of "highly quantified variables".
a) Kepler's observed movements of Mars; and
b) the degree to which his equations describe these movements.
We cannot, by contrast, agree on:
a) the author's definition of courage; and
b) the degree to which his definition describes this.
The observability and verifiability of science sets it apart. This should be celebrated as a basis for communal understanding and knowledge, not obscured as a matter of "highly quantified variables".
16
This piece muddies the hell out of an uncomplicated distinction. Science is the study of testable ideas; philosophy and religion are about untestable ideas. Central to this is peer review. The more questioning and retesting a scientific idea receives the better. In proof or disproof, the idea is moved forward, and draws its strength from itself. By contrast, the ideas of philosophy/religion draw their "strength" from the authority of priests, ministers, etc. To question is to engage is in insubordination.
9
Not really. We don't live in medieval times. As a member of both the clergy and science, my inquiries are not treated as insubordination.
rather then talk about the scientific method, we should talk about scientists, who are human.
It may surprise people, but scientist are prone to all the flaws and foibles of humans.
I have seen , first hand, with my own eyes (1) truly successful scientists - members of the NAS, tenured faculty at places like MIT.
In my opinion they got where they are because they are gifted and truly competitive: they didn't get where they are by working only 10 hours a day.
I think if you talk to almost any scientist, off the record, they will tell you of people who have cheated, in one way or the other; cause, the rewards of winning are high, and scientists are human.
1) my own eyes - that is a very scientific method thing to say; it indicates how good the data is, cause, at the end of the day, as Lord Kelvin remarked, all of physics boils down to reading a guage.
It may surprise people, but scientist are prone to all the flaws and foibles of humans.
I have seen , first hand, with my own eyes (1) truly successful scientists - members of the NAS, tenured faculty at places like MIT.
In my opinion they got where they are because they are gifted and truly competitive: they didn't get where they are by working only 10 hours a day.
I think if you talk to almost any scientist, off the record, they will tell you of people who have cheated, in one way or the other; cause, the rewards of winning are high, and scientists are human.
1) my own eyes - that is a very scientific method thing to say; it indicates how good the data is, cause, at the end of the day, as Lord Kelvin remarked, all of physics boils down to reading a guage.
Scientific method is about data. Give me some data on "courage", and then we'll talk.
13
It's claptrap like this that gives the humanities a bad name.
29
I'm so glad I went into science and not into philosophy.
23
The process the author describes in the example of finding a definition of courage is really the opposite of the scientific method. A scientist tests his or her hypothesis against observations, and if those observations are incompatible with the hypothesis it is the hypothesis that must be rejected or modified. In the courage example, what appears to be the analog of the hypothesis - the philosopher's idea of courage - does not change. If the "observations" of the potential definitions do not comport with the fixed "hypothesis" it is the observations that are rejected, not the hypothesis. This seems very different from true science.
11
"I am not a practicing scientist. So who am I to criticize scientists’ understanding of their method?"
That's right, you aren't, and no offense, but it shows. What distinguishes science from other modes of thought is that it consists only of falsifiable theories, and these theories are then tested rigorously. This is not something that we can do with a poem, which can only be judged subjectively.
That's right, you aren't, and no offense, but it shows. What distinguishes science from other modes of thought is that it consists only of falsifiable theories, and these theories are then tested rigorously. This is not something that we can do with a poem, which can only be judged subjectively.
19
It is hard to apply hypothesis testing to thoughts, morality, feelings, art and social actions. Scientific methods can find tendencies and make inferences in those cases. Most scientists try to keep their methods and objective findings separate from discussions of possible meanings. They are also ready to explain the relevant probabilities and limitations of their studies.
7
But doable. Precisely. Ditto. You are an idealist.
There are valuable lessons to be learned by trying to answer questions that have demonstrably right and wrong answers. This lesson is often not learned in the humanities. A scientific education teaches us how hard it is to answer these questions, and thus how little we really know. A humanities education, it seems, teaches us that we can successfully argue for almost any conclusion, and thus makes us think we know more than we do.
I'll settle for the intellectual humility of good scientific practices. It'll keep me from writing pieces like this.
I'll settle for the intellectual humility of good scientific practices. It'll keep me from writing pieces like this.
12
As someone who teaches science at a university, there is an emphasis on teaching how science is done; we make observations, ask questions, develop hypothesis to explain our observations, and then test our hypothesis by experimenting or collecting additional information. If the results don't support our hypothesis, we develop new hypothesis and repeat. Science is an iterative process.
One of the most important aspects of how we do modern science is that our hypothesis are potentially testable and falsifiable. Additionally, scientific observations and experiments are also potentially repeatable, observable, and measurable. If not, then it is not science, and lies in the realm of pseudoscience. This in itself is the methodology and criteria we have for science.
And yes, scientists have thought about the scientific method and how we do science, or what it means to be scientific.
One of the most important aspects of how we do modern science is that our hypothesis are potentially testable and falsifiable. Additionally, scientific observations and experiments are also potentially repeatable, observable, and measurable. If not, then it is not science, and lies in the realm of pseudoscience. This in itself is the methodology and criteria we have for science.
And yes, scientists have thought about the scientific method and how we do science, or what it means to be scientific.
12
"... how science is done ..."
You left out "peer review" and "citing the literature".
You left out "peer review" and "citing the literature".
2
I would direct to author to "The Tao of Physics," by Fritjof Capra for a good presentation by a particle physicist of other-than-scientific inquiry.
1
Next time I get sick, I'll make an appointment with a poet.
10
Perhaps the author should have recognized that the scientific method works in a way opposite to that he posits: to describe the trajectory of a projectile, for example, the scientist would say it was a parabola, and then would positively correct the parabola by adding in corrections for such effects as air resistance. The scientist might say a trajectory was a parabola, except for. . . but then the last paragraph of his paper would indicate that the corrections for . . . were a subject for further study. Science studies physical problems by adding description, not subtracting it. The author also neglects the difference between the precision of mathematics and the ambiguity of language; and the latter has already been discussed by Wittgenstein and many others. The collision between the use of language and the use of mathematics to describe physical phenomena is obvious in patent law, in which a central question is the meaning of terms in a patent claim; millions of dollars can ride on "meanings" that might vary according to context, history, or the technical skill of the reader. Yet, the underlying science may well be very clearly understood and unambiguously describable.
1
Journalistic opportunism ? An editorial cheesiness ? Yes- the headline was foolish & glib.
But the problem of defining a truly objective scientific process warrants serious reflection. Alas- many important realities defy traditional 'bench science' methodologies where events can be reproduced & retested, where phenomena can be standardized, made concrete or inanimate.
Harry Guntrip asked this sort of question when psychological theories were dismissed as unscientific. He basically asserted that real human experience must be the subject of disciplined inquiry, even if it defies a petri dish, MRI or simple chemistry reaction. Mental life & consciousness may also involve more than a consensus on definition of terms.
So- scientific thinking & analysis may not always generate a proof or singular answer. There may be unique, unpredictable aspects of reality, humility of prediction & knowledge.This may even defy pure Big Data punch lines as providing an ultimate & durable Truth.
But the problem of defining a truly objective scientific process warrants serious reflection. Alas- many important realities defy traditional 'bench science' methodologies where events can be reproduced & retested, where phenomena can be standardized, made concrete or inanimate.
Harry Guntrip asked this sort of question when psychological theories were dismissed as unscientific. He basically asserted that real human experience must be the subject of disciplined inquiry, even if it defies a petri dish, MRI or simple chemistry reaction. Mental life & consciousness may also involve more than a consensus on definition of terms.
So- scientific thinking & analysis may not always generate a proof or singular answer. There may be unique, unpredictable aspects of reality, humility of prediction & knowledge.This may even defy pure Big Data punch lines as providing an ultimate & durable Truth.
1
There is a scientific method, which consists of applying the same tools of experience, logic, and argument used in philosophy, but carefully conducted to choose assertions which are falsifiable. It's this work of falsification that's the heart of science.
4
A minor point on dates not directly related to the content, but distracting. Kepler died in 1630, so the date of 1754 in the illustration is a bit strange. Presumably an illustration reproduced by someone else more than a century after his death. Either the date is wrong or it should be attributed to the proper source.
5
Near the end, the author says, "I am not a practicing scientist. So who am I to criticize scientists’ understanding of their method?" Who indeed? And the title, "There is no scientific method" suggests some great insight or wisdom that seems to be absent from the column.
12
"And the title, ..."
The headline is inconsistent with the essay, so the headline is wrong: "In saying there is no scientific method, what I mean, more precisely, is that there is no *distinctly* scientific method."
The headline is inconsistent with the essay, so the headline is wrong: "In saying there is no scientific method, what I mean, more precisely, is that there is no *distinctly* scientific method."
This article does not adequately or accurately define what scientsits mean by the scientific method. Try Karl Popper, Francis Bacon, ete
7
Philosophy is the 'love for knowledge' in its original Greek etymological definition. Aristotle is undoubtedly one of the most influential philosophers of antiquity and his "Physics" is taken by many to be the founding stone of modern science.
Even before him, Archimedes (287—212 BC) was the first practical 'scientist' to find a method of calculation akin to infinitesimal calculus, not by mathematical means as Newton and Leibniz did nineteen centuries later, but by an extraordinarily elegant and precise geometrical formulation.
Professor Blachowicz's commentary on Kepler’s discovery of the elliptical orbits of planets in the solar systems is cumbersome and imprecise at best, and ignorant at worst; evidence that he has little familiarity with and knowledge of geometry and mathematics.
His analogies to poetry also have little consequence and do nothing to prove his hypothesis, "there is no scientific method" — if indeed that was his intention, his opinion is not sufficient to call it a hypothesis.
His use of language is also loose and imprecise. He would do well to heed Wittgenstein's propositional advice (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus), "The object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts." 4.112..."Its whole meaning can be summed up somewhat as follows: What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent." [Preface]
His writing does not have the sense and consistency of stone, but merely of play-doh.
Even before him, Archimedes (287—212 BC) was the first practical 'scientist' to find a method of calculation akin to infinitesimal calculus, not by mathematical means as Newton and Leibniz did nineteen centuries later, but by an extraordinarily elegant and precise geometrical formulation.
Professor Blachowicz's commentary on Kepler’s discovery of the elliptical orbits of planets in the solar systems is cumbersome and imprecise at best, and ignorant at worst; evidence that he has little familiarity with and knowledge of geometry and mathematics.
His analogies to poetry also have little consequence and do nothing to prove his hypothesis, "there is no scientific method" — if indeed that was his intention, his opinion is not sufficient to call it a hypothesis.
His use of language is also loose and imprecise. He would do well to heed Wittgenstein's propositional advice (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus), "The object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts." 4.112..."Its whole meaning can be summed up somewhat as follows: What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent." [Preface]
His writing does not have the sense and consistency of stone, but merely of play-doh.
21
NYT, why not get someone who knows what the Scientific method is to explain it instead of someone who obviously does not? To quote the author; "I am not a practicing scientist. So who am I to criticize scientists’ understanding of their method?" You are certainly partially correct, you have no right to criticize the Scientific method! Is this some kind of joke?
18
"There Is No Scientific Method." That depends on what the definition of "is" is.
6
There's a reason we once called science "natural philosophy." The one is a form of the other, dealing with more readily quantified matters.
There is a scientific method.
11
I've done science. I've done engineering. I've written poetry. All are products of the human mind. Neither science (small 's') nor art should be at odds. Defenders of the cult of science shouldn't be so defensive; the answers to 'why' are beyond that pale.
4
and then again there are likely to be probabilities. which never occurred to the Greeks. Or to Aquinas.
1
This is so profoundly painful to read. If YOU cannot tell what the scientific method is does NOT mean it does not exist. It means you fail to grasp it.
This reminds me of when believers try to impost their religion on science. It sounds the same.
This reminds me of when believers try to impost their religion on science. It sounds the same.
29
Perhaps had the author quantified precisely how poetry studies the natural world, and how poetry gives answers that are useful to solve physical problems, there would be more than sound and fury signifying maybe something.
As it stands, this is a weak argument in favor of the liberal arts. The arts don't need to "compete" with science, except perhaps for funding from various Deans and Academic VP's looking at the budgets of their departments and colleges. Besides, no serious thinker questions the intrinsic value of the arts and their important impact on society.
Poets by their nature, don't "question" or "inquire", they state perspectives and propound ideas and emotion. When you want to understand what's going on in the core of Jupiter, you send a spacecraft with a microwave radiometer. Sure, there's some cute Legos on board, but they are not knowledge, they are touchstones. A touchstone is a tangible statement of philosophy that leads into an exploration and an inquiry, but is not an inquiry itself.
The arts tell us who we are by stating it explicitly, or help us to clarify our thoughts. They don't ask questions. They make answers to questions. Science is all about asking questions. The questions are more important than the answers themselves. No other human endeavor does that.
As it stands, this is a weak argument in favor of the liberal arts. The arts don't need to "compete" with science, except perhaps for funding from various Deans and Academic VP's looking at the budgets of their departments and colleges. Besides, no serious thinker questions the intrinsic value of the arts and their important impact on society.
Poets by their nature, don't "question" or "inquire", they state perspectives and propound ideas and emotion. When you want to understand what's going on in the core of Jupiter, you send a spacecraft with a microwave radiometer. Sure, there's some cute Legos on board, but they are not knowledge, they are touchstones. A touchstone is a tangible statement of philosophy that leads into an exploration and an inquiry, but is not an inquiry itself.
The arts tell us who we are by stating it explicitly, or help us to clarify our thoughts. They don't ask questions. They make answers to questions. Science is all about asking questions. The questions are more important than the answers themselves. No other human endeavor does that.
8
When I was learning "evolution" in grad school, in the '70's, an urgent topic of discussion was "is a 'species' a 'real' thing, or merely a human construct?"
It was a very useful discussion, leading to many fascinating places. The discussion here strikes me as fundamentally identical, and I would put it as "Is 'Science' a real thing, with real definitions?"
I would suggest the many indignant comments here, angrily asserting various tribal definitions of "Science" as "The One True Way!" are a lucid illustration of why this conversation needs much broader attention.
It was a very useful discussion, leading to many fascinating places. The discussion here strikes me as fundamentally identical, and I would put it as "Is 'Science' a real thing, with real definitions?"
I would suggest the many indignant comments here, angrily asserting various tribal definitions of "Science" as "The One True Way!" are a lucid illustration of why this conversation needs much broader attention.
5
As an English teacher, I am always baffled by the dichotomization of English and science/math. It is interesting that many people fail to see the connections between the two (or three)--or all disciplines for that matter.
First, when crafting a logical argument, one is always using the scientific method; one must infer, which means one must examine the evidence and come to a logical conclusion. Much like a detective or lawyer, one must balance the perception of the evidence at hand and draw a sensical hypothesis. Also, when wishing to reveal a universal theme through generating literature, diction and syntax play an immense role, along with decisions of content and structure. In these cases I could see the positives of implementing the scientific method.
Second, the parts equal the whole. When stringing together thoughts, as in the parts of a molecule, the whole is only understood when each part speaks to the essence of what is being conveyed. Terse or not, precise language is inherently logical, if the idea that is conveyed is also logical--arrived at through the use of the scientific method.
I don't know why is gets under my skin so much to hear "I'm not a math/science person" when I teach English; I guess it reveals the lack of understanding the connectivity between all disciplines, which for some reason is nails on a chalkboard-esque to me!!!
First, when crafting a logical argument, one is always using the scientific method; one must infer, which means one must examine the evidence and come to a logical conclusion. Much like a detective or lawyer, one must balance the perception of the evidence at hand and draw a sensical hypothesis. Also, when wishing to reveal a universal theme through generating literature, diction and syntax play an immense role, along with decisions of content and structure. In these cases I could see the positives of implementing the scientific method.
Second, the parts equal the whole. When stringing together thoughts, as in the parts of a molecule, the whole is only understood when each part speaks to the essence of what is being conveyed. Terse or not, precise language is inherently logical, if the idea that is conveyed is also logical--arrived at through the use of the scientific method.
I don't know why is gets under my skin so much to hear "I'm not a math/science person" when I teach English; I guess it reveals the lack of understanding the connectivity between all disciplines, which for some reason is nails on a chalkboard-esque to me!!!
6
'I don't know why is gets under my skin so much to hear "I'm not a math/science person" ...'
What do you say when you hear that?
What do you say when you hear that?
There's no honest appraisal of the scientific method in this piece. Just words, words, Kepler, words, words, words, Galileo, and more wordy words on parade.
9
Maybe we ought to list what's involved in the scientific method, which could be described concisely in four not-so-simple steps:
1. Pose a focused hypothesis.
2. Collect appropriate data.
3. Analyze the data intelligently.
4. Make inferences and draw conclusions.
This essay reads nothing like this!
1. Pose a focused hypothesis.
2. Collect appropriate data.
3. Analyze the data intelligently.
4. Make inferences and draw conclusions.
This essay reads nothing like this!
7
Exactly! Apples vs. unicorns.
2
As a practicing scientist, all I can say is, what an annoying lot of twaddle. As Wolfgang Pauli would have said, this isn't right, this isn't even wrong! His quote perfectly describes how one feels when the very premises of an argument, never mind the conclusions, are so mistaken that you don't know where to begin. Would that this lamentable article were published in an obscure journal instead of the New York Times.
22
Pauli: "... this isn't even wrong!"
Demosthenes: "... so mistaken ..."
Pauli's point was that the paper he was reading was so vague, ambiguous, or incoherent that it could not even be "mistaken".
Demosthenes: "... so mistaken ..."
Pauli's point was that the paper he was reading was so vague, ambiguous, or incoherent that it could not even be "mistaken".
2
At my first physics class at University, the professor strolled on the stage of the auditorium, holding a large iron ball. For minutes, he looked at as silently, until the room was quit. The he dropped the ball, that with a great noise hit the hardwood floor and said:
"If you came here to find why the ball fell, leave now and study philosophy.
But if you came here to learn how long it took the ball to drop, the force with which it hit the floor, and how high it bounced, stay."
We all sat bewildered, because we wanted to learn "why" the ball dropped
But looking into the "how" came to love the subject.
"If you came here to find why the ball fell, leave now and study philosophy.
But if you came here to learn how long it took the ball to drop, the force with which it hit the floor, and how high it bounced, stay."
We all sat bewildered, because we wanted to learn "why" the ball dropped
But looking into the "how" came to love the subject.
8
Contrary to what your professor told you, scientific explanations answer why-questions. The literature on scientific explanation is large, but you could start with Carl Hempel.
This piece lost me when accounting for wind resistance is described as "ad hoc". Accounting for the data involves including all forces present. There is nothing ad hoc about including resistance in the presence of a fluid.
This piece also seems to confused about the principle of Occam's Razor, less complexity is preferred. The principle is presented as a matter of taste and not based on data. In fact, less complex models are preferred because they generalize better ie explain unobserved data more accurately. Overly complex models overfit current data and do not capture new data well. In the case of Kepler, new data would come from observing the motion of another planet and trying to explain both sets of data with one model. Taste has nothing to do with deciding between models. The data decides.
A clear analysis based on fundamental understanding is an element of the scientific method shared with the arts. Too bad it is not on display.
This piece also seems to confused about the principle of Occam's Razor, less complexity is preferred. The principle is presented as a matter of taste and not based on data. In fact, less complex models are preferred because they generalize better ie explain unobserved data more accurately. Overly complex models overfit current data and do not capture new data well. In the case of Kepler, new data would come from observing the motion of another planet and trying to explain both sets of data with one model. Taste has nothing to do with deciding between models. The data decides.
A clear analysis based on fundamental understanding is an element of the scientific method shared with the arts. Too bad it is not on display.
7
"Ad hoc" does not mean "arbitrary".
There is no version of scientific method which applies to philosophy or english or history. The concept of coming up with an hypothesis and proving or refuting it through experimentation is the basis of science. There is no way to test counter-factuals in history without a Time Machine. In philosophy let's set up an experiment to prove the unexamined life isn't worth living. Good luck with that. A few readers have called this article irresponsible which seems a little harsh, though this is the sort of logic that creationists use to call their ideas equally worthy of consideration. But it is certainly ignorant of the scientific methods and ultimately says nothing of value. It wasn't worthy of publication.
9
If domain A overlaps with domain B, this is proof that either A is equivalent to B or that A does not exist? Huh?
As a practicing scientist I would say that all rational, systematic methods are quite similar to the "scientific method". You have a hypothesis to explain an observation, you try to test it, you gather the results of the test & see if it satisfies the hypothesis or requires revision or rejection of the hypothesis. So far, so good.
An example: Mom baked a cherry pie. Now it is missing. Buddy walks by with cherry filling on his lips. Those are the data. Buddy ate the pie is the hypothesis. Now Mrs. Smith comes by & says she gave Buddy a piece of the pie she baked. We now have to reevaluate our hypothesis until it fits all this & other data to come.
What distinguishes the scientific approach from the others is that a scientific "answer" is always testable & repeatable. The "answer" must be in a teastable form that allows it to be disproved. If it cannot be disproved, it is not science. Others who test the question must find the same answer. Will all analysts of the word "courage" come up with the same definition or write the same poem to describe it? Clearly the answer is No!!
Reproducibility is a requirement for all science. If I cannot verify Kepler's calculations or find that his prediction of celestial bodies doesn't jive with the facts, he is wrong or the hypothesis must be modified to fit the new data.
An example: Mom baked a cherry pie. Now it is missing. Buddy walks by with cherry filling on his lips. Those are the data. Buddy ate the pie is the hypothesis. Now Mrs. Smith comes by & says she gave Buddy a piece of the pie she baked. We now have to reevaluate our hypothesis until it fits all this & other data to come.
What distinguishes the scientific approach from the others is that a scientific "answer" is always testable & repeatable. The "answer" must be in a teastable form that allows it to be disproved. If it cannot be disproved, it is not science. Others who test the question must find the same answer. Will all analysts of the word "courage" come up with the same definition or write the same poem to describe it? Clearly the answer is No!!
Reproducibility is a requirement for all science. If I cannot verify Kepler's calculations or find that his prediction of celestial bodies doesn't jive with the facts, he is wrong or the hypothesis must be modified to fit the new data.
10
While most phenomena science can address are reproducible, some are not. Modeling a complex system is an example -- when a certain star (not a class) will go nova, within a higher degree of accuracy, tested by the single result. Though I suppose you could simply define it as not pure science, then you could have purity if you prefer. Quite a few complex systems of high interest, like our Sun or our global climate, are addressed by scientists, and can have unique events, such as a super flare that aims our way, we want to be able to predict. If we get good at some of these kinds of prediction, we will use a lot of science combined with a lot of calculation and a lot of model tweaking usually.
3
During the Ionian period in Greece and Anatolia, more than 2600 years ago, men like Democritus (the first man to posit that all matter was made of atoms and Thales of Militus (the man who first developed the scientific method) were hailed as the fathers of science. They believed that it was not sufficient to philosophically ponder a natural question. One had to develop hypotheses that could be used for predictions and validated by experiments.
Later generations of Greeks (Pythagoras, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, et al) put aside the scientific method and relied on meta-physics. It was enough to them to create a reasonable hypothesis through thought. They did not bother with the scientific rigor of obtaining proofs..
Even today, philosophers merely contemplate the natural order and pontificate on it. For every philosopher of 1 opinion, there are 100 with differing opinions. Philosophy was once described as questions that could not be answered. Philosophy is an academic discipline that does not subject itself to rigorous data, predictions, experiments, and proofs. The author of this article is, of course, a philosopher. Like his predecessors, all the way back to Pythagoras, he believes it is sufficient to state his philosophy without the need to apply scientific rigor to it.
Science IS more reliable because it relies on facts and provable theorems and can be repeated. At sea level STP, H2O freezes no matter who tries the experiment. There are no philisophical camps.
Later generations of Greeks (Pythagoras, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, et al) put aside the scientific method and relied on meta-physics. It was enough to them to create a reasonable hypothesis through thought. They did not bother with the scientific rigor of obtaining proofs..
Even today, philosophers merely contemplate the natural order and pontificate on it. For every philosopher of 1 opinion, there are 100 with differing opinions. Philosophy was once described as questions that could not be answered. Philosophy is an academic discipline that does not subject itself to rigorous data, predictions, experiments, and proofs. The author of this article is, of course, a philosopher. Like his predecessors, all the way back to Pythagoras, he believes it is sufficient to state his philosophy without the need to apply scientific rigor to it.
Science IS more reliable because it relies on facts and provable theorems and can be repeated. At sea level STP, H2O freezes no matter who tries the experiment. There are no philisophical camps.
4
"Science IS more reliable because it relies on facts and provable theorems and can be repeated."
For someone who thoroughly disparages philosophy you certainly seem eager to indulge in it yourself. Or do you suppose this is a scientific assertion?
For someone who thoroughly disparages philosophy you certainly seem eager to indulge in it yourself. Or do you suppose this is a scientific assertion?
2
There is no such thing as the Scientific Method?
The problem seems more that there is a myth of the scientific method. That a method exists which can be generally applied (by most anyone), and that in fact it would be best to assemble teams applying this particular method, rather than celebrating the individual, which will lead to more sophisticated technology and truth. But the history of science (Darwin, Einstein) seems to demonstrate, like in the arts, individuals of great organization and insight, those capable of framing a great hypothesis, after which comes all the formal aspect of scientific method (testing of hypothesis, etc.)
The modern age seems to downplay the essential aspect of science, the creative and organizational intelligence, not to mention downplay outstanding organization in musical composition and literature and in fact in most any field. The individual in general downplayed. What we have are assertions of this method or that (whether of science or business or popular psychology) which almost anyone can learn and profit from--the quick, easily described method toward this or that. I doubt one in a thousand today can grasp what it took for Darwin to write the origin of species, or for Einstein to sit around and work out on paper relativity in physics or for Mozart to compose or for Tolstoy to write War and Peace. Still the method to know is to how best get one's working materials and organize toward original insight. Creative power, flash of mind.
The problem seems more that there is a myth of the scientific method. That a method exists which can be generally applied (by most anyone), and that in fact it would be best to assemble teams applying this particular method, rather than celebrating the individual, which will lead to more sophisticated technology and truth. But the history of science (Darwin, Einstein) seems to demonstrate, like in the arts, individuals of great organization and insight, those capable of framing a great hypothesis, after which comes all the formal aspect of scientific method (testing of hypothesis, etc.)
The modern age seems to downplay the essential aspect of science, the creative and organizational intelligence, not to mention downplay outstanding organization in musical composition and literature and in fact in most any field. The individual in general downplayed. What we have are assertions of this method or that (whether of science or business or popular psychology) which almost anyone can learn and profit from--the quick, easily described method toward this or that. I doubt one in a thousand today can grasp what it took for Darwin to write the origin of species, or for Einstein to sit around and work out on paper relativity in physics or for Mozart to compose or for Tolstoy to write War and Peace. Still the method to know is to how best get one's working materials and organize toward original insight. Creative power, flash of mind.
1
This is a ridiculous piece which demonstrates only that the writer has little understanding of the scientific method. One of the most important aspects of scientific studies is that they can be replicated by other investigators. Can the same be said of a body of poetry?
18
Is the result of scientific research more reliable than other human inquiries? I don't think so. For me, the insights found in Dostoevsky's books are profound and life-changing, as 'true' as they possibly can be.
Abstractions in the Humanities and social sciences are never as quanititive as those of the sciences - but this is the source of their appeal! Most people are extremely interested in questions that cannot be qunitified, do not have a definite solution, yet have far reaching influence on human lives.
onourselvesandothers.com
Abstractions in the Humanities and social sciences are never as quanititive as those of the sciences - but this is the source of their appeal! Most people are extremely interested in questions that cannot be qunitified, do not have a definite solution, yet have far reaching influence on human lives.
onourselvesandothers.com
4
So many points here where I want to chime "Right! Right!" And so many where I want to add: "Yes, but you're leaving out this critical aspect..."
Two points I'll add: 1) Any survey of the most senior and respected scientists in the world will reveal many who are dismayed by the state of "Science". There's a terrifying amount of bad, shoddy work done; yes, probably worse than in the past. 2) There is no senior "Science Authority" with any ability to deal with the bad and shoddy, and work to improve the situation.
With our species now entirely dependent on technology, that is a very serious problem.
Two points I'll add: 1) Any survey of the most senior and respected scientists in the world will reveal many who are dismayed by the state of "Science". There's a terrifying amount of bad, shoddy work done; yes, probably worse than in the past. 2) There is no senior "Science Authority" with any ability to deal with the bad and shoddy, and work to improve the situation.
With our species now entirely dependent on technology, that is a very serious problem.
6
Well said!
1
Over fifty years ago, my University of Minnesota Psychology Professor Paul E. Meehl taught, "we should not use the philosophy of science to beat up on each other." A little epistemological eclecticism is not a bad thing.
3
Probably not the only one to point out that the scientific method is not the thinking approach Mr. Blachowizc describes. The scientific method goes thus: have an idea what some reality might be; devise a test to see if the idea holds up (tests that would throw out the idea are best cuz they are most economical uses of energy); repeat tests; figure out other tests, until you cannot explain the results any better way than with the hypothesis. Wait a while, think up reasons why another reality might better explain the results, devise a way to test this empirically, Change or reinforce the hypothesis. Repeat. Reality to a scientist is often said to be anything that has not yet been disproven.
4
Interesting and well-written article, but I have a question that maybe someone who has studied physics and astronomy more deeply than I have can answer.
The author states: "Early on, Kepler determined that the orbit of Mars was not a circle (the default perfect shape of the planetary spheres, an idea inherited from the Greeks)."
Here the ancient Greeks are clearly right - a circle should be the default shape of the earth's orbit if the sun (all other things being equal) is exerting constant gravitational pull in all directions (which it presumably is).
So why is the orbit in the form of an ellipse? I assume this is because the sun is itself moving (through the galaxy) and thereby is "pulling" the planets all in the direction of movement, so that the circle is deformed into an ellipse, with the planets somewhat trailing behind but remaining in orbit. It this correct?
The author states: "Early on, Kepler determined that the orbit of Mars was not a circle (the default perfect shape of the planetary spheres, an idea inherited from the Greeks)."
Here the ancient Greeks are clearly right - a circle should be the default shape of the earth's orbit if the sun (all other things being equal) is exerting constant gravitational pull in all directions (which it presumably is).
So why is the orbit in the form of an ellipse? I assume this is because the sun is itself moving (through the galaxy) and thereby is "pulling" the planets all in the direction of movement, so that the circle is deformed into an ellipse, with the planets somewhat trailing behind but remaining in orbit. It this correct?
No - a circle and an ellipse are both relatively stable orbits, even in a spherically symmetrical gravitational field. This depends mostly on starting conditions. Imagine an object falling toward a sun, but missing. It speeds up, the closer it gets, then zooms past, swings around the sun, and begins to slow down, until it is pulled back for another go - tracing an ellipse, perpetually.
4
Actually, your question is more interesting than this article. I would argue it in a “statistical” manner. To put it simply so as not to write a minor essay, think of it this way. Because of the “curvature” of spacetime, planets (or for that matter, any satellite), have one of four choices when it comes to “orbit,” i.e. following the straightest path through space. They can be, circular, elliptical, parabolic or hyperbolic. Each orbit comes equipped with a so—called, “orbital eccentricity.” Now this eccentricity, let’s call it epsilon for short, can take on any positive “real” value. For a “perfectly” circular orbit (which is a just a circular orbit), epsilon must be equal to zero, period! Not, slightly greater than zero, not even, 0.00000000000000000000001. It must be zero to be circular. Any epsilon value greater than zero and less than one is deemed, elliptical. For epsilon equal one, it’s parabolic. And for any value greater than one, it’s hyperbolic. Your question is concerned with so—called, trapped orbits, namely those that have epsilon of zero or between zero and one. Now, this eccentricity (epsilon) is proportional to the orbital “energy” of the planet. Calculating the Earth’s epsilon for instance, we obtain 0.0167. It’s very “nearly” circular, but not so (the probability of such being virtually zero). And yes, it’s the small perturbations of the planets orbits acting in concert that make this so.
That’s my two—cents...
That’s my two—cents...
5
No.
1
There is a fundamental difference between science and philosophy here.
Science is about describing a pre-existing reality. The universe is what it is; the goal of science is to describe it accurately. To any scientific question, there is a correct answer, whether or not we are able to discern it.
But if we're trying to define "courage," there is no guarantee that a correct answer exists. In many cases, an act that I consider courageous is one that someone else will consider cowardly, or vice versa. And I myself may not be consistent in my use of the word; I might describe the same act as courageous or cowardly depending on how the question is framed. Reaching a definition requires making decisions about what the answer *should* be.
Science is about describing a pre-existing reality. The universe is what it is; the goal of science is to describe it accurately. To any scientific question, there is a correct answer, whether or not we are able to discern it.
But if we're trying to define "courage," there is no guarantee that a correct answer exists. In many cases, an act that I consider courageous is one that someone else will consider cowardly, or vice versa. And I myself may not be consistent in my use of the word; I might describe the same act as courageous or cowardly depending on how the question is framed. Reaching a definition requires making decisions about what the answer *should* be.
1
Having taught a course ostensibly intended to provide college students insight into applying the 'scientific method', I was confronted with the realization that either the scientific method is only one of several ways of pursuing scientific inquiry or much of what has advanced our understanding of our world does not fit the definition of science.
3
Science and poetry might be considered similar if in reality there was a preexisting universe of poems, and the true role of poets was not to create poems, but to discover them. Their method for doing this would consist of creating poem like objects, which they might refer to as hypotheti-poems, and then using some method to determine whether or not the hypotheti-poems were a match to one of the REAL POEMS OF THE UNIVERSE. I can’t imagine what this magical mystery method might involve, but I’m sure that some philosopher somewhere would be happy to explain it. I’m not so sure the explanation would be worth reading, but the philosopher would very likely provide it anyway, and apparently, the New York Times would be willing to publish it.
5
I have enjoyed the commentaries more than JB's opinion. Makes me recall my nephews(an economist) argument that my brother should rid the ranch of his cows and plant soybeans as the latter would increase income. A vet would have told him cows produce through the mouth, that it is essential to maintain their corporate condition so he should consider weaning the calf early on so the cows recover and cycle within the year. A Genetist would say that cows can be genetically selected so that it takes only 2330kg of grass instead of the usual 3000kg to produce a 160Kg calf and using this science he could double his production. A Social Sciencist would say that meat is a vital part of the Argentine culture and the government should halt exports to ensure enough meat for the local population. A Climacologist would point out that with global warming sudden heavy rainfalls are on the increase and that if soybeans are flooded for more than four days you loose your crop. The most revered gaucho poet is Martin Fierro and he said “I wish for the times that were that are no longer” My brother who was much more analytical than I and had a first at Cambridge said “I like cows” Unfortunately he died so at the funeral I asked the Priest what he thought. He said pray to God for he knows the answer. I told my nephew to toss a coin.
5
The author writes: In saying there is no scientific method, what I mean, more precisely, is that there is no distinctly scientific method.
Right. So the headline – written by editors or the author? – is wrong. It is stupidly misleading rubbish that will encourage those waging war on science with creationism, belief in the afterlife, climate-change skepticism, etc.
Nice work. The article is mildly interesting, but the headline is sensationalistic drivel that really has nothing to do with the actual article.
Right. So the headline – written by editors or the author? – is wrong. It is stupidly misleading rubbish that will encourage those waging war on science with creationism, belief in the afterlife, climate-change skepticism, etc.
Nice work. The article is mildly interesting, but the headline is sensationalistic drivel that really has nothing to do with the actual article.
5
I think the "scientific method" means: 1. making observations of natural phenomena; 2. forming a hypothesis to explain a 'cause' and 'effect' pattern; 3. testing the hypothesis with a control group and a test group; 4. apply standard statistical methods to be certain that a deviation between the two groups isn't due to chance.
Further, I'm not sure what the definition of "courage" has to do with the scientific method except this- Plato (or Socrates) was trying to introduce the idea of a universal (a concept) when most people thought in terms of particulars (examples of courage or justice rather than an abstract concept that would subsume the particular examples under a universal meaning). Remember the 'ideal', that is a perfect example of a particular that fused universal and particular and erased the duality, was Plato's basic philosophy. The "scientific method" does aim to find a universal concept to explain individual events but it does so using a rigorous method to reduce the chance that the cause and effect relationship contained in the hypothesized concept is wrong.
Further, I'm not sure what the definition of "courage" has to do with the scientific method except this- Plato (or Socrates) was trying to introduce the idea of a universal (a concept) when most people thought in terms of particulars (examples of courage or justice rather than an abstract concept that would subsume the particular examples under a universal meaning). Remember the 'ideal', that is a perfect example of a particular that fused universal and particular and erased the duality, was Plato's basic philosophy. The "scientific method" does aim to find a universal concept to explain individual events but it does so using a rigorous method to reduce the chance that the cause and effect relationship contained in the hypothesized concept is wrong.
1
It seems to me that this purposefully picked a wildly provocative title ("There is no Scientific Method") in order to draw an audience and then, almost immediately, began to walk it back with a much more reasonable position (i.e., science does not have a monopoly on "systematic investigation"). This is like putting up a headline, "The Sun does not Set" and then explaining the obviously false implications of the statement by saying what you meant "more precisely" is that because the sun is always shining everywhere, "sunset" is a relative term. It's a tiresome, although admittedly effective, tactic.
8
I would be surprised if many scientists held a view that the scientific method did not derive from a general method of inquiry. I certainly don't. The scientific method is more formal, more explicit about how inquiry is done; the rules for inquiry emerge from what the community of scientists accept as proper method. This changes over time and varies somewhat among disciplines. It is very much a human endeavor. This article itself is a good illustration of why we have these rules; the rules guard against inefficient discourse. Had they been applied during the writing of the article, the author most likely would have abandoned the article, or revised it into something that was more focused and tangible, and would consequently produce a more interesting debate. Science favors a disciplined debate on the details. I'm not convinced that art generally does, certainly not to the same extent, the Spender example notwithstanding.
1
An indulgent, self serving article. The composition of music, literature, and poetry can be very rigorous, but does not have to be obligated to representing the best truth. I would guess the author flunked college general chemistry (I passed mine with ease...).
4
This article itself ironically disproves the author's point: It is a clear product of non-scientific, fuzzy, subjective, self-aggrandizing thinking. It would never be published in a scientific journal as it has no supporting hard data. It is non-repoducable. It does not seek to reflect the reality outside as currently provable by experiment or numbers.
Of course there are scientists who also do not follow scientific process and who cherry pick data, or engage in confirmation bias, etc. But that is a failure of the scientist, not the process. The author is either being deliberately sophistic (how's that for philosophy?) or he is truly ignorant of the scientific process. Either way, this is a very irresponsible article for the Times to publish in our anti-science era.
Of course there are scientists who also do not follow scientific process and who cherry pick data, or engage in confirmation bias, etc. But that is a failure of the scientist, not the process. The author is either being deliberately sophistic (how's that for philosophy?) or he is truly ignorant of the scientific process. Either way, this is a very irresponsible article for the Times to publish in our anti-science era.
6
I am very happy to agree that philosophers of science to study science.. provided they really study the practice of it, instead of relying on their own vague notions of how they think it works. You don't have to practice, but you have to know what the practice is.
I've heard the scientific method described as "using your noodle". The basic idea is that you have evidence, and you do your damnedest to ensure you're not fooling yourself into the wrong answer.
I've heard the scientific method described as "using your noodle". The basic idea is that you have evidence, and you do your damnedest to ensure you're not fooling yourself into the wrong answer.
2
"Systematic investigation" is the term upon which I would hang my hat.
2
I teach literature and am a deconstructionist. For many, that means "anything could mean anything," which, of course, is not the case. Instead, I encourage my students to undertake a "systematic investigation" of the text. I've found my method to be very much like the "scientific method." You pose a hypothesis (this is your interpretation), structure the evidence for your hypothesis, address the "outliers" (those things that don't neatly fit into a defense of your hypothesis) and account for them, and then build an argument for your hypothesis taking into account all those aspects of your experiment. If you can or must, like me, read the text multiple times, you have more occasions to test your hypothesis, refining it, but always open to new data that can make you realize your hypothesis cannot be fully accounted for.
And, finally, ChesBay, love your avatar.
And, finally, ChesBay, love your avatar.
2
An open mind is a gift to humanity.
How we define a problem tends to we see the problem. This in turn leads to a re-definition of the very problem we started with.
5
"The lesson is that it is not just the observed facts that drive a scientist's theorizing. A scientist would, presumably, no more be caught in a patchwork hypothesis than in a patchwork suit." He presumed wrong: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard P. Feynman
112
Just a few years after Feynman said this some scientist (and engineers) made atomic clocks that were so precise that they could detect (i.e. observe) the difference in which 'time' progresses in orbit about the earth and the progress of time 'at rest' in a scientific laboratory on earth. I don't know if Feynman lived to see this scientific refutation of his pronouncement, but I am sure it would not have bothered him one whit. His pronouncements were not intended to be scientific, they were intended to provoke the self satisfied, philosophers especially.
What refutation? The fact that there were no clocks precise enough to test time dilation until the 1971 doesn't refute Feynman's pronouncement, it confirms it! That time dilation effects were too small to measure (with clocks) until 1971 just meant there were no tests (observed facts) to either confirm OR contradict them. (Actually time dilation was first confirmed in 1938 using a different method.)
Why does a philosopher get hung up on what method of thinking is "superior"? Is it self-indulgence or self-defense? I think, perhaps, it is not a philosopher's method of thinking which concerns him, but, (in a self- diminished field of study), what it is that he has bothered to think about.
The"'mind" of man, much like the word, "superior" is a prosaic invention of language and as such is constructed by convention.... meaningless words.
It is the brain, a physical organ, ( Pinker's, "The Stuff Of Thought" comes to mind), which is being studied today - not by philosophers - but by neuro-scientists.
And yet, I am sure, we'll always have neck-scarves and pipes.
The"'mind" of man, much like the word, "superior" is a prosaic invention of language and as such is constructed by convention.... meaningless words.
It is the brain, a physical organ, ( Pinker's, "The Stuff Of Thought" comes to mind), which is being studied today - not by philosophers - but by neuro-scientists.
And yet, I am sure, we'll always have neck-scarves and pipes.
15
When you mentioned Socrates, we instead considered Aristotle, who would consider the study of the flying canon ball to be a study of logos, whereas the framework of defining courage is a matter of pathos and ethos.
The flying canon ball is purely logical; it does not argue with you. It does follow the parabolic arc of gravity and it does follow the other laws of physics, such as fluid friction (e.g., air resistance).
"Is a suicide bomber courageous?" is not a query which can be proven using the scientific method. People will certainly argue with you. The matter can only be settled within one of several conflicting ethical, logical or emotional frameworks. Ethically, is the act of killing civilians courageous? We must in fairness recall that it was an allied tactic used in WW II. Logically, the argument is whether the bomber was acting with a courageous belief, or if his or her mental state was impaired according to scientific statistics and experience such as a doctor's call. Emotionally, we abhor it. Like the flight of the canon ball, reaching its conclusion requires no thought.
It's not that there is no scientific method, as you suggest, but that human behavior falls under a different framework. If there were a scientific method to human behavior, our political system would be far less cacophonous.
The flying canon ball is purely logical; it does not argue with you. It does follow the parabolic arc of gravity and it does follow the other laws of physics, such as fluid friction (e.g., air resistance).
"Is a suicide bomber courageous?" is not a query which can be proven using the scientific method. People will certainly argue with you. The matter can only be settled within one of several conflicting ethical, logical or emotional frameworks. Ethically, is the act of killing civilians courageous? We must in fairness recall that it was an allied tactic used in WW II. Logically, the argument is whether the bomber was acting with a courageous belief, or if his or her mental state was impaired according to scientific statistics and experience such as a doctor's call. Emotionally, we abhor it. Like the flight of the canon ball, reaching its conclusion requires no thought.
It's not that there is no scientific method, as you suggest, but that human behavior falls under a different framework. If there were a scientific method to human behavior, our political system would be far less cacophonous.
33
This article is really bad. The author mixes up engineering modeling with the scientific method. Most all his examples are discussions of models which are the tools of the scientific method not the method itself.
In the scientific method a model is proposed to explain observed phenomenon. The model is then used to predict results. The predicted results are compared to the observed data. Differences are then analyzed and the flaws in the model are then examined to see how to correct the model.
An important aspect of the scientific method is that this is not a single person effort. Even if one person is completely satisfied with his results he must present his model, assumptions, methods and results to the entire scientific community for reproduction of the results and scrutiny of the model. If the results hold up to this examination by his peers, they are then accepted as part of our scientific knowledge.
I would also like to point out a particularly egregious statement that shows the ignorance of the author.
“Science education, however, has persistently relied more on empirical fit as its trump card, .."
This gives such a false impression so as to be dangerous in the current climate of science hating. Empirical fit is used only as a calculation tool to extract data for values between measured points. It is used where we do not have an adequate model, in other words, for cases where the scientific method tells us that our model is wrong and thus cannot be used.
In the scientific method a model is proposed to explain observed phenomenon. The model is then used to predict results. The predicted results are compared to the observed data. Differences are then analyzed and the flaws in the model are then examined to see how to correct the model.
An important aspect of the scientific method is that this is not a single person effort. Even if one person is completely satisfied with his results he must present his model, assumptions, methods and results to the entire scientific community for reproduction of the results and scrutiny of the model. If the results hold up to this examination by his peers, they are then accepted as part of our scientific knowledge.
I would also like to point out a particularly egregious statement that shows the ignorance of the author.
“Science education, however, has persistently relied more on empirical fit as its trump card, .."
This gives such a false impression so as to be dangerous in the current climate of science hating. Empirical fit is used only as a calculation tool to extract data for values between measured points. It is used where we do not have an adequate model, in other words, for cases where the scientific method tells us that our model is wrong and thus cannot be used.
476
"...science deals with highly quantified variables and that it is the precision of its results that supplies this reliability."
Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution does not deal with highly quantified variables, and it had no precision. It is more like a simple repeatable explanation and a narrative. It was accepted by scientists studying anatomy, zooology, botany, etc. because it unified biological subjects like no other theory. Victorian era scientists could see that Darwin's theory tied together all the disparate biological phenomena into something understandable and incredibly fecund. It launched a thousand research programs, and the fecundity has not abated.
Science, the body of knowledge that has led to astronomy, physics, biology, chemistry, geology, etc., originated in only one place in history - Europe, after the middle ages. It is essentially a kind of inquiry that is collective through and through. It is a way of asking questions and getting answers that depends on peer review at every step of the way. Not so poetry.
Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution does not deal with highly quantified variables, and it had no precision. It is more like a simple repeatable explanation and a narrative. It was accepted by scientists studying anatomy, zooology, botany, etc. because it unified biological subjects like no other theory. Victorian era scientists could see that Darwin's theory tied together all the disparate biological phenomena into something understandable and incredibly fecund. It launched a thousand research programs, and the fecundity has not abated.
Science, the body of knowledge that has led to astronomy, physics, biology, chemistry, geology, etc., originated in only one place in history - Europe, after the middle ages. It is essentially a kind of inquiry that is collective through and through. It is a way of asking questions and getting answers that depends on peer review at every step of the way. Not so poetry.
128
Evolution unlike let's say quantum theory does not use mathematics to make its case, so its conjectures are written in language, not in math. That said, evolution and quantum physics collide when it comes to the proof of the conjectures, with both quantum physics and evolution the proof is found by observation and also by how predictions of the conjecture stand up to reality. Evolution, to the consternation of the GOP, was proven right when one of the missing links between sea and land life was found, its characteristics matched what was predicted. Einstein's general theory of relatively, specifically the part with gravity bending light, was shown to have accurately predicted the actual effect (and likewise, current observations with gravity have shown Einstein was right in other areas as well).
The problem with poetry is that ultimate no matter how well thought out it is, there is no way to 'prove' the truth of poetry. Science isn't just about thought, the scientific method also requires showing something is true, philosophy claims truth but can never prove it, whereas science can. The scientific method is not a philosophical tool, it is a tool in how to measure and quantify things and a method to challenge truth.
The problem with poetry is that ultimate no matter how well thought out it is, there is no way to 'prove' the truth of poetry. Science isn't just about thought, the scientific method also requires showing something is true, philosophy claims truth but can never prove it, whereas science can. The scientific method is not a philosophical tool, it is a tool in how to measure and quantify things and a method to challenge truth.
You have obviously never learned about the Ionians in Greece and Anatolia (western Turkey) of the sixth and seventh century BCE, where men like Thales of Miletus created the Scientific Method and Democritus first came to understand and demonstrate that all matter was made up of infinitesimal particles (he called them "atoma") and space. It was the meta-philosophers from Pythagoras through Plato who discounted the Scientific Method and relied primarily on philosophic thinking. Then came the Church, arbiter of "Absolute Revealed Truth." The Scientific Method of Thales took two and a half millennia to be rediscovered during the Enlightenment when the Church began to lose some of its formerly absolute power to control thought.
What's missing here is consideration of the real world. "Science" is an abstraction. Much of what goes by the name of science is technology, and technology follows the money, not the truth. Even scientists who are personally interested in only finding the truth can carry on their research only by receiving grants from people and institutions who may be seeking wealth and power and anything but the truth. In this respect, science is no different from poetry. As a poet you may write whatever you please, but factors that may have nothing to do with literary value will determine whether anyone reads your poetry. Further hamstringing the scientific enterprise are cultural and even scientific prejudices that prevent scientists from seeing what's right in front of them. For example, why do scientists still talk about "sub-atomic" particles when Alamogordo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki literally blew away Democritus' notion that matter is composed of irreducible atoms? Why does the mechanistic notion that a human being is no more than a sophisticated machine still drive so much brain research when research shows the powerful effects of suggestion and expectation on health? When an ontological assumption comes to be seen as essential to the scientific outlook, science has been left behind.
Individually and collectively, we must find our own way in this mysterious world. To have faith that we can do so is religious in the best sense. To think experts can do the work for us is dogmatism.
Individually and collectively, we must find our own way in this mysterious world. To have faith that we can do so is religious in the best sense. To think experts can do the work for us is dogmatism.
41
I 100% disagree. I'm a scientist. What happens is this: I'm interested in x. I propose a project to investigate x. The project is evaluated by an independent research council. They give me the funds, no strings attached. The research council is funded by the UK government (from taxpayers money) and neither the UK government nor the taxpayer has any influence on the outcome of my research. The UK government and the vast majority of taxpayers are unlikely to ever even hear about my research, let alone know that they funded me! So science is not driven my money-seeking organisations. (Some medical science is funded by greedy pharmaceuticals, but scientists such as physicists, neuroscientists, biologists, etc., are usually funded by not-for-profit organisations.)
6
I also disagree with everything else you said. For example, research on "subatomic" particles is merely the study of things smaller than atoms (e.g., quarks). It's a useful term to use if you want to know what kinds of things the physicist is studying. Is he or she studying gravitational forces that work best on planets, stars, and black holes, etc., or is he or she studying (subatomic) quantum activity, and so on. Also, the mechanisms behind the effects of suggestion and expectation on health are not non-mechanical! They can be explained using mechanical mechanisms, e.g., neuroscience (molecular and cellular neuroscience, systems neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience, etc.). Science is not being left behind. On the contrary, it's people's understanding of where science is that is being left behind!
7
Good grief. - I hold degrees in English & American Literature, and have a strong base in philosophy. Blachowicz' article is one example of why I am glad I left academia in the early 70s and began my career in business.
There may be mild resonances of similarity in the methodology used in poetry and philosophy and the methods used in science (excluding "social science;" an oxymoron if ever there was one). There are two principles operating within the scientific method which distinguish it from Spender's blackboard talks and Nietzsche's will to power - and even from Ayn Rand's vision of self[ishness].
They are the principles of first, reproducible investigation and results, and second, the principle that theory is based upon observable fact, or behavior. Both of these combine to mean that science relies on proof, not merely idea, creative or pedestrian. Blachowicz seems to conflate creative ideas of thought about how things work with creative ideas of speculation concerning how things work. The former produced Schopenhauer, etc., while the latter produced Darwin, etc. The former produces religion, mysticism, and, dare one say it, philosophy. And attendant confusion. The latter produces information that one can use to make verifiable, productive differences in the world. Setting aside climate change and Sen. Inhofe, of course. Vaccines; dialysis; technology, etc. These may answer the question of why value science higher than "other forms" of inquiry.
There may be mild resonances of similarity in the methodology used in poetry and philosophy and the methods used in science (excluding "social science;" an oxymoron if ever there was one). There are two principles operating within the scientific method which distinguish it from Spender's blackboard talks and Nietzsche's will to power - and even from Ayn Rand's vision of self[ishness].
They are the principles of first, reproducible investigation and results, and second, the principle that theory is based upon observable fact, or behavior. Both of these combine to mean that science relies on proof, not merely idea, creative or pedestrian. Blachowicz seems to conflate creative ideas of thought about how things work with creative ideas of speculation concerning how things work. The former produced Schopenhauer, etc., while the latter produced Darwin, etc. The former produces religion, mysticism, and, dare one say it, philosophy. And attendant confusion. The latter produces information that one can use to make verifiable, productive differences in the world. Setting aside climate change and Sen. Inhofe, of course. Vaccines; dialysis; technology, etc. These may answer the question of why value science higher than "other forms" of inquiry.
76
dumb article displaying a complete distortion and lack of understanding of what the scientific method is. The author is trying to elevate his field of philosophy by asserting that it is as rigorous as the scientific method. POS
154
Shall we remember TH Huxley saying that the great tragedy of science is slaying a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. We inevitably bow to what we observe, however faulty our observations may be. The arts do not face such constraints.
67
Not all questions can be answered by the scientific method, because not all inquiry is scientific.
Science can answer "What is a human?" but it cannot answer, no matter how carefully crafted the inquiry, "Why do we hold humans as valuable?" The second question can be explored through a moral scope, or a philosophical scope or a religious scope, but it is not science.
Poets best address the questions which are not science, as do other artists. What is real is a very different question from how it is valued and why we value it.
Science can answer "What is a human?" but it cannot answer, no matter how carefully crafted the inquiry, "Why do we hold humans as valuable?" The second question can be explored through a moral scope, or a philosophical scope or a religious scope, but it is not science.
Poets best address the questions which are not science, as do other artists. What is real is a very different question from how it is valued and why we value it.
28
Actually, science offers the only credible explanation for the question, "Why do we value humans?" We are a social species, and we evolved in close-knit groups that helped each other find food, repel predators, shelter from the elements and fight off outsiders. In other words, we survived by relying on each other. The DNA of those who did not value (in-group) humans was eliminated from the population quite rapidly. And of course, all species value their young, particularly their immediate offspring, for obvious evolutionary reasons.
Incidentally, even orangutans value other orangutans, and elephants value other elephants. This has nothing to do with philosophy or religion.
Incidentally, even orangutans value other orangutans, and elephants value other elephants. This has nothing to do with philosophy or religion.
1
You may be able to use religious scope to ask a question, but if this does somehow provide you with an answer you can't determine if the answer you arrive at is the truth or not. Each religion claims to know the truth, and many religions contradict each other. Many religions contradict each other within their separate sects.
Neither the followers of religions nor those who claim to lead have ever been able to show they have the truth, or something looking like the truth. All they can do is claim to know the truth. Almost all of them do, including those that wildly contradict each other. Many contradict themselves.
If we have to rely on religion to determine anything we are in serious trouble.
Neither the followers of religions nor those who claim to lead have ever been able to show they have the truth, or something looking like the truth. All they can do is claim to know the truth. Almost all of them do, including those that wildly contradict each other. Many contradict themselves.
If we have to rely on religion to determine anything we are in serious trouble.
"I am not a practicing scientist. So who am I to criticize scientists’ understanding of their method?"
Perhaps Mr. Blachowicz should have deeply considered starting and stopping his musings and pondering at this point.
Perhaps Mr. Blachowicz should have deeply considered starting and stopping his musings and pondering at this point.
202
What a lot of twaddle.
You could actually make a decent argument that there is not a scientific method, there are actually a variety of methods used by scientists to figure out how the world works. Reasoning, observation, calculation, doing experiments and forming hypotheses are all methods used by scientists and to some extent non scientists.
The argument that scientific results are more reliable because things are quantified doesn't really explain things like the theory of evolution. Scientific results are more reliable because they describe the real world and if you are sceptical of evolution you can go dig fossils and watch it happen in the lab yourself. Philosophy on the other hand tends to be about made up stuff like what some word means which can mean what the user chooses it to mean.
You could actually make a decent argument that there is not a scientific method, there are actually a variety of methods used by scientists to figure out how the world works. Reasoning, observation, calculation, doing experiments and forming hypotheses are all methods used by scientists and to some extent non scientists.
The argument that scientific results are more reliable because things are quantified doesn't really explain things like the theory of evolution. Scientific results are more reliable because they describe the real world and if you are sceptical of evolution you can go dig fossils and watch it happen in the lab yourself. Philosophy on the other hand tends to be about made up stuff like what some word means which can mean what the user chooses it to mean.
85
Quntification / measurability are a bed rock of science. In chemistry or physics we can come up with a theory but the measurements must support the hypothesis / theoriy. A good example is cold fusion, it was published and thought to be true but once more scientists attempted to replicate the data they found out that they could not and cold fusion was debunked. Social science never get quite to that level of quantification so you still Auvergne to depend on what people believe and not what can be proven.
The scientific method replaced alchemy which was a mixture of facts, magic spells and secrecy. I can turn lead into gold by saying certain words that only I know. The scientific method replaced alchemy and allowed people to discover things about the world and write them in a way that anyone with the appropriate tools can replicate the data. The scientific mehtod is important but imperfect because we scientists are imperfect. Sometimes instead of following the data and learning from our experiments we try to shoehorn data into our pet scientific theories. We have to be on guard for that and our peers must be willing to call us out when we follow our pet theories and not the data.
The scientific method replaced alchemy which was a mixture of facts, magic spells and secrecy. I can turn lead into gold by saying certain words that only I know. The scientific method replaced alchemy and allowed people to discover things about the world and write them in a way that anyone with the appropriate tools can replicate the data. The scientific mehtod is important but imperfect because we scientists are imperfect. Sometimes instead of following the data and learning from our experiments we try to shoehorn data into our pet scientific theories. We have to be on guard for that and our peers must be willing to call us out when we follow our pet theories and not the data.
6
I wonder how the author can even begin to think that creating poetry is anything like identifying a genetic mutation responsible for a certain disease.
Creating poetry, there is no objectively right or wrong answer we can test against; i.e., poetry's "good"-ness only exists to the extent that other humans agree with the poet. With genes and diseases, nature objectively tells us whether we have it right or wrong, whether the theory is good or bad.
Foolish inquiries like this give philosophy a bad name.
Creating poetry, there is no objectively right or wrong answer we can test against; i.e., poetry's "good"-ness only exists to the extent that other humans agree with the poet. With genes and diseases, nature objectively tells us whether we have it right or wrong, whether the theory is good or bad.
Foolish inquiries like this give philosophy a bad name.
60
poetry and philosophy produce no tangible results at all
philosophy seeks to answer th questions that science reuses to address, bc those questions are unanswerable, and will remain in th realm of speculation forever
they're amusing pastimes, like golf, say
people enjoy golfing, but golf produces no results either
science delivers ,and th technology that is th offspring of science is proof of that
we will never know th meaning of life, if any, but your computer and internet connection hum along, dont they
thats th difference between science and philosophy
philosophy seeks to answer th questions that science reuses to address, bc those questions are unanswerable, and will remain in th realm of speculation forever
they're amusing pastimes, like golf, say
people enjoy golfing, but golf produces no results either
science delivers ,and th technology that is th offspring of science is proof of that
we will never know th meaning of life, if any, but your computer and internet connection hum along, dont they
thats th difference between science and philosophy
11
I would like to see a room full of philosophers try to build and put a spacecraft in the orbit of Jupiter. They would come to the conclusion that there is indeed a district scientific method.
34
i think it was neil tyson who quipped, th good thing about science is that its true, whether you like it or not
41
Follow those who seek the truth.
Doubt those who have found it.
Doubt those who have found it.
"This is confirmed by the fact that Socrates and his listeners could agree on examples of justice."
"In this case, the actual meaning of courage (what a definition is designed to define) corresponds with the actual observations that Kepler sought to explain — that is, the data regarding the orbit of Mars."
The analogy would be more persuasive if the "examples of justice" were compared to "the data regarding the orbit of Mars". That would avoid the murky concept of "actual meaning".
"In this case, the actual meaning of courage (what a definition is designed to define) corresponds with the actual observations that Kepler sought to explain — that is, the data regarding the orbit of Mars."
The analogy would be more persuasive if the "examples of justice" were compared to "the data regarding the orbit of Mars". That would avoid the murky concept of "actual meaning".
5
There is no requirement in science that a hypothesis be experimentally derived. There is a requirement that verifiable predictions can be made and verified to test a hypothesis. Predictive power determines value.
Cluttering up a hypothesis with incompletely enumerated exceptions significantly reduces its value. In the presence of a (locally constant) force of gravity, a projectile will follow a parabola. However, often real gravity based predictions are made on objects moving in a fluid which causes the energy of the object to be lost based on the viscosity of that fluid and the speed of the object through the fluid. Air and water are two everyday examples of such fluids. Where gravity can't be approximated as a constant force (ex: space travel or orbital calculations), a more complex calculation is needed.
Curiously, the same inverse square force (gravity) that determines a parabola for an artillery shell on earth (except for air resistance) also determines the idealized elliptical orbit of two objects around a common center of mass.
Science identifies ways of predicting outcomes expressed in a very powerful language: mathematics. Activities that can't be precisely modeled (ex: predicting the path a single ant will take) can often be modeled using a related set of tools: statistics and probability that can predict a likely outcome, with measure of how likely that outcome is.
A poet or musician is very unlikely to be interested in prediction.
Cluttering up a hypothesis with incompletely enumerated exceptions significantly reduces its value. In the presence of a (locally constant) force of gravity, a projectile will follow a parabola. However, often real gravity based predictions are made on objects moving in a fluid which causes the energy of the object to be lost based on the viscosity of that fluid and the speed of the object through the fluid. Air and water are two everyday examples of such fluids. Where gravity can't be approximated as a constant force (ex: space travel or orbital calculations), a more complex calculation is needed.
Curiously, the same inverse square force (gravity) that determines a parabola for an artillery shell on earth (except for air resistance) also determines the idealized elliptical orbit of two objects around a common center of mass.
Science identifies ways of predicting outcomes expressed in a very powerful language: mathematics. Activities that can't be precisely modeled (ex: predicting the path a single ant will take) can often be modeled using a related set of tools: statistics and probability that can predict a likely outcome, with measure of how likely that outcome is.
A poet or musician is very unlikely to be interested in prediction.
22
science
you observe a phenomenon
what is it
you make a guess
you concoct theories to explain it
you invent experiments to test your theory
others try their own experiments
if they jibe w theory, good, continue
if not, alter or toss out
repeat as needed
----
poetry :
get high and ramble on
you observe a phenomenon
what is it
you make a guess
you concoct theories to explain it
you invent experiments to test your theory
others try their own experiments
if they jibe w theory, good, continue
if not, alter or toss out
repeat as needed
----
poetry :
get high and ramble on
40
We can take their courses, but they can't take ours.
55
The author himself illustrates the difference why the results of science is inherently different from that of poetry or philosophy or the humanities.
The example he presents is from Socrates, arguably one of the founders of western philosophy and thought. Would Socrates's argument and conclusion be just as valid when presented to a founder of eastern philosophy and thought? Are the conclusions that Socrates reaches ... and the process by which he does ... be the same as the one that a eastern philosopher reach? The author does not address this question, precisely because he is immersed in western culture, and therein lies the difference between the humanities and the sciences. One cannot separate the results of the humanities from the culture from which it came, while the sciences ... which may be culturally biased ... is based on experimental results that in the end independently verifiable.
It is not to say the scientific results cannot be biased; they can. But scientific results, because they are based on defined experiments that must be verifiable to be believed, can be checked, and its correct interpretation can be determined. Our task as scientists is to develop an understanding of the physical universe around us, and in the end the universe itself will tell us when our understanding is lacking.
The example he presents is from Socrates, arguably one of the founders of western philosophy and thought. Would Socrates's argument and conclusion be just as valid when presented to a founder of eastern philosophy and thought? Are the conclusions that Socrates reaches ... and the process by which he does ... be the same as the one that a eastern philosopher reach? The author does not address this question, precisely because he is immersed in western culture, and therein lies the difference between the humanities and the sciences. One cannot separate the results of the humanities from the culture from which it came, while the sciences ... which may be culturally biased ... is based on experimental results that in the end independently verifiable.
It is not to say the scientific results cannot be biased; they can. But scientific results, because they are based on defined experiments that must be verifiable to be believed, can be checked, and its correct interpretation can be determined. Our task as scientists is to develop an understanding of the physical universe around us, and in the end the universe itself will tell us when our understanding is lacking.
33
In theory, there is no difference between practice and theory. In practice, there is.
33
"how is it that the results of science are more reliable than what is provided by these other forms?"
1. Experimental validation. That's the heart of science. In science you can never be proven correct, but if you cannot be proven wrong it's not science.
2. Restriction of scope. Science only addresses questions it can in principle answer. Not all valid questions are scientifically answerable ("what is beauty?", eg).
1. Experimental validation. That's the heart of science. In science you can never be proven correct, but if you cannot be proven wrong it's not science.
2. Restriction of scope. Science only addresses questions it can in principle answer. Not all valid questions are scientifically answerable ("what is beauty?", eg).
149
It is much easier, and far less expensive, to sit in a room and speculate about the world, than to do experiments and make precise observations.
Science, with increasing precision over the centuries, has been able to predict the flight of a cannonball. But the why of bothering to make one, let alone fire it off, one would think to be the point of philosophy, provide a valuable service to society and justify supporting philosophers with tax dollars.
But the good professor chooses to go on a hair splitting expedition attempting to prove "there is no distinctly scientific method." Of course there is a scientific method, and others here have pointed out the author's failure to discuss repeatability and confusing methods of analysis where one applies logical steps to one's art or craft to applying logic to the collection of data and measurements of experimental results.
I've read The Stone for several years, and while finding much to disagree with, rarely has there been anything published so poorly thought out. The editor here has forgotten the "fit to print" part of the Times mission.
Science, with increasing precision over the centuries, has been able to predict the flight of a cannonball. But the why of bothering to make one, let alone fire it off, one would think to be the point of philosophy, provide a valuable service to society and justify supporting philosophers with tax dollars.
But the good professor chooses to go on a hair splitting expedition attempting to prove "there is no distinctly scientific method." Of course there is a scientific method, and others here have pointed out the author's failure to discuss repeatability and confusing methods of analysis where one applies logical steps to one's art or craft to applying logic to the collection of data and measurements of experimental results.
I've read The Stone for several years, and while finding much to disagree with, rarely has there been anything published so poorly thought out. The editor here has forgotten the "fit to print" part of the Times mission.
29
Amazing! Spoken like a true Bachelor of Arts - Philosophy Major who probably NEVER took a chemistry or physics class and LAB in their lifetime. I have spent years taking classes like these in high school and college and let me tell you --- there IS a scientific method. The collection of empirical data to prove the theories and laws of chemistry and physics is the basis of science. Only a moron or fool or for that matter a Humanities Major would make such a foolish statement.
35
Blachowicz has a B.S. in Philosophy and Physics from Loyola University. (per author's web page found with a web search)
1
I would agree that science (especially the natural variety) works because it studies topics that can be precisely quantified and studied using the "scientific method". But this also means that since there is nothing magical in the scientific method itself, employing it (and its statistical/mathematical apparatus) in something less quantifiable does not give equally good results. An important aspect is also to test ones theories and then iteratively improve them (or discard them altogether). But science is not simple, there can be legitimate disagreement about the interpretation of experiments. This is because scientists do not usually study the reality itself, but some simplified version (or model) of the reality, so the validity of the results depends on the validity of the model.
2
Science is in the business of generating falsifiable explanations for observed phenomena, which can be further used to predict other, previously unexplained phenomena.
Poetry is not in that business at all.
Thus any superficial similarity in their methods is just that - superficial.
Poetry is not in that business at all.
Thus any superficial similarity in their methods is just that - superficial.
13
Theories are just that Theories until backed up by empirical data, usually derived through experimentation using the Scientific Method.. Without a structured methodology -- no one would believe any data to prove a theory. Turning Newton's theories into the LAWS of motion require something like the Scientific Method. Socrates and Plato did not do that since everyone is an individual and their sense of right and wrong vary from person to person. Finally --- and the United States wonders why we are behind in Science and Technology --- it is because of garbage like this!
16
1. science deals with facts as we see them and know them at this time. They are definable, physical, real, and empirical items.
2. philosophy is purely and entirely speculative, and there is only one indisputable fact in it: that all of it is purely and entirely speculative in nature!
3. the speculations that drives scientific investigation are "philosophical", but their proofs (i.e. the process of science) is the practical application of such.
2. philosophy is purely and entirely speculative, and there is only one indisputable fact in it: that all of it is purely and entirely speculative in nature!
3. the speculations that drives scientific investigation are "philosophical", but their proofs (i.e. the process of science) is the practical application of such.
16
I thought that the hallmark of the scientific method was to permit only objective physical observation as data. Objective means "repeatable" -- someone else making the same observations under the same conditions will get the same outcome -- and "physical" means matter and energy -- stuff that can be measured using physical instruments.
Pushing this method into the social sciences, e.g. psychology and economics, seems to have been a most difficult undertaking. The jury is still out, I think, on whether the effort has been successful. There's not much doubt about its singular success in physics and sciences that are closest to physics.
The author seems to think that the scientific method is a matter of forming hypotheses and testing them. But mathematicians do this day in and day out, and I don't think they are regarded as scientists, because of the lack of a connection to the physical world. So, as methodical as a poet might be in his reasoning, I think that what he is doing fails both the "objective" and the "physical" tests that are necessary to call something "science".
Pushing this method into the social sciences, e.g. psychology and economics, seems to have been a most difficult undertaking. The jury is still out, I think, on whether the effort has been successful. There's not much doubt about its singular success in physics and sciences that are closest to physics.
The author seems to think that the scientific method is a matter of forming hypotheses and testing them. But mathematicians do this day in and day out, and I don't think they are regarded as scientists, because of the lack of a connection to the physical world. So, as methodical as a poet might be in his reasoning, I think that what he is doing fails both the "objective" and the "physical" tests that are necessary to call something "science".
15
If in all cases the objective is to find truth, then it is not surprising the process is similar.
Science has the difference that you are looking for the truth in nature as opposed to the truth in human nature.
Nature is constant and measurable and scientists can prove the validity of a theory by reproducing results.
Human nature is not constant. Some people are more authoritarian, some more egalitarian, some more open and empathetic, others much less.
These differences will result in different beliefs in what justice is for example.
Science has the difference that you are looking for the truth in nature as opposed to the truth in human nature.
Nature is constant and measurable and scientists can prove the validity of a theory by reproducing results.
Human nature is not constant. Some people are more authoritarian, some more egalitarian, some more open and empathetic, others much less.
These differences will result in different beliefs in what justice is for example.
8
[Sigh!] I should stop reading The Stone. It always disappoints me.
I love philosophy. However, I think modern philosophist (at least those that write on The Stone) think that you can philosophize with no science supporting their train of thought. Early philospheers never made this mistake. They were strongly science-based; albeit based on their understanding of science at the time.
I love philosophy. However, I think modern philosophist (at least those that write on The Stone) think that you can philosophize with no science supporting their train of thought. Early philospheers never made this mistake. They were strongly science-based; albeit based on their understanding of science at the time.
36
Tthe point of the article puzzles me. Is Profess Blackowicz trying to exalt the non-scientific by denigrating denigrate the scientific, by denying science the rigor of its methods (when done properly)?
In any event, Professor Blachowicz makes a crucial mistake: he confuses mentation with method. Intellectual operations can be at least outwardly similar in selecting material, organizing it, and revising that organization, but poetry and science different significant in their context and purposes. Poetry may have its lines revised, but no one but the poet can know what the feelings or attitudes or ideas or values are intended. Our revisions make the poem ours, not his or hers. The final articulation may be true to the writer's intention, but it is not a statement purporting to be the truth. Science, too, may have its conclusions revised, but the science and the revisions are open to all at all times and shared with others. The conclusions may always be provisional, but they make a claim to approach the truth.
Writing a poem and doing science may involve the same intellectual processes, but they do not involve the same material. Poetry articulates the internal and subjective; science articulates the external and objectivity-seeking. No one can confirm or falsify a poem; one can confirm or falsify a theory.
In any event, Professor Blachowicz makes a crucial mistake: he confuses mentation with method. Intellectual operations can be at least outwardly similar in selecting material, organizing it, and revising that organization, but poetry and science different significant in their context and purposes. Poetry may have its lines revised, but no one but the poet can know what the feelings or attitudes or ideas or values are intended. Our revisions make the poem ours, not his or hers. The final articulation may be true to the writer's intention, but it is not a statement purporting to be the truth. Science, too, may have its conclusions revised, but the science and the revisions are open to all at all times and shared with others. The conclusions may always be provisional, but they make a claim to approach the truth.
Writing a poem and doing science may involve the same intellectual processes, but they do not involve the same material. Poetry articulates the internal and subjective; science articulates the external and objectivity-seeking. No one can confirm or falsify a poem; one can confirm or falsify a theory.
28
There is no scientific method?
On the contrary, that's all there is.
On the contrary, that's all there is.
13
I am not a scientist or a poet or a philosopher but I know perseverative writing when I see it.
12
The author seems to imply that Keplerian orbits are not ellipses, when in fact they are...not sure if it's the writing or the author really thinks orbits are "egg shaped".
The author tries to equate developing a philosophical definition with the scientific method, but he misses the entire point of the scientific method while doing so. If a bunch of philosophers go into a room and try to decide what courage means, in the end they may leave the room with several definitions and not necessarily agree on which one is "right". If a hunch of astronomers go to telescopes (professional or amateur) around the world and measure the position of Mars, they will all develop the same answer that Kepler did (with varying degrees of accuracy). That will decompose all of the ideas of the motion of Mars into a single explanation that everyone agrees with, and that can be continually tested, with bigger telescopes and better instruments, to refine and improve the result.
The basis on evidence, testability, and falsifiability, is what sets the scientific method apart from a philosophical discussion. Philosophy is all about different perspectives, and there isn't necessarily a correct answer, while science always has a correct answer for the explanation of the current data, which can change with better data in the future. This article does a horrible job of comparing the two, and explaining how science works...the NYT should put out a thoroughly vetted article that explains it properly.
The author tries to equate developing a philosophical definition with the scientific method, but he misses the entire point of the scientific method while doing so. If a bunch of philosophers go into a room and try to decide what courage means, in the end they may leave the room with several definitions and not necessarily agree on which one is "right". If a hunch of astronomers go to telescopes (professional or amateur) around the world and measure the position of Mars, they will all develop the same answer that Kepler did (with varying degrees of accuracy). That will decompose all of the ideas of the motion of Mars into a single explanation that everyone agrees with, and that can be continually tested, with bigger telescopes and better instruments, to refine and improve the result.
The basis on evidence, testability, and falsifiability, is what sets the scientific method apart from a philosophical discussion. Philosophy is all about different perspectives, and there isn't necessarily a correct answer, while science always has a correct answer for the explanation of the current data, which can change with better data in the future. This article does a horrible job of comparing the two, and explaining how science works...the NYT should put out a thoroughly vetted article that explains it properly.
48
If the scientific method were applied to politics we would be in a much better place today. Instead what we get are irrational bloviating politicians espousing tired dogma and appealing to voters emotional triggers instead of offering empirical evidence for why their ideas are superior or would even work at all. I also blame the media and the pundits for not doing a better job of setting the record straight. If trump says he will place a 35% tariff on Chinese goods and that somehow that is going to bring jobs back to America it should be pointed out in the same headline that empirical evidence has shown that the opposite will take place. More Jobs will be lost and prices will simply go up.
It is extremely worrying that today on the fourth of July our country that was established on the enlightenment principles of rationality and reason appears to be regressing to the pre-enlightenment values of irrationality, emotion, blood and religious dogma.
It is extremely worrying that today on the fourth of July our country that was established on the enlightenment principles of rationality and reason appears to be regressing to the pre-enlightenment values of irrationality, emotion, blood and religious dogma.
19
Science (there really is no "scientific method" other than puttering around until you get a predictive mathematical fit) can't be applied to politics, and its doubtful whether "social science" per se really is science.
Politics is about "feelings" as in "I feel tied up in chains by Brussels, ergo, Brexit". Or "I feel tied up in chains by Washington, ergo, Trump". And it CAN'T be otherwise, and SHOULD not be otherwise. Politics is a fun and central subject for Philosophers, who will of course, get entirely opposite answers to any question.
Politics is about "feelings" as in "I feel tied up in chains by Brussels, ergo, Brexit". Or "I feel tied up in chains by Washington, ergo, Trump". And it CAN'T be otherwise, and SHOULD not be otherwise. Politics is a fun and central subject for Philosophers, who will of course, get entirely opposite answers to any question.
"I was immediately struck by the similarities between his editing process and those associated with scientific investigation" Well, that was a mistaken impression. The rest of the essay goes downhill from there.
This seems to be about communicating meaning, about the choice and interpretation of words. It has some salient points about how we communicate scientific findings, but is mistaken about how we seek those findings.
This seems to be about communicating meaning, about the choice and interpretation of words. It has some salient points about how we communicate scientific findings, but is mistaken about how we seek those findings.
33
Many have responded to Prof. Blachowicz by defending the scientific method. Their arguments are grounded in the idea that the scientific method rests on testable experiments leading to "truth."
However the scientific method works, as the great Thomas Kuhn theorized, within a larger paradigmatic construct. For Ptolemy, the movement of the planets could be determined by positing a stationary earth. Copernicus upended the Ptolomaic paradigm by placing the sun at the center of planetary orbits. For Kuhn, new paradigms emerge to explain anomalies in the dominant paradigm, which until then is labeled as truth. For Kuhn truth is relative to the paradigm of the moment.
The insight of Prof. Blachowicz is that method can be applied beyond the natural sciences and beyond quantitative data. Qualitative methods used in multiple fields from poetry to anthropology to areas of the social sciences are valid, but they will also lead to multiple truths. How the facts are ordered will determine the interpretation.
Accepting the notion of multiple truths is not an invitation to science-bashing. On the contrary, mixed methods and multiple outcomes brings us closer to the complexity of reality.
Prof. Blachowicz argues against those who want to limit scientific inquiry to a small number of disciplines clustered around the prevailing paradigms of the moment. The world would be a more sterile place if those who mystically cling to only one form of scientific method were to prevail.
However the scientific method works, as the great Thomas Kuhn theorized, within a larger paradigmatic construct. For Ptolemy, the movement of the planets could be determined by positing a stationary earth. Copernicus upended the Ptolomaic paradigm by placing the sun at the center of planetary orbits. For Kuhn, new paradigms emerge to explain anomalies in the dominant paradigm, which until then is labeled as truth. For Kuhn truth is relative to the paradigm of the moment.
The insight of Prof. Blachowicz is that method can be applied beyond the natural sciences and beyond quantitative data. Qualitative methods used in multiple fields from poetry to anthropology to areas of the social sciences are valid, but they will also lead to multiple truths. How the facts are ordered will determine the interpretation.
Accepting the notion of multiple truths is not an invitation to science-bashing. On the contrary, mixed methods and multiple outcomes brings us closer to the complexity of reality.
Prof. Blachowicz argues against those who want to limit scientific inquiry to a small number of disciplines clustered around the prevailing paradigms of the moment. The world would be a more sterile place if those who mystically cling to only one form of scientific method were to prevail.
47
Wow! An excellent comment!
1
I'm sorry but I'm afraid you are missing the point. The main critique I have of this piece is that while you may be able to apply parts of the scientific method to other fields, that doesn't mean you will get the same levels of reliability in the results. This is no small point. Reliability is very important for human endeavors. Let's look at an example of building a bridge. I perform some experiments, find the optimal ratios for the building of a particular bridge and such and present those to the scientific community. Now, someone in London or Tokyo can read my paper and build a bridge according to my paper, they will see the same results. The "complexity of reality" is not a factor here, the fact that the bridge wont collapse and kill people is. Now if I wrote an ode to a bridge and presented that to my peers in a paper, other poets could try and write an ode about the same bridge and different "results." My point being that if you want to make some epistemological/philosophy of science argument then go right ahead, but don't for a second think that's what's most important. Science does stuff and to continue to do stuff you need people to understand how reliable it is. Articles like these undo the faith people put into science by equating it to poetry and less reliable academic endeavors. I'm not trying to bash non-science, but please in this climate of anti-intellectualism, climate change deniers, and anti-vaxxers, don't be so willing to equate different fields.
3
"However the scientific method works, as the great Thomas Kuhn theorized, within a larger paradigmatic construct."
You say this as if Kuhn was correct in his assertion. A substantial number of philosophers of science would disagree For a great understanding of why Kuhn was very likely wrong, read this exerpt from Nobel-Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1998/10/08/the-revolution-that-didnt-hap...
You say this as if Kuhn was correct in his assertion. A substantial number of philosophers of science would disagree For a great understanding of why Kuhn was very likely wrong, read this exerpt from Nobel-Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1998/10/08/the-revolution-that-didnt-hap...
1
As a creative writing major (undergrad) and a cognitive psychologist (PhD) who does research for a living, I have to ask...how did this column ever get to print?
Or, to put it another way, the creative process is not the scientific method. If someone claims that one is the other, it is likely that they recognize neither.
Or, to put it another way, the creative process is not the scientific method. If someone claims that one is the other, it is likely that they recognize neither.
221
It is simply the difference between ideology and fact. Ideology has no objective truth and fact does have objective truth. Every ideology is personal to the observer, and since it has no objective truth, it is whatever that observer deems it to be. Every fact has objective truth, no matter how difficult it may be to discover that truth.
The role of the philosopher is to evaluate ideologies and attempt to determine what group of ideologies is best for mankind. There is never a "best", since there is no objective truth.
The role of the philosopher is to evaluate ideologies and attempt to determine what group of ideologies is best for mankind. There is never a "best", since there is no objective truth.
12
Tonight when it gets dark I'm going to read poetry by the light made by other poems. Oh wait, poems don't make that kind of light. To get the kind of light that enables you to read a poem in the dark, you need to resort to products created by scientists and engineers who used the scientific method. That light bulb is going to produce the same frequency of light no matter how the poems we're reading define light or discuss light or hold light up against darkness as an idea or a human-derived experience. You'll be able to read all of those poems and compare them all using that simple reliable universal light made by science.
185
Actually, I bought candles yesterday, and often read by them. As a scientist, I am in awe of the myriad innovations of our pre-scientific ancestors- who made Science possible. Those thought patterns still occur; and are still priceless.
2
Actually, Lincoln is supposed to have done plenty of reading without electrical lighting.
Or, I could've heard Homeric poetry while sitting by a fire 2500 years ago. If one believes in evolution, there's a purpose to humans having evolved to produce imaginative thinking as well as analytic thinking. Imagination is what allows us to stipulate the invisible, and to create instruments to go in search of it. Democritus and Epicurus thought all matter was made up of atoms, without having instruments that allowed them to measure or observe physics on an atomic level. It was centuries before this and other imaginative and philosophical questions posed in antiquity could be addressed by science, as we define "science." It's our capacity to imagine that permits discovery beyond what we can observe directly with our senses—the Epicurean reliance on the reliability of the senses (as indirect evidence of the invisible) exposed some of their faults of reasoning.
Civilizations have flourished without the electric light bulb, but none without poetry. Technology has to be _for_ something … as your comment indicates, since you place artificial lighting in the service of poetry, and not the other way around.
Or, I could've heard Homeric poetry while sitting by a fire 2500 years ago. If one believes in evolution, there's a purpose to humans having evolved to produce imaginative thinking as well as analytic thinking. Imagination is what allows us to stipulate the invisible, and to create instruments to go in search of it. Democritus and Epicurus thought all matter was made up of atoms, without having instruments that allowed them to measure or observe physics on an atomic level. It was centuries before this and other imaginative and philosophical questions posed in antiquity could be addressed by science, as we define "science." It's our capacity to imagine that permits discovery beyond what we can observe directly with our senses—the Epicurean reliance on the reliability of the senses (as indirect evidence of the invisible) exposed some of their faults of reasoning.
Civilizations have flourished without the electric light bulb, but none without poetry. Technology has to be _for_ something … as your comment indicates, since you place artificial lighting in the service of poetry, and not the other way around.
1
Or, you could sit in the light of a full moon, compliments of nature.
Brilliantly and necessarily argued.
2
A definition helps you decide whether some X belongs or does not belong in some category Y. There are well-known difficulties with definitions (e.g., try defining "game" or "machine"). The real world also often does not present us a continuum, e.g., between dog and cat, so we can define things. When there is a continuum (e.g., baldness) we can come up with paradoxes - e.g., adding one hair on a bald head leaves it bald suggesting that if we call a person with N hairs on their head bald, then a person with N+1 hairs is also bald. It is not clear when we should transition to non-bald.
In contrast, to understand falling bodies, there are so many possible variables - size, weight, shape, composition, etc. And as noted, there is the confounding factor of air resistance (or friction down an inclined plane). And in measurements we take, there is measurement error. With scientific experiments we try to reduce or control the variables and errors in order to figure out the relationships between things. Sometimes we can do it, as in the physics of motion; sometimes, as with economics or diet, we have poor control and our understanding doesn't progress as fast. But this scientific refinement is very different from refinement of a definition.
In contrast, to understand falling bodies, there are so many possible variables - size, weight, shape, composition, etc. And as noted, there is the confounding factor of air resistance (or friction down an inclined plane). And in measurements we take, there is measurement error. With scientific experiments we try to reduce or control the variables and errors in order to figure out the relationships between things. Sometimes we can do it, as in the physics of motion; sometimes, as with economics or diet, we have poor control and our understanding doesn't progress as fast. But this scientific refinement is very different from refinement of a definition.
6
As Wittgenstein made clear, language is not exact, having one word, like "courage," doesn't necessitate that there is a single definable "thing" corresponding to it.
The "method" of science indeed involves predictions, which can include explanations of data from the past as in geology and evolution as well as the results of future experiments and observations -- which, and this is the main thing -- which can be tested against empirical data. And when the test repeatedly fails, the scientist says, "This prediction doesn't succeed, so we've got to adjust the theory."
One can use the same approach in many areas of life, as in "if I added more milk, the cake would rise better" or "if the Texas law were repealed, more clinics would open." We'd probably be better off if people actually used this approach more often.
The "method" of science indeed involves predictions, which can include explanations of data from the past as in geology and evolution as well as the results of future experiments and observations -- which, and this is the main thing -- which can be tested against empirical data. And when the test repeatedly fails, the scientist says, "This prediction doesn't succeed, so we've got to adjust the theory."
One can use the same approach in many areas of life, as in "if I added more milk, the cake would rise better" or "if the Texas law were repealed, more clinics would open." We'd probably be better off if people actually used this approach more often.
14
people are too emotion based for that
even th greatest scientist sometimes go awry bc they want a certain result
einsten wanted th universe to be steady state, but his equations described an expanding universe
so he added th gravitational constant, a fudge factor that made his equations fit w what he wanted to universe to be
later on he met edwin hubble, who showed hms th universe is indeed expanding
einstein removed th gc and his equations worked perfectly, even to this day
later in life he would refer to th g/c as his greatest blunder
even th greatest scientist sometimes go awry bc they want a certain result
einsten wanted th universe to be steady state, but his equations described an expanding universe
so he added th gravitational constant, a fudge factor that made his equations fit w what he wanted to universe to be
later on he met edwin hubble, who showed hms th universe is indeed expanding
einstein removed th gc and his equations worked perfectly, even to this day
later in life he would refer to th g/c as his greatest blunder
5
I find it striking that the author's discussion of his chosen example, Kepler's first law, omits any reference to the extremely important relationship between Kepler's laws and Newton's theory of gravitation.
4
Kepler's elliptical orbits are in fact explained by Newton's laws, but Kepler did discover the ellipses believing in a sort of tug-of-war between sun and planets hypothesis. The author knows nothing of this, and he wrongly implies that Kepler worked with the algebraic equations for the circle and the ellipse, rather than the Greek geometry Kepler had mastered. Worse, he thinks that correcting Galileo's parabolic trajectory for air resistance is an ad hoc hypothesis, whereas everybody knows that we live in air and that it resists motion; as Galileo himself says, you feel the air resistance when you are riding a horse.
The key point is this: however one gets one's ideas, whether in dreams or divine revelation or looking at paintings, in science they have to be empirically tested and re-tested.
The key point is this: however one gets one's ideas, whether in dreams or divine revelation or looking at paintings, in science they have to be empirically tested and re-tested.
11
Is there a proper 'peer review' process for op-eds in The Times? I fear that this particular piece somehow snuck through such a process if there was one. The arguments seem an agglomeration of the trivial, the unoriginal, and the muddled. If one wants to see most clearly the distinction between the Socratic Method and Mathematical or Scientific methods (distinct ones), one would do no better than read Plato's Meno, where Socrates engages in the most 'outrageous' act of leading the witness when he claims that his method is able to elicit the theorem of Pythagorous from Memo's uneducated slave.
Jumping to the1970s, Feyerabend wrote a famous book called'Against Method' where he makes a far more sophisticated case as to why there might not be anything distinctive called the scientific method. Surprised there is no mention of that book.
Finally, many scientists, most importantly Einstein, have long recognized the naive separation of thermpirical from the rational, and have celebrated the major role imagination and intuition play in he today toon of science. They do so without rejecting the essential role of experimental validation in science.
Jumping to the1970s, Feyerabend wrote a famous book called'Against Method' where he makes a far more sophisticated case as to why there might not be anything distinctive called the scientific method. Surprised there is no mention of that book.
Finally, many scientists, most importantly Einstein, have long recognized the naive separation of thermpirical from the rational, and have celebrated the major role imagination and intuition play in he today toon of science. They do so without rejecting the essential role of experimental validation in science.
3
Version corrected for typos also appears somewhere near here.
Science is the process of removing known sources of error, bias, and illogic from our conclusions- thus rejecting failed methodologies.
I think the author confuses the creative & random process of discovering new phenomenon with the process of demonstrating that those observations are accurate and fit to some model.
The long hard road of peer-review is critical to the progress of science and the hedgerow of replication is too often missing (but we know it is important).
We are STILL testing predictions of Relativity and Quantum mechanics.
There is a LOT of poorly done science out there because people do not value replication as they should-that is our fault because we know it is part of this 'method' that doesn't exist -- funny how that is.
I think the author confuses the creative & random process of discovering new phenomenon with the process of demonstrating that those observations are accurate and fit to some model.
The long hard road of peer-review is critical to the progress of science and the hedgerow of replication is too often missing (but we know it is important).
We are STILL testing predictions of Relativity and Quantum mechanics.
There is a LOT of poorly done science out there because people do not value replication as they should-that is our fault because we know it is part of this 'method' that doesn't exist -- funny how that is.
5
Scientific investigation is intended to remove all elements of personal bias from the result. Poetry and its editing is usually quite the contrary. It is designed to appeal to our biases or to give us a reason for altering them.
11
I'd still rather fly in a plane designed by engineers and have heart surgery from somebody who studied medicine.
21
The concept of the scientific method or method toward poetry or philosophy or music or development of character--the question of the existence of and usefulness of any type of method?
Millions of people have spoken of the existence of and value of this or that type of method, but the simple act of turning on a television and being subjected to the fragmented, cacophonous, blaring of it all, the insistent banality, that method apparently of forming the average person, one would hardly believe in education or any other method toward forming a human being.
I have never been conscious of applying any method in life other than a persistent, increasingly more discerning and exact, organizational sense such as I have seen at highest peak in great novelists, scientists, artists and musicians. As an example of my reasoning and method, I hear a person should be "grateful for what one has in life" but this advice is so often given by the better off and cynically applied to the poor I would advise to especially the poor that this is the last piece of advice one should take in life.
On the other hand, my lot in life financially and otherwise is so little to boast of I really should have the strength to be grateful for what little I have, and besides, should I not do this to have at least some peace of mind in life, to not entirely spoil my life? Consider this a difficult method to follow--perhaps more difficult than the scientific. What is the most difficult method to follow?
Millions of people have spoken of the existence of and value of this or that type of method, but the simple act of turning on a television and being subjected to the fragmented, cacophonous, blaring of it all, the insistent banality, that method apparently of forming the average person, one would hardly believe in education or any other method toward forming a human being.
I have never been conscious of applying any method in life other than a persistent, increasingly more discerning and exact, organizational sense such as I have seen at highest peak in great novelists, scientists, artists and musicians. As an example of my reasoning and method, I hear a person should be "grateful for what one has in life" but this advice is so often given by the better off and cynically applied to the poor I would advise to especially the poor that this is the last piece of advice one should take in life.
On the other hand, my lot in life financially and otherwise is so little to boast of I really should have the strength to be grateful for what little I have, and besides, should I not do this to have at least some peace of mind in life, to not entirely spoil my life? Consider this a difficult method to follow--perhaps more difficult than the scientific. What is the most difficult method to follow?
1
For the absolutely best definition of justice that has ever been, and ever will be written, read Adam Smith's "Theory of Moral Sentiments."
Perhaps the author meant to say that philosophical thinking requires a similar type of rigor as required by science, as does poetry and music. Each of these disciplines has rules that must be followed in order to produce successful outcomes. It is said that JS Bach knew the rules of the fugue so well that he could hear a few bars of another composer's fugue and tell you how it would end.
But -- rigor and rules by themselves aren't science. Even science that begins primarily with observations of the natural world linked together through rigorous thinking (e.g. Darwin) must eventually lead to falsifiable hypotheses. And if the results support theory, then subsequent experiments must replicate. Without falsifiable hypotheses -- i.e. predictions of outcomes either in the natural world or in controlled laboratory experiments based on a specified set of conditions -- which can be replicated, all you are left with is philosophy: ideas and thoughts based on anecdotes, examples and opinions which lack proof.
It should also be noted that the scientific method crosses all scientific disciplines -- which means regardless of the body of knowledge, the state of understanding, the technology -- there is a single systematic approach for obtaining knowledge.
I'm not sure why the Times would publish this piece -- but it is consistent with their seeming lack of understanding of science -- at least on the editorial pages.
But -- rigor and rules by themselves aren't science. Even science that begins primarily with observations of the natural world linked together through rigorous thinking (e.g. Darwin) must eventually lead to falsifiable hypotheses. And if the results support theory, then subsequent experiments must replicate. Without falsifiable hypotheses -- i.e. predictions of outcomes either in the natural world or in controlled laboratory experiments based on a specified set of conditions -- which can be replicated, all you are left with is philosophy: ideas and thoughts based on anecdotes, examples and opinions which lack proof.
It should also be noted that the scientific method crosses all scientific disciplines -- which means regardless of the body of knowledge, the state of understanding, the technology -- there is a single systematic approach for obtaining knowledge.
I'm not sure why the Times would publish this piece -- but it is consistent with their seeming lack of understanding of science -- at least on the editorial pages.
34
" It is said that JS Bach knew the rules of the fugue so well that he could hear a few bars of another composer's fugue and tell you how it would end."
We come across that in literature, too, where it doesn't take a genius to know for whom the bell will toll at the end of "For Whom the Bell Tolls."
But in literature, unlike in science, the point of the exercise is the journey not the final destination. We don't need or want a statistical ensemble of Pablos and Pilars and Robert Jordans and Marias to test whether the ending of "For Whom the Bell Tolls" can be replicated through repetition.
We come across that in literature, too, where it doesn't take a genius to know for whom the bell will toll at the end of "For Whom the Bell Tolls."
But in literature, unlike in science, the point of the exercise is the journey not the final destination. We don't need or want a statistical ensemble of Pablos and Pilars and Robert Jordans and Marias to test whether the ending of "For Whom the Bell Tolls" can be replicated through repetition.
3
It's always silly season somewhere. Replicability and peer review have nothing to do with poetry and literature in general. What we have here is a failure to understand what science is and a great need to say something. Having a need to say something should not be confused with having something important to say.
52
The scientific method is a mere tool of inquiry, of illumination and replication ,which leads to a certainty of result. It is the essence of philosophy. Poetry is not concerned with replication of result, artistic insight is not scientifically valid universally. Surely this concept is easy to grasp.
20
Updated version corrected for typos of my submission from a few minutes ago to replace the earlier comment. If approved, could you take this version instead? Thanks.
Is there a proper 'peer review' process for op-eds in The Times? I fear that this particular piece somehow snuck through such a process if there was one. The arguments seem an agglomeration of the trivial, the unoriginal, and the muddled. If one wants to see most clearly the distinction between the Socratic Method and Mathematical or Scientific methods (distinct ones), one would do no better than read Plato's Meno, where Socrates engages in the most 'outrageous' act of leading the witness when he claims that his method is able to elicit the theorem of Pythagorous from Meno's uneducated slave. Jumping to the1970s, Feyerabend wrote a famous book called 'Against Method' where he makes a far more sophisticated case as to why there might not be anything distinctive called the scientific method. Surprised there is no mention of that book. Finally, many scientists, most importantly Einstein, have long recognized that it is naive to separate the empirical from the rational, and they have celebrated the major role imagination and intuition play in the production of science. They do so without rejecting the essential role of experimental validation in science.
Is there a proper 'peer review' process for op-eds in The Times? I fear that this particular piece somehow snuck through such a process if there was one. The arguments seem an agglomeration of the trivial, the unoriginal, and the muddled. If one wants to see most clearly the distinction between the Socratic Method and Mathematical or Scientific methods (distinct ones), one would do no better than read Plato's Meno, where Socrates engages in the most 'outrageous' act of leading the witness when he claims that his method is able to elicit the theorem of Pythagorous from Meno's uneducated slave. Jumping to the1970s, Feyerabend wrote a famous book called 'Against Method' where he makes a far more sophisticated case as to why there might not be anything distinctive called the scientific method. Surprised there is no mention of that book. Finally, many scientists, most importantly Einstein, have long recognized that it is naive to separate the empirical from the rational, and they have celebrated the major role imagination and intuition play in the production of science. They do so without rejecting the essential role of experimental validation in science.
9
You've captured the zeitgeist. Despite our vast access to information, we are responding to information overload by simplifiying our world and in doing so, making opinion the new scientific method. We screen out the inconvenient, complex facts in favor of the heart stirring soundbite -- "Make American Great Again" or "Mission Accomplished". I'm not sure we need philosophy to provide us with a ir-rationale for it.
7
Uh, yes there is a scientific method. But, as with any group of humans, there are always those who will either skip or ignore the steps in order to hurry to the conclusion. sorry: real science rules.
25
Professor Emeritus
misses the mark
on Scientific Method.
He shot in the dark.
misses the mark
on Scientific Method.
He shot in the dark.
35
Blachowicz may be emeritus, but I hope that he's not too ossified to sit down with any practicing or retired scientist, or even a high school physics, chemistry or biology student and get himself informed. Clearly hasn't even got the basics of science down. I also agree that the title of the piece, while probably penned by someone else, is an unnecessary gift to the increasing numbers of gullible and vocal jerks and deniers causing so much damage to our world.
Frankly, he's so far off-base that I'd do the job myself. Even if it meant setting foot in a department of philosophy, risking hives or gastric distress.
Frankly, he's so far off-base that I'd do the job myself. Even if it meant setting foot in a department of philosophy, risking hives or gastric distress.
43
The parents who refuse to vaccinate their innocent children will love the headline and the statement that "quantified precision is not to be confused with superior thinking."
Quantified precision, as perfected by the Scientific Method, yields the only Truth without the taint of emotion or concerns with abstract concepts like beauty.
If the revelation of Truth is not superior thinking, I don't know what's the point.
Quantified precision, as perfected by the Scientific Method, yields the only Truth without the taint of emotion or concerns with abstract concepts like beauty.
If the revelation of Truth is not superior thinking, I don't know what's the point.
28
"Quantified precision, as perfected by the Scientific Method, yields the only Truth without the taint of emotion or concerns with abstract concepts like beauty."
Very sorry but Science wouldn't know Truth if it were staring at it -- there's no way to test for it. Asking "what is Truth" is an unscientific question right there.
Very sorry but Science wouldn't know Truth if it were staring at it -- there's no way to test for it. Asking "what is Truth" is an unscientific question right there.
7
Scientific method has no Truths; by controlled observation it either supports or fails to support hypotheses.
5
Those of us in science are always amused by those outside of science evaluating the now somewhat outmoded hypothetical-deductive approach. It's healthy to critique our own methods. Science has continually questioned the validity of that approach for decades, and to paraphrase many others: "It ain't perfect, but it's the best thing we have". Multiple working hypotheses, checking and double checking, and simply changing your refutation based on new empirical data aid in the quest for the "truth", but it will never be perfect, especially in my field where our informants are dead, and we work in deep time.
Professor Emeritus of Geoarchaeology and Anthropology
UC, Berkeley
Professor Emeritus of Geoarchaeology and Anthropology
UC, Berkeley
32
Thank you for being honest about the mutable nature of science and that truth is a quest not a destination.
Now if we could just get more of your comrades to do that and stopping yelling "anti-science!" at anyone who dares question the current version of the "truth" that y'all are still perfecting, the world would be a more conversational place.
I remember an anthropology prof conjecturing that archeologists of the future would likely hypothesize that we were a race who worshipped a clown god as there were massive number of temples in every city.
Now if we could just get more of your comrades to do that and stopping yelling "anti-science!" at anyone who dares question the current version of the "truth" that y'all are still perfecting, the world would be a more conversational place.
I remember an anthropology prof conjecturing that archeologists of the future would likely hypothesize that we were a race who worshipped a clown god as there were massive number of temples in every city.
1
False equivalence is the bastion of the lazy mind. To this question: "If scientific method is only one form of a general method employed in all human inquiry, how is it that the results of science are more reliable than what is provided by these other forms?", I would answer: Mein Kampf would never have developed in science. Its results wouldn't be reproducible, generalizable, or accepted as truth.
28
I agree that this isn't the best article to question scientific methods and facts as inherently more valuable than humanistically-derived ones. To my mind, the issue is in how we perceive quantifiable facts to describe reality better than narrative ones. This is the issue at the center of Mary Poovey's book A History of the Modern Fact. What she argues there is that the instability of modern facts, that is those that are understood to be quantifiable and repeatable, is obscured by the notion that numbers describe reality better than words. Indeed, stripping away narrative and context is understood to be a way to "get at the facts." But she shows that interest inheres in the way numbers are used and accommodated to each other. Another thing that is missing in this piece is a consideration of the faith that all of us bestow upon science to give us unadulterated facts. Most of us don't understand specific scientific discourses and processes well enough to know the scientific truth when we see it, so we rely on our faith in scientists to tell the truth and to offer us valid interpretations. The fact that we use faith to convince ourselves that scientists are correct should tell us something. When scientists are proven incorrect, or when they are proven to be biased or interested against the common good (i.e., corrupt), we lose our faith in science writ large. Belief and values are on both sides of the humanities/science split and we need to own up to that fact.
9
Your headline is purposeful and attention-grabbing idiocy - but you do make one legitimate point
The longest-lasting manifestation of the scientific method was the interplay between experimental and theoretical physics - starting about the time of Kepler, and ending somewhere 10-20 years ago
It was a relentless search for scientific truth, and logical/verifiable - and, so, eventually verified - explanations of parts of that truth
The end came, when all science became unaccountable
Einstein was cited as excuse for theories that went off into the mud or weeds - but would be put to the test, decades later
Today, an infrequent shining exception (e.g. gravity wave detection) is the rule. All sorts of teleportation, action-at-a-distance, and hyperspeed are being conjured up and misrepresented. A mis-connected cable gave rise to all sorts of faster-than-light possibilities - for the biggest experimental physics platform anywhere on the planet.
There was a reason that maximum bomber speeds decreased, after the Valkyrie program...
http://www.nytimes.com/1964/02/20/lemay-proposes-cutback-of-b70-to-two-p...
...but I digress. Back to physics and physicists.
The physicists thought they were unique, in following the scientific method.
A wonderful few of them were.
The rest - like everyone else - were just following the money.
But, see - that's why American science and America were exceptional.
For a time, following the money and following truth aligned.
The longest-lasting manifestation of the scientific method was the interplay between experimental and theoretical physics - starting about the time of Kepler, and ending somewhere 10-20 years ago
It was a relentless search for scientific truth, and logical/verifiable - and, so, eventually verified - explanations of parts of that truth
The end came, when all science became unaccountable
Einstein was cited as excuse for theories that went off into the mud or weeds - but would be put to the test, decades later
Today, an infrequent shining exception (e.g. gravity wave detection) is the rule. All sorts of teleportation, action-at-a-distance, and hyperspeed are being conjured up and misrepresented. A mis-connected cable gave rise to all sorts of faster-than-light possibilities - for the biggest experimental physics platform anywhere on the planet.
There was a reason that maximum bomber speeds decreased, after the Valkyrie program...
http://www.nytimes.com/1964/02/20/lemay-proposes-cutback-of-b70-to-two-p...
...but I digress. Back to physics and physicists.
The physicists thought they were unique, in following the scientific method.
A wonderful few of them were.
The rest - like everyone else - were just following the money.
But, see - that's why American science and America were exceptional.
For a time, following the money and following truth aligned.
1
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn started shopping these ideas around in 1962, but Professor Blachowicz treats the clash between deductive and inductive approaches to validation methodology as his own poetry-induced epiphany, and then presents a flawed analysis of a traditional exemplar, Keplerian Orbits. There is an incommensurability problem here. Now could someone please explain what the hell a "good" poem is? Preferably someone who is not wearing a patchwork suit.
4
The author focuses on a few similarities between the scientific method and the editorial process of writing a poem, but either willfully or throug ignorance, avoids the many differences and, voila, they are basically the same,
To look at one example, consider the 'actual' definition of courage as opposed to the orbit of Mars. Mars actually orbits the sun and this physical reality can be observed and studied. There is no single definition of courage--instead each person has an ndividual understanding of the term. When two or more people come together, their definitions will overlap in some ways. As you add or remove people, the overlap shifts, and therefore any common definition will change.
Moreover, the act of trying to write down a definition is not only an attempt to describe, but also to prescribe. The dictionary works to try to shift people's disparate definitions towards some standard one. Conversely, no attempt to describe the orbit of Mars--whether it used circles, epicycloids, ovals or ellipses--has ever had any effect on the orbit of the planet.
On the other hand, when Spender finally completes a poem and presents it, each listener or reader will judge it through their one aesthetic sense, while the scientific community has worked assiduously to try to ensure that any scientist reading a scientific paper will assess it in the same way using the same standards.
To look at one example, consider the 'actual' definition of courage as opposed to the orbit of Mars. Mars actually orbits the sun and this physical reality can be observed and studied. There is no single definition of courage--instead each person has an ndividual understanding of the term. When two or more people come together, their definitions will overlap in some ways. As you add or remove people, the overlap shifts, and therefore any common definition will change.
Moreover, the act of trying to write down a definition is not only an attempt to describe, but also to prescribe. The dictionary works to try to shift people's disparate definitions towards some standard one. Conversely, no attempt to describe the orbit of Mars--whether it used circles, epicycloids, ovals or ellipses--has ever had any effect on the orbit of the planet.
On the other hand, when Spender finally completes a poem and presents it, each listener or reader will judge it through their one aesthetic sense, while the scientific community has worked assiduously to try to ensure that any scientist reading a scientific paper will assess it in the same way using the same standards.
4
What is hubris?
3
While quantified precision may not be a "superior way of thinking..." it is a superior means of obtaining hard data which is needed for decision-making. Only a non-scientist could conclude that the scientific method is applied to other endeavors, implying that scientific data is no more valid than philosophy or semantics. "Curve fitting" in scientific investigation will eventually be found to be inadequate as more data is gathered. This is simply not the case in other fields.
1
"Scientific method is not itself an object of study for scientists." Excuse me? It very much is!
4
I've Got Even More
I'll confine my recommendations to only three ...
1. See if you can help your headline writer get a job at Ken Ham's Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.
2. Suggest that Professor Blachowicz write some global warming denial papers for the American Enterprise Institute, Americans for Prosperity, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, or maybe the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University. There are many well-heeled organizations who would welcome his sort of logic.
3. The next time you NYT's editors entertain the bad idea of having a philosopher lecture us about science, just open this URL and study it for awhile.
http://xkcd.com/435/
The philosophers keep trying to scoot in there somewhere between the physicists and mathematicians, but xkcd's Randall Munroe knows they don't even belong in the picture.
I'll confine my recommendations to only three ...
1. See if you can help your headline writer get a job at Ken Ham's Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.
2. Suggest that Professor Blachowicz write some global warming denial papers for the American Enterprise Institute, Americans for Prosperity, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, or maybe the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University. There are many well-heeled organizations who would welcome his sort of logic.
3. The next time you NYT's editors entertain the bad idea of having a philosopher lecture us about science, just open this URL and study it for awhile.
http://xkcd.com/435/
The philosophers keep trying to scoot in there somewhere between the physicists and mathematicians, but xkcd's Randall Munroe knows they don't even belong in the picture.
16
There is a lot of sloppy thinking in this piece, but I would guess that it was motivated in part by the distain that most scientists hold for the practice of philosophy. I am a scientist but I believe that this distain is misplaced. There is indeed a scientific method and I don't believe that it is necessary to rehash its meaning or why it was revolutionary when introduced. It has been incredibly successful in helping us to understand the nature of the observable physical world. However, perhaps ironically, it has now lead us to realize that this observable physical world only represents a tiny fraction of what actually exists! Proud masters of this tiny sliver scientists have used their skills to conjure the modern world. But arrogance does not appear to be justified. By the data.
4
"There is a lot of sloppy thinking in this piece, ..."
Please quote the essay and explain why the quote exhibits "sloppy thinking".
Please quote the essay and explain why the quote exhibits "sloppy thinking".
1
I'll take science and its methods and its repeatable [or not] results any day. Philosophy is just a fancy word for "navel-gazing".
5
Not a single mention of any role mathematics plays in any of the many forms of scientific method (notice the plural, need there be a single scientific method?). The closest the author comes, to my mind, is his reference to 'curve fitting' which he gets terribly wrong.
Unlike many philosophical essays, the only question left for me to ponder after reading this essay is why would the NYT bother to publish such a poorly researched and reasoned essay?
Unlike many philosophical essays, the only question left for me to ponder after reading this essay is why would the NYT bother to publish such a poorly researched and reasoned essay?
17
Richard Feynman said: "Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." The jealous navel-gazing in this article is also for the birds! There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in this writer's philosophy, and science will find them. Science works, that's why it is so successful.
6
I once heard that the whole of scientific method was about avoiding confirmation bias. We love our own ideas, but a newly hatched idea is most likely wrong, or at least woefully incomplete.
Scientific method requires you to concentrate all of your thoughts on what is wrong with your idea, and then perform the appropriates empirical studies to show that all of the possible flaws that you thought of do not destroy the original idea. After that, you invite other scientists to pick your ideas apart. Any idea that is created and championed by a single individual or group or without empirical study may or may not provide insight. But it cannot be regarded as a useful fact.
Scientific method requires you to concentrate all of your thoughts on what is wrong with your idea, and then perform the appropriates empirical studies to show that all of the possible flaws that you thought of do not destroy the original idea. After that, you invite other scientists to pick your ideas apart. Any idea that is created and championed by a single individual or group or without empirical study may or may not provide insight. But it cannot be regarded as a useful fact.
1
"I once heard that the whole of scientific method was about avoiding confirmation bias."
Where did you hear that?
Where did you hear that?
1
Wrong!
11
Why is it that philosophers who wish to dabble in the scientific method don't bother to understand what it is first? Good scientific conclusions are repeatable regardless of the biases of the tester, as long as the test is done rigorously. I.e., if the scientific method could be applied to poetry, my bias that Spender is second-rate at very best should not affect my appreciation of his poetry. But it does. This is not a matter to which the scientific method can be applied because the conclusion is inherently subjective.
This piece reminds me of Swinburne's execrable "Is There a God?," in which a philosopher purports to use the scientific method to demonstrate the existence of God, but shows such a poor grasp of scientific inquiry that even religious scientists can be disgusted by it. The wild leaps and dizzying gaps that are evident in the writer's understanding of the scientific method could have been prevented by a really thorough reading of Popper and other sources or, more simply, by having a qualified scientific editor look over the manuscript and accepting his or her comments about when the piece is descending into gobbledygook.
This piece reminds me of Swinburne's execrable "Is There a God?," in which a philosopher purports to use the scientific method to demonstrate the existence of God, but shows such a poor grasp of scientific inquiry that even religious scientists can be disgusted by it. The wild leaps and dizzying gaps that are evident in the writer's understanding of the scientific method could have been prevented by a really thorough reading of Popper and other sources or, more simply, by having a qualified scientific editor look over the manuscript and accepting his or her comments about when the piece is descending into gobbledygook.
12
Scientific theories are never proven to be correct. At most, a theory is proven to be lacking if it fails to predict or explain some observable. A theory is simply a recitation of our best understanding of some phenomena to date. Because we may later learn new facts, or find experimental (or observable) situations that do not comport with the theory, we are open to refinements, or to entirely new and better explanations of the observables in the form of new or improved theories. Science is based upon quantification. If you cannot measure it, you do not know much about it. Lord Kelvin made such an observation in 1883.
Since when does poetry have any "observables" from the realm of nature? The comparison of literature or philosophy with the scientific method is ludicrous on its face.
Since when does poetry have any "observables" from the realm of nature? The comparison of literature or philosophy with the scientific method is ludicrous on its face.
5
This is sort of a simplistic view of science, philosophy and poetry. Not all poets edit the way Spender does. Sometimes it is necessary for philosophers to change their unconscious assumptions, rather than their definition. Of course there are similarities between the scientific method and philosophy. The scientific method grew out of philosophy. The scientific method took philosophy's spirit of inquiry and made it highly reliable for gaining a specific kind of insight, insight into the workings of the natural world.
When it comes to poetry, there is a principle in the scientific method that demands reproducibility. If that was truly what Spender was doing, he would send his rough draft off to many other poets to make their edits. If the vast majority did not agree on the changes, he would dispose of the poem.
The method behind this article shows why the scientific method is required. That way of thinking is not inherent to us. The author has noticed similarities, a pattern, which is something we are good at. He has made an assumption then that these are all of a kind, and has reduced the definition of each to fit that assumption.
When it comes to poetry, there is a principle in the scientific method that demands reproducibility. If that was truly what Spender was doing, he would send his rough draft off to many other poets to make their edits. If the vast majority did not agree on the changes, he would dispose of the poem.
The method behind this article shows why the scientific method is required. That way of thinking is not inherent to us. The author has noticed similarities, a pattern, which is something we are good at. He has made an assumption then that these are all of a kind, and has reduced the definition of each to fit that assumption.
5
If think it's a silly article. Of course the scientific method exists. It's the fundamental approach that draws evidence-based conclusions that are verifiable and reproducible by independent investigators. Sure, different investigators might not all apply the same standard of proof. Sure, there's some quackery in every discipline. But to question the fundamental principle for studying the physical world seems ludicrous.
And how exactly does one "force" a hypothesis to fit the data? It either fits the data or you alter the hypothesis to reconcile the data while making sure there are no contradictions to the hypothesis. This is a very simple, logical, and effective method that has served mankind for centuries if not millennia.
And how exactly does one "force" a hypothesis to fit the data? It either fits the data or you alter the hypothesis to reconcile the data while making sure there are no contradictions to the hypothesis. This is a very simple, logical, and effective method that has served mankind for centuries if not millennia.
6
I'm not sure that this guy really understands either science or art.
Your hypothesis, background reasearch, and methodology have failed. Start over.
Your hypothesis, background reasearch, and methodology have failed. Start over.
21
A better title for this essay: There is no artistic creativity.
The great theories of science are crafted from the stuff of observation and experiment by a creative process that has much in common with the creative process in the arts. The scientific method is an added filter that keeps the theories connected to the world of predictable phenomena. A poet is free to build her poem on the stuff of her dreams, and no one can give decisive evidence to refute the finished poem.
The great theories of science are crafted from the stuff of observation and experiment by a creative process that has much in common with the creative process in the arts. The scientific method is an added filter that keeps the theories connected to the world of predictable phenomena. A poet is free to build her poem on the stuff of her dreams, and no one can give decisive evidence to refute the finished poem.
4
"Philosophy of Science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." - Richard Feynman
52
The fact that it was possible for this author to record his "arguments" not on paper using quills and ink (like his predecessesors a short couple of hundred years ago) but type it on a laptop and publish it on the internet is indisputable proof that the scientific method 1) exists and 2) works.
13
Thank you. I work primarily as a high school tutor working with every subject I can get my hands on. My primary goal is to provide a single thought process that can then be adapted to any subject with efficacy. The process I settled on is the scientific method. Let's go over the steps: hypothesis, where you ask a question. Procedure, where you figure out how to answer it (insert some bias here.) Experiment, when you do what you need to do to answer it. Analysis, where you think on your experiment (this is where most bias creeps in) and conclusion, where you synthesize the analysis and reach a workable model. This is the exact same process for writing an essay (thesis, essay structure, quotes, supporting argument, conclusion) or math (problem statement, governing equations, calculus, simplification, answer statement.) The idea here is that when we want answers we approach every problem in this way, which is admittedly the most logical way to do so. This is also an idea of transcending beauty. When we realize that this is the case we can bring together science and art, math art and philosophy, and create a new thought paradigm that takes the best aspects of all. Think about it
2
The Canadian philosopher-theologian, Bernard Lonergan, has been credited for the so-called "Lonergan's precepts," which are based on the description of how the human mind works through the stimuli it receives via the senses. Be attentive. Be intelligent. Be reasonable. Be responsible. Lonergan even adds a fifth precept, Be loving (although he also admits that love can be presumed to be already operative in being attentive, intelligent, reasonable and responsible). What these precepts boil down to is that the scientific method pursued in natural sciences is just one among many. All other serious attempts at knowing and communicating, be this in the social sciences, humanities (philosophy and theology included), and the arts follow Lonergan's precepts so that their findings may also be taken as not only meaningful, but also true.
2
I note the author claims emeritus status which might explain why he labors under the allusion that scientists have no education on the scientific method.
At least in medical education today students are taught how to recognize a sham study bought and paid for by Big Pharma and a legitimate one, assuming there is not outright fraud which is unmasked by "to good to be true" results and failure to be reproduced.
This was not the case when I entered medical school in 1970 which is presumably closer to his era.
So the professor can rest easy that in fact scientists today are more than aware of statistics and analysis of the materials and methods of quality studies.
At least in medical education today students are taught how to recognize a sham study bought and paid for by Big Pharma and a legitimate one, assuming there is not outright fraud which is unmasked by "to good to be true" results and failure to be reproduced.
This was not the case when I entered medical school in 1970 which is presumably closer to his era.
So the professor can rest easy that in fact scientists today are more than aware of statistics and analysis of the materials and methods of quality studies.
9
I taught for 33 years in a university in which philosophy and theology especially, but also the humanities, was argued to be equal or superior to science. Here is the difference: when science proves a principle, it allows one to predict the future. Tne non-science disciplines for the most part only create narratives about the past.
30
Facts exist. They are superior to subjective opinion, which exists only in the mind of the philosopher who accepts their own premise. That is why the scientific method is superior to the socially constructed forms of analysis. The scientific method discovers truth that is not dependent on context. All other forms are just subjective opinion and do not disclose universal truth.
10
Crafted poetry?
Does it sound wrong - nay: False!
But wait a little minute: Craftsmanship?
Yes, there is some of it somewhere out there:
It's in the rhythm, the rhyme, the sound, and the tune
- much more, it's in the woven wording's wabe,
And feeling free and feeble on that cloud
Amidst fresh air and anemones' shimmer,
Or bristling bravery striding into battle,
In eerie early epic heroe's shining armour.
O epic epos eipein, homeric hexagon rhythms,
Or - yes, some craft is joyfully crafted here,
As Boticelli delights in his Aphrodite arising,
And Gropius loved his united beauty and use,
We all feel good when something came from our hands,
Or a goal kick from our foot, or a note from our lips,
Or the flow of words in forms that please the mind.
- It's work, but joy it is, too:
Good work is joy to the worker
But what shall he call his result:
Created, or did it evolve?
It's both, I guess -
And that is good.
Does it sound wrong - nay: False!
But wait a little minute: Craftsmanship?
Yes, there is some of it somewhere out there:
It's in the rhythm, the rhyme, the sound, and the tune
- much more, it's in the woven wording's wabe,
And feeling free and feeble on that cloud
Amidst fresh air and anemones' shimmer,
Or bristling bravery striding into battle,
In eerie early epic heroe's shining armour.
O epic epos eipein, homeric hexagon rhythms,
Or - yes, some craft is joyfully crafted here,
As Boticelli delights in his Aphrodite arising,
And Gropius loved his united beauty and use,
We all feel good when something came from our hands,
Or a goal kick from our foot, or a note from our lips,
Or the flow of words in forms that please the mind.
- It's work, but joy it is, too:
Good work is joy to the worker
But what shall he call his result:
Created, or did it evolve?
It's both, I guess -
And that is good.
1
This navel gazing article is a waste of binary bits, that very much rely on scientific certainty to allow this article to reach your eyes.
14
I'm surprised bu this column. Karl Popper solve this issue a long time ago.
8
In short, the scientific method involves evidence and reasoning applied to objects and their states. Objects is the key word. Science is about precision and cannot consider subjects (agents, I, you) and their experiences. There is no precision about such things.
3
I tried a different method in approaching this article: I read the comments first. What struck me was the intense hostility of the first half dozen listed.
Then I read the article---or tried to. My problem is that I'm not a scientist nor a philosopher. At best a former poet manque.
I find his philosphical discourse a hard slough but I agree with his basic premise, if not his meandering conclusion.
To me the contrast between B.A. and B.S.--Liberal Artists and Natural Philosophers (the classic denomination for "Scientists") is a subset of the distinction between a Genius & the Educated.
To wit, intuition versus deduction. Scientific genius is essentially intuitive:
Archimedes jumping in his bathtub and flooding his tile floor with its displaced water, Newton get bopped on his head by that grave apple, Einstein bending the strings on his violin and seeing space bend in time to forte beat of his inspired musing.
Similarly, the artist or the poet or the musician is struck by experience and intuits a painting, a poem or the ultimate art; stringed music (lyrics optional).
Against this are the students of the leavings of such intuitive discovery.: The educated masses, B.A,, B.S---M.A. or M.S.---even the PH.D. apex ---Doctors of Arts or Doctors of Science. They all deal in the deductive method of Scientific Papers or Book Reviews or the ivory tower comfort of Tenure; in short Cover Bands of the Intuitive.
In sum, a wry Picasso truth: Talent borrows, Genius steals.
Then I read the article---or tried to. My problem is that I'm not a scientist nor a philosopher. At best a former poet manque.
I find his philosphical discourse a hard slough but I agree with his basic premise, if not his meandering conclusion.
To me the contrast between B.A. and B.S.--Liberal Artists and Natural Philosophers (the classic denomination for "Scientists") is a subset of the distinction between a Genius & the Educated.
To wit, intuition versus deduction. Scientific genius is essentially intuitive:
Archimedes jumping in his bathtub and flooding his tile floor with its displaced water, Newton get bopped on his head by that grave apple, Einstein bending the strings on his violin and seeing space bend in time to forte beat of his inspired musing.
Similarly, the artist or the poet or the musician is struck by experience and intuits a painting, a poem or the ultimate art; stringed music (lyrics optional).
Against this are the students of the leavings of such intuitive discovery.: The educated masses, B.A,, B.S---M.A. or M.S.---even the PH.D. apex ---Doctors of Arts or Doctors of Science. They all deal in the deductive method of Scientific Papers or Book Reviews or the ivory tower comfort of Tenure; in short Cover Bands of the Intuitive.
In sum, a wry Picasso truth: Talent borrows, Genius steals.
3
Sadly, this is article is an example of the trite and petty analysis of science that our society is daily exposed to. This inaccurate compilation of intelligent sounding phrases gives the layperson the impression that science is some haphazard methodology to defraud them. I am disturbed that my favorite news outlet would sanction such superficial thinking. I continue to expect better. The scientific method is the process of attaining new knowledge via independently verifiable concrete observations. We no longer arrive at truths by "thinking" it through.
51
That people who are not scientists use methods that are similar to the scientific method does not make the scientific method wrong. Actually, it makes sense that other people would use a logical sequence in doing their activities. The results of science are tested by others and sometimes found to be wrong which often results in new theories which scientists use the scientific method to test. And poetry?
9
The author reminded me of my own experience. I recently decided to investigate the scientific, physical underpinnings of human consciousness. I was stunned to find that most of the books carried in our local library discussed consciousness from a philosophical rather than scientific point of view. Some authors actually challenge the scientists who are attempting to define consciousness from a medical, or physiological, starting point. A friend directed me to the New York Academy of Sciences which provides ample source material monthly from researchers working in this area. It provided exactly what I am looking for.
6
What a muddled piece of writing. Of course, the Scientific Method is a superior method of thinking if you want to understand how the world behaves. On the other hand, it is not poetry. We don't feel compelled to write scientific papers in iambic pentameter or set them to music. Who are you to criticize scientists' understanding of their method? Good question.
44
Bunk and hokum. A feeble attempt to re-elevate the arts to dominance in a STEM world. One only has to view modern visual art (as with other forms of art) since the mid-twentieth century to see that the "emperor has no clothes", as the two teenagers so convincingly showed at SFMoMA.
17
Thinking is certainly not easy phenomena to explain. as I'll herein explore.
Because each person's neurons (seemingly) fire differently.
Of course, the fact of identical twins diminishes this assertion, but can they be in 100% uniformity?
Perhaps they do, but not all the time.
What does that twin expert, apparently researching in Minnesota's Twin Cities, say?
Yep, I go off track, because in case you did not notice, I don't think nor compose comment in an explainable process.
I've allowed triviality if not corny absurdity to disrupt logical comment, because that's how I (seem to) think 'n write.
Because each person's neurons (seemingly) fire differently.
Of course, the fact of identical twins diminishes this assertion, but can they be in 100% uniformity?
Perhaps they do, but not all the time.
What does that twin expert, apparently researching in Minnesota's Twin Cities, say?
Yep, I go off track, because in case you did not notice, I don't think nor compose comment in an explainable process.
I've allowed triviality if not corny absurdity to disrupt logical comment, because that's how I (seem to) think 'n write.
2
Yikes!! Has the author even read Popper's writings or knows what falsifiability and a control group is in it's purest sense?
43
The essential difference in method between scientific and "non-scientific" pursuits can be seen just as clearly by contrasting physics with psychology.
The difference is very simple - in physics, it is very easy to quantify both the data and results. Psychologists (a group I belong to) suffer from physics envy and thus all-too-often fool themselves into believing they can just as easily quantify the data associated with the human mind and behavior.
Prior to working as a psychologist, I was a composer, and as Mr. Dawson wrote, I "test[ed] new harmonies" when writing music. But even with artificial intelligence supporting the process of music composition (with almost infinitely complex quantifiable support for composing) the goal of music is to affect the listener - something that cannot (Richard Dawkins' rainbow notwithstanding) be quantified.
Once we realize that the quantitative processes of physics capture only an infinitesimal portion of the real world of experience (that world of experience without which, Whitehead told us, there is "nothing... bare nothingness" - and which Eddington warned us about nearly a century ago), the enormously overwrought status of physics as "truth provider" will be perhaps be appropriately modified.
Everything that can be counted does not count.
Albert Einstein
The difference is very simple - in physics, it is very easy to quantify both the data and results. Psychologists (a group I belong to) suffer from physics envy and thus all-too-often fool themselves into believing they can just as easily quantify the data associated with the human mind and behavior.
Prior to working as a psychologist, I was a composer, and as Mr. Dawson wrote, I "test[ed] new harmonies" when writing music. But even with artificial intelligence supporting the process of music composition (with almost infinitely complex quantifiable support for composing) the goal of music is to affect the listener - something that cannot (Richard Dawkins' rainbow notwithstanding) be quantified.
Once we realize that the quantitative processes of physics capture only an infinitesimal portion of the real world of experience (that world of experience without which, Whitehead told us, there is "nothing... bare nothingness" - and which Eddington warned us about nearly a century ago), the enormously overwrought status of physics as "truth provider" will be perhaps be appropriately modified.
Everything that can be counted does not count.
Albert Einstein
4
Slow day in the editorial room? I guess the NYT must have a stock of puff pieces for times like these. At least this one was superior to the last piece by a philosopher which was a whine about the British after the Brexit vote.
"...second criterion that all such explanation requires: that it be simple, with a single explanatory principle devoid of tacked-on ad hoc exceptions,"
Making a typical rookie "scientist" mistake - look - I love Occam's razor as much as the next guy. It is just that it has no grounding in science or -in fact- no grounding in anything at all - other that it sounds nice to say and is nice to quote.
Making a typical rookie "scientist" mistake - look - I love Occam's razor as much as the next guy. It is just that it has no grounding in science or -in fact- no grounding in anything at all - other that it sounds nice to say and is nice to quote.
1
Professor Blachowizc is no doubt a philosopher of the "deconstructionist" school -- which holds there is no such thing as universal truth (it's all relative, man!).
1
Seriously. This piece (perhaps because of its brevity--but I think not) is close to the worst than to the best of "Stone" discussions. It is utterly a-historical: "scientific method" for Aristotle was entirely different from what it was for Lavoisier, and for Einstein. It completely ignores folks like Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Karl Popper, and others, who argued that both method and theory had social determinants--what counted as an "hypothesis" or as "evidence" has evolved. The author uses Plato as an example--but the dialogues are instructional pieces, designed to reproduce "philosophical dialogue" in written form, and to lead to a pre-determined conclusion. While I disagree with 20thC anglo-american philosophy, this author's apparent quest for an "essentialist" definition of terms like "courage" and "justice" ignores that tradition on HOW language means, entirely. Kepler's nice, but how about Copernicus (declared a heretic) and Galileo ("yet, it moves")? Best comment on "scientific method"--one which still needs context--Richard Feynman: "First you guess. Don't laugh, this is the most important step. Then you compute the consequences. Compare the consequences to experience. If it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it's wrong. That's all there is to it."
20
Well, as is often the case with the NY Times the comment section here is far more valuable (and interesting) than the article itself. Just click on Readers' Picks in the Comments section, and you'll get a very incisive refutation of most every aspect of this article. My first thought was that this author must be from Kansas or some other Midwestern state since he clearly conflates modes of thinking with an actual method. "Precision" is not the scientific method, nor is working through "successive drafts".
Not even Aristotle, nor the Greeks, practice the scientific method, it simply did not exist in the ancient world. Like Stephen Spender they used precision and careful observation, but they did not carry out a specific method to attain reproducible results of observed phenomena.
The scientific method, as a deliberately practiced method, did not arise until well into the 19th century, indeed the word 'science' as we know it today did not arise until the 19th century. Poets decidedly do not use the scientific method when writing poetry.
Not even Aristotle, nor the Greeks, practice the scientific method, it simply did not exist in the ancient world. Like Stephen Spender they used precision and careful observation, but they did not carry out a specific method to attain reproducible results of observed phenomena.
The scientific method, as a deliberately practiced method, did not arise until well into the 19th century, indeed the word 'science' as we know it today did not arise until the 19th century. Poets decidedly do not use the scientific method when writing poetry.
11
Spender, like other poets, was trying to find a way to best express his inner truth, which is, essentially, subjective and may not be factual. The Odyssey is a good example. The scientific method, on the other hand, seeks to find and express testable facts about nature's truth, which may or may not contain a truth like Spender's or the Odyssey's, a thoroughly different method that seeks objectivity and perhaps social utility. To compare the two is like comparing eggs to egg rolling whatever that means.
2
This is an irrational essay, I'm surprised the New York Times printed it. It conflates the creative process by which people do new things, with how the scientific method works at winnowing and synthesizing the scientific understanding.
People discover things in all sorts of ways; sometimes dogged trial and error, sometimes more systematic trials guided by some theory, sometimes 'flashes of inspiration" that are poorly understood. T'is no matter....
The scientific method depends on the competition of ideas (hypotheses) to explain all the available observation -- Occam's Razor.
Mr. Blachowicz completely misses the forest, for a tree. The scientific method is not about the individual methods of a working scientist, and indeed there is much about them that do overlap with other creative fields. It is about what happens to these ideas after creation.
If you want a better analogy -- the process of criticism in science is quite different than that in other arts.
People discover things in all sorts of ways; sometimes dogged trial and error, sometimes more systematic trials guided by some theory, sometimes 'flashes of inspiration" that are poorly understood. T'is no matter....
The scientific method depends on the competition of ideas (hypotheses) to explain all the available observation -- Occam's Razor.
Mr. Blachowicz completely misses the forest, for a tree. The scientific method is not about the individual methods of a working scientist, and indeed there is much about them that do overlap with other creative fields. It is about what happens to these ideas after creation.
If you want a better analogy -- the process of criticism in science is quite different than that in other arts.
7
Point well taken: systematic thought is systematic thought.
2
The author completely missed the fact that the scientific method requires more than the scientist alone. It's not enough for the scientist to be satisfied that his particular method produces his desired result. His methods and results must withstand the brutal test of peer review, which - unlike poetry (poetry?? Really??) - is an objective standard.
For a philosopher, I'm pretty discouraged by the complete misunderstanding, and hope few have been misled by this man's "scientific method." It's one thing to try and think outside the box and draw analogies between different disciplines. But objective verification (i.e. the real "scientific method") and subjective wishful thinking and not one in the same and the world is better for it.
For a philosopher, I'm pretty discouraged by the complete misunderstanding, and hope few have been misled by this man's "scientific method." It's one thing to try and think outside the box and draw analogies between different disciplines. But objective verification (i.e. the real "scientific method") and subjective wishful thinking and not one in the same and the world is better for it.
18
I recognize that this is an "opinion" piece, but the NYTimes can do better than this. What I most appreciate is that the article stimulated some interesting critical comments. Thank you, fellow readers.
32
"Not a practicing scientist" tells it all. What the author fails to understand is that the scientfic method DEFINES science. In reality, "method" is a misnomer. The scientific method is not a process -- but rather a set of criteria allowing us to judge when something falls within the realm of science, and when it does not. Creative science occurs along many paths. As with art, the approach is without limits. Intuition, guesswork, and virtually anything else can lead us to a model of a piece of the universe . Once that model is created -- by whatever means -- it is tested by asking the following question: Regardless of the path taken to create the model, if the path specified by the by the scientific method had been taken, would the model be the same? If the awnser is "yes", then by definition it is a scientific model. Otherwise it is not. Anything that falls outside of the realm of the scientific method -- and there are many things -- is simply not science.
The means by which we modify models (e.g., Galileo's parabolic trajectory modified by frictional damping) is not the scientific method, but rather the often messy process of model building. It can be (and usuallly is) as convoluted and ad hoc as we like, so long as the conclusions that are reached are the same as those that we would have reached had we taken the "scientific method" pathway.
The means by which we modify models (e.g., Galileo's parabolic trajectory modified by frictional damping) is not the scientific method, but rather the often messy process of model building. It can be (and usuallly is) as convoluted and ad hoc as we like, so long as the conclusions that are reached are the same as those that we would have reached had we taken the "scientific method" pathway.
15
I would like to kindly ask if the author's opinion is what I prefer to call -experimental thinking- as otherwise the elimination of the scientific method, the most cherished method of our western culture is a revolution without an end that could probably culminate in severe problems with our human principles that in my humble opinion should have priority. Experimental medical practices for example are what? In all earnesty, Yannis
2
The author is not actually talking about "method" at all, but rather eidetic insight. Reminds one of Husserlian phenomenology.
4
Repeatability and peer review...... I think the author of this piece is defensive and divisive. Artists may dismiss scientists and scientists may dismiss artists. But art and science themselves, compliment one another.
8
The title of this article would be incredibly misleading to the layperson, especially considering many don't read past headlines.
The author makes a rather redundant point, that systematic investigation/ the scientific method is an inherent part of life.
All I have to say is: No s**t Sherlock
The author makes a rather redundant point, that systematic investigation/ the scientific method is an inherent part of life.
All I have to say is: No s**t Sherlock
8
As a lay person I find the definitions of the scientific method provided by the scientists among the comments much more comprehensive and comprehensible than the attempts of this philosopher. Many of them use 25 words or less. All are in agreement. Specific reference is provided.
Philosophy is neither art nor science and is perhaps best qualified to analyze mostly itself. Which would be a meaningfun, oops I meant meaningful, timely read provided the author had superior editing skills.
Philosophy is neither art nor science and is perhaps best qualified to analyze mostly itself. Which would be a meaningfun, oops I meant meaningful, timely read provided the author had superior editing skills.
15
An interesting article about the similarities between scientific method and reasoning with other forms of human understanding and inquiry. But the title "There is no scientific method" is not only baffling and misleading, it is contradicted by the author's own subsequent discussion.
4
It all depends on the question being asked. "What is the purpose of education" requires a different method of inquiry than asking, "what is the most effective way to teach 4th grade students how to multiply?"
Nevertheless, I think the best scientists are also philosophers, and the best philosophers are also scientists.
Nevertheless, I think the best scientists are also philosophers, and the best philosophers are also scientists.
1
This essay is the type of nonsense that reinforces the scientist's belief that they are superior. Here's a joke told to me by one of my colleagues. "A science professor says to his humanities colleague, `I can't go to lunch with you. I gotta make up an exam.' The humanities prof responds, `Why don't you just give the students the exam that you gave last year.' `I can't do that! They'll get the answers from their friends who took the class last year,' says the science prof. The humanities professor then suggests, `But do what I do: Keep the same questions but change the answers.'
10
You're right to question the notion of THE scientific method and its exclusivity to science. It's fundamental to thinking creatures (even plants employ aspects of its process). To see how misleadingly objective (in the sense that it's not as objective as we science types, might like to believe) the method is consider a lesson (often attributed to astrophysicist John Wheeler) illustrating its subjectivity.
Consider the game of 20 questions (person X leaves the room, everyone else decides on a "thing" Y, person X returns and asks yes-no questions trying to efficiently discover the "hidden truth" Y). Next, do it again but this time, when person X leaves, everyone else only agrees that when they answer yes-no they must have in mind something that could satisfy all previous yes-no answers. Now, when person X returns, the questions she asks are answered with increasing difficulty (it takes longer and longer ... curious she thinks). Person X solves the game when her question can't be answered (because the current "askee" can't think of anything satisfying the preceding questions/answers). The last "successful" askee's "thing" is the answer. The truth, perfectly valid truth, is "created" from the process itself.
The point is clear - it's our **questions** that (largely) shape our understanding of truth and reality. That's a very human, very philosophical observation that obtains whether you're a hard science type or someone who eschews science for "philosophy".
Consider the game of 20 questions (person X leaves the room, everyone else decides on a "thing" Y, person X returns and asks yes-no questions trying to efficiently discover the "hidden truth" Y). Next, do it again but this time, when person X leaves, everyone else only agrees that when they answer yes-no they must have in mind something that could satisfy all previous yes-no answers. Now, when person X returns, the questions she asks are answered with increasing difficulty (it takes longer and longer ... curious she thinks). Person X solves the game when her question can't be answered (because the current "askee" can't think of anything satisfying the preceding questions/answers). The last "successful" askee's "thing" is the answer. The truth, perfectly valid truth, is "created" from the process itself.
The point is clear - it's our **questions** that (largely) shape our understanding of truth and reality. That's a very human, very philosophical observation that obtains whether you're a hard science type or someone who eschews science for "philosophy".
2
"But make no mistake: Quantified precision is not to be confused with a superior method of thinking." Ah yes, the last refuge of those who never truly grasped math in high school or college. Mr. Blachowicz, call me the next time you or your philosopher friends discover a principle akin to Mr. Darwin's idea of descent with modification or even invent something like an MRI machine and then we'll talk.
10
The piece goes astray from the first example. Spender's method, as described, is more akin to engineering than science.
6
Stephen Spender? Stephen Spender was a poet, novelist and essayist. His comprehension of scientific methodologies probably stopped at making toast in a toaster or turning his door key.
Thomas S. Kuhn ("The Structure of Scientific Revolutions") and Michael Polanyi ("Science, Faith and Society", "Personal Knowledge") would have had a field day slicing and dicing up this phlogiston. Alas, they too are long dead.
Stick to abstruse nebulous philosophy, professor. The nuts and bolts of "Doing Science" is too difficult for you.
Thomas S. Kuhn ("The Structure of Scientific Revolutions") and Michael Polanyi ("Science, Faith and Society", "Personal Knowledge") would have had a field day slicing and dicing up this phlogiston. Alas, they too are long dead.
Stick to abstruse nebulous philosophy, professor. The nuts and bolts of "Doing Science" is too difficult for you.
13
There are scientists who agree with Mr. Blachowicz's comment about the absence of any specific method as conceived in the public's eye. One is Stuart Firestein, a neuroscientist at Columbia who runs a very popular course titled "Ignorance," and has published a short book with the same title. He discusses the problems with popular, public conceptions of "scientific method." In his follow-up monograph, "Failure: Why Science is so Successful," he spends again the problems with what is often taught as the "scientific method."
Firestein emphasizes the importance of experimentation by people with requisite background and the expectation of change (expanding ignorance and important questions). He notes that hypotheses often come after a good bit of data are collected, not before. Then new data overturn the old working hypotheses.
In his considerations of ignorance and failure, he focuses on their utility and importance for modern science. He considers these concepts critical for young graduate students--not the focus on popular views of "scientific method." (Note: He is not discussing ignorance as either stupidity or the sort of wilful ignorance we see in public political debate. He is not discussing failure in the way of many modern businesses, who expect a failure or two before "success.")
For summaries of both works:
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ignorance-9780199828074?cc=us&am...
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/failure-9780199390106?cc=us&...
Firestein emphasizes the importance of experimentation by people with requisite background and the expectation of change (expanding ignorance and important questions). He notes that hypotheses often come after a good bit of data are collected, not before. Then new data overturn the old working hypotheses.
In his considerations of ignorance and failure, he focuses on their utility and importance for modern science. He considers these concepts critical for young graduate students--not the focus on popular views of "scientific method." (Note: He is not discussing ignorance as either stupidity or the sort of wilful ignorance we see in public political debate. He is not discussing failure in the way of many modern businesses, who expect a failure or two before "success.")
For summaries of both works:
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ignorance-9780199828074?cc=us&am...
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/failure-9780199390106?cc=us&...
2
Contrary to Feinman, philosophy of science is actually very useful to scientists. As scientist (who happens to like poetry), I use my knowledge of the philosophy (and history) of science all the time to explain to students why pieces like this one in the NY Times are misleading. Indeed, I plan to use this piece in my history and philosophy of science class this fall. Thanks!
5
Please read Martin Gardner.
4
It can't be proved scientifically, but W.H. Auden and Louis MacNeice were better poets than Stephen Spender. Ask anyone.
2
For a smart person the author makes a stupit' conclusion.
Sure, deductive analysis can be used in many fields. But, as Jeo writes, after a poet writes a poem, an artist crafts a painting, or a soprano hits that key in the aria, there is no way for others to repeatedly and exactly test their method. You can mimic but not prove.
My father, an acolyte of J. William Miller, in applying Miller's philosophy to explain that economics, as an example, is not a science in the way chemistry is. Say's Law is an opinion (which can be easily debunked), but the ratio of hydrogen atoms to oxygen atoms in water are fixed no matter what you think of it. The Scientific Method includes within it pursuing knowledge to that level, not to the level of taste or opinion or other senses.
Sure, deductive analysis can be used in many fields. But, as Jeo writes, after a poet writes a poem, an artist crafts a painting, or a soprano hits that key in the aria, there is no way for others to repeatedly and exactly test their method. You can mimic but not prove.
My father, an acolyte of J. William Miller, in applying Miller's philosophy to explain that economics, as an example, is not a science in the way chemistry is. Say's Law is an opinion (which can be easily debunked), but the ratio of hydrogen atoms to oxygen atoms in water are fixed no matter what you think of it. The Scientific Method includes within it pursuing knowledge to that level, not to the level of taste or opinion or other senses.
8
Professor Blachowicz has written an entertaining piece but I'm not sure how much light it brings to bear on the scientific method.
I had several questions as I read through his essay. The first was "why did he write this?" At the end he writes how scientists aren't qualified to evaluate arguments on the scientific method because this is the purview of philosophers. Well, last I hear the terminal degree in the sciences is still the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). Science grew from philosophy and the best scientists can still function in this realm. I think the professor might be surprised how many experimental scientists have read the original works of people like Bacon and Popper. We read it not necessarily because we want to extend the philosophical basis of these treatises, but rather because we want to understand the elegance of their argument. Many of us have also embraced the logic of these arguments and we have applied it to our experimental work. As such, we're certainly qualified to be in the discussion. I hope Professor Blachowicz would agree.
I had several questions as I read through his essay. The first was "why did he write this?" At the end he writes how scientists aren't qualified to evaluate arguments on the scientific method because this is the purview of philosophers. Well, last I hear the terminal degree in the sciences is still the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). Science grew from philosophy and the best scientists can still function in this realm. I think the professor might be surprised how many experimental scientists have read the original works of people like Bacon and Popper. We read it not necessarily because we want to extend the philosophical basis of these treatises, but rather because we want to understand the elegance of their argument. Many of us have also embraced the logic of these arguments and we have applied it to our experimental work. As such, we're certainly qualified to be in the discussion. I hope Professor Blachowicz would agree.
7
Courage is the ability to act in the face of great danger. Danger, not fear. Just get the definition right and your supposed problem vanishes.
5
This is nonsense. How does the NYT publish junk like this?
The scientific method tests hypotheses against REALITY. Not against one's own (or others') definitions, tastes, values, ... And tests against reality are REPEATABLE and PREDICTABLE. And that's the difference between the scientific method/science and non-science.
The scientific method tests hypotheses against REALITY. Not against one's own (or others') definitions, tastes, values, ... And tests against reality are REPEATABLE and PREDICTABLE. And that's the difference between the scientific method/science and non-science.
50
I believe the author has succeeded in illustrating the reasons for increased interest in STEM subjects and the decline in Liberal Arts. At it's core, science and the scientific method seek enlightenment through improvement on measurable knowledge through a disciplined and critically analyzed set of hypothesis, measurement and conclusions. Philosophies are opinions that are at best crowd sourced for validation (and we know the intelligence of the crowd - read: Trump, Warren, Sanders) and at worst simply the ramblings of the individual
5
It's time to retire The Stone.
It's understandable the writer wishes to defend the discipline to which he's devoted his life. But he really doesn't understand what he's talking about.
He gives himself away in the antepenultimate paragraph: 'Quantified precision is not to be confused with a superior method of thinking'. You, sir, are the one who introduced that word 'superior'. You are suffering from a bad case of science envy. Insufficient space in 1500 to vivisect this column beyond that observation, and the wish I could turn Alan Sokol loose on this, and the observation that at least Socrates, the original 'humble-bragger'. knew he didn't know what he was talking about any more than did the straw men Plato set up for him to take down.
Reiterate: The Stone has outlived itself. It's degenerated into professors beating dead horses, delving into obfuscations, riding political hobbyhorses, and perhaps hoping participation in the column will count as a 'publication' on their CV.
It's understandable the writer wishes to defend the discipline to which he's devoted his life. But he really doesn't understand what he's talking about.
He gives himself away in the antepenultimate paragraph: 'Quantified precision is not to be confused with a superior method of thinking'. You, sir, are the one who introduced that word 'superior'. You are suffering from a bad case of science envy. Insufficient space in 1500 to vivisect this column beyond that observation, and the wish I could turn Alan Sokol loose on this, and the observation that at least Socrates, the original 'humble-bragger'. knew he didn't know what he was talking about any more than did the straw men Plato set up for him to take down.
Reiterate: The Stone has outlived itself. It's degenerated into professors beating dead horses, delving into obfuscations, riding political hobbyhorses, and perhaps hoping participation in the column will count as a 'publication' on their CV.
31
It would more far interesting to have you "vivisect this column", than to read your complaints about the Stone or your psychoanalysis of the author. You could start by dissecting this phrase: "the actual meaning".
1
Of course the Scientific Method is generally applicable. One can be scientific about evaluating any idea. e.g. The light did not go on; hypothesis: I missed the switch with my finger. Every human uses the Method casually every day. The essay is interesting, but does not contain the word "parsimony", the most important aspect of the Scientific Method, which is about not just testing hypotheses, but evaluating alternative explanations. Therein resides its vast power.
5
"In comparing this literal meaning with the actual meaning of courage in our minds, we come to realize that the literal meaning of our working definition won’t work..."
The actual meaning may be different for different people with different cultural experiences....say ISIS members vs Buddists.
Whereas in science, the "actual" is determined by experiments that uncover a reality that exists across cultures.
Not impressed with this philosopher's thinking!
The actual meaning may be different for different people with different cultural experiences....say ISIS members vs Buddists.
Whereas in science, the "actual" is determined by experiments that uncover a reality that exists across cultures.
Not impressed with this philosopher's thinking!
20
If you read carefully, you will see that the author uses the example of "Socrates and his listeners", who "agree on examples of justice". It is that AGREEMENT that establishes the "actual meaning". As you note, the author then shifts to "our minds". He should have stayed with "Socrates and his listeners".
One of the fundamental principles of the scientific method is repeatability. An experiment should be of sufficient rigor and detail that another person whom disagrees with the measurements will obtain the same measurements if they repeat the experiment. In other words, a person whom is biased against the results of an experiment will reproduce the same results if the themselves repeat the experiment.
Aristotle had taught: that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones, in direct proportion to weight. This was disproved by experiments in the 16th century. Those who believed that Aristotle was right could replicate the results by taking two cannonballs of different weights and dropping them from a high building. No matter how strongly they believed in Aristotle, scientific method would result in the same result.
The author's statement "Quantified precision is not to be confused with a superior method of thinking." is a dangerous conclusion. It allows politicians, marketers, journalists, lawyers and others to ignore scientific facts and to appeal to emotion and bias. We have seen too often in the 20th century where that resulted.
Aristotle had taught: that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones, in direct proportion to weight. This was disproved by experiments in the 16th century. Those who believed that Aristotle was right could replicate the results by taking two cannonballs of different weights and dropping them from a high building. No matter how strongly they believed in Aristotle, scientific method would result in the same result.
The author's statement "Quantified precision is not to be confused with a superior method of thinking." is a dangerous conclusion. It allows politicians, marketers, journalists, lawyers and others to ignore scientific facts and to appeal to emotion and bias. We have seen too often in the 20th century where that resulted.
241
Just so we're clear, if you drop two cannonballs that are otherwise identical but for weight the heavier one will fall faster in direct proportion to its weight. This is physics
2
Bad case of "whomitis".
3
"Quantified precision is not to be confused with a superior method of thinking."
Yes let's not bother with empirical evidence. Let's just allow the "thinker" or his followers to make their own value judgments about the superiority of his method of thinking. One can see the appeal of this philosophy to the purveyors of fictions from the Catholic church to Donald Trump but it's hardly a basis for rational actions and behavior. The comparison of scientific inquiry with the methods of that rather rackety, third rate poet (and secret recipient of CIA largesse) Spender is risible.
Yes let's not bother with empirical evidence. Let's just allow the "thinker" or his followers to make their own value judgments about the superiority of his method of thinking. One can see the appeal of this philosophy to the purveyors of fictions from the Catholic church to Donald Trump but it's hardly a basis for rational actions and behavior. The comparison of scientific inquiry with the methods of that rather rackety, third rate poet (and secret recipient of CIA largesse) Spender is risible.
210
The author confuses the scientific method with whatever a scientist may do to reach a conclusion. Often scientists rely on intuition, lucky guesses or notice some small discrepancy that eventually turns out not to be a faulty measurement and has deep implications. The scientific method is how new information is corroborated and becomes accepted as another solid piece of scientific knowledge. Science is a collaborative effort. It depends on individual insights but requires that those insights fit into existing knowledge and other scientists check the insight does not contradict established facts and deepens our understanding of nature. That is what makes science a more reliable source of information. It is common mistake of laymen to conclude that when a new scientific theory provides deeper understanding it proves an old theory wrong and thus all scientific theories are a fashion of the time. A theory that described accurately certain facts will still do so and it is still a useful scientific theory, what the new theory does is to show us the limitations of the old one.
152
Yeah science really doesn't work like this. If an old theory is usurped it is abandoned, full stop. What's the point of learning a theory that's only right half the time when you have one that works all the time? The examples are endless, namely in control sciences, rotational frame dynamics, and differential calculus.
2
Your point is well made. Now, perhaps our understanding of what "intuition" means must also be reconsidered. In your context, the term seems to depend on the integrity and depth of knowledge and experience. What many people seem to think is that intuition is similar to "inspiration"--the ability to perceive or construct truth or "a truth" without that depth. I suggest it's a lot of the first and a bit of the second, which gives our best thinkers and truth-finders the ability to determine "there's something happening but you don't (yet) know what it is," versus Dylan's Mr. Jones, who perceives "something" but isn't all that interested in the actual truth.
Scientific method is not science in itself. It's simply a method of inquiry based on empirically arrived and verifiable facts hence reliable for their precision and exactness. However, if the same experience is relied upon and gathered through objectively reached observations, the same acquires the equal validity and reliability as the empirically derived scientific truth. In short, the truth arrived at either by inductive reasoning of beginning with the particular and reaching the general, or by the deductive reasoning of logic beginning with the general a priori assumptions and reaching the particular, remains the same truth at the end. And the truth grasped by the human beings essentially remains relative in nature.
17
Even setting aside the irresponsible and factually incorrect headline, the author could have done a better job, as "not a scientist", talking to scientists and looking at the scientific method. Some other commenters mention Popper. One example is this excellent summary about climate change and falsifiability that delves into the subject for a layperson:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Climate_Science_and_Falsifiability
In a world where populist dislike of expertise is turning us backwards and where it has recently been shown that 60% of people don't bother to read past the headline, the promotion of ignorance encourages promotion of lies by discrediting knowledge.
Hobbes "nasty, brutish and short" describes a world that rejects the many benefits of science. We are all quick enough to rely on science when our comfort and survival depends on it.
I come from a scientific family (father PW), attended MIT, and as friend, colleague, employee, and teacher of scientists (drawing at MIT) for a lifetime, am distressed by attacks on science and scientists.
The scientific method depends on curiosity and integrity, and anything that implies that scientists are pulling stuff out of their hats and making stuff up is more than unhelpful.
There are inaccuracies here about the subject matter itself as well. The author's affection for his thesis appears to bend the facts to his opinion much more than the facts themselves are shaped to desired conclusions by our scientific world.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Climate_Science_and_Falsifiability
In a world where populist dislike of expertise is turning us backwards and where it has recently been shown that 60% of people don't bother to read past the headline, the promotion of ignorance encourages promotion of lies by discrediting knowledge.
Hobbes "nasty, brutish and short" describes a world that rejects the many benefits of science. We are all quick enough to rely on science when our comfort and survival depends on it.
I come from a scientific family (father PW), attended MIT, and as friend, colleague, employee, and teacher of scientists (drawing at MIT) for a lifetime, am distressed by attacks on science and scientists.
The scientific method depends on curiosity and integrity, and anything that implies that scientists are pulling stuff out of their hats and making stuff up is more than unhelpful.
There are inaccuracies here about the subject matter itself as well. The author's affection for his thesis appears to bend the facts to his opinion much more than the facts themselves are shaped to desired conclusions by our scientific world.
559
Very relieved to see this reply and many more firmly correct Blachowicz's mis-characterization of science.
6
Tell it, Susan. This article is clickbait for scientists (doesn't worry me) and for those with a visceral hatred of science, as they are on the verge of understanding and reject the embrace of uncertainty. That worries me.
8
This is not an attack on the scientific method. It is merely pointing out that the thought process enshrined in the process is the same used in all walks of life. You should be celebrating this. If laypeople can internalize this thought perhaps they will learn to respect experts again, after all they are not so very different
2
Thank God this "philosopher" is retired. He confuses the difficulty of definition with the difficulty of abstracting Nature to the point that we can understand it.
257
If a poet crafted a poem, and then published it, at which point other poets tested the poem to see if it gave the same results as the original poet claims it did when he wrote it, and only when they were satisfied that it did, declared that it was a valid poem -- then you could talk about poetry and science being created using the same method.
They are not. What the author leaves out is aspect wherein other scientists are free, in fact encouraged, if not obligated, to test the results themselves. When one scientist claims to have created cold fusion, but no other scientists attempting to replicate the experiment can achieve this result, then it is not accepted that cold fusion has been created. This is a real world example.
Of course there are exceptions to everything, and science and scientists are susceptible to bias and wishful thinking and so on, but the basic *intended* method, one that's used very successfully a great deal of the time, is nothing like writing a poem.
The author seems to think that there is such a thing as a "good" poem, by a "good" poet, like Steven Spender. The fact is that this is a preference, and nothing more, there are those (me included) who don't think that much of Spender, and Spender didn't think much of T.S Eliot, for instance.
I can see perhaps how a philosopher would think that "coming up with a definition of courage" is a good example of the scientific method, to then compare to writing poems, however this too is fatally flawed.
They are not. What the author leaves out is aspect wherein other scientists are free, in fact encouraged, if not obligated, to test the results themselves. When one scientist claims to have created cold fusion, but no other scientists attempting to replicate the experiment can achieve this result, then it is not accepted that cold fusion has been created. This is a real world example.
Of course there are exceptions to everything, and science and scientists are susceptible to bias and wishful thinking and so on, but the basic *intended* method, one that's used very successfully a great deal of the time, is nothing like writing a poem.
The author seems to think that there is such a thing as a "good" poem, by a "good" poet, like Steven Spender. The fact is that this is a preference, and nothing more, there are those (me included) who don't think that much of Spender, and Spender didn't think much of T.S Eliot, for instance.
I can see perhaps how a philosopher would think that "coming up with a definition of courage" is a good example of the scientific method, to then compare to writing poems, however this too is fatally flawed.
277
I basically agree with you. However, "preferring" one or another writer is not the same as denying the caliber of the work. Writers throughout the ages have been vetted and judged good — and for very specific reasons that go well beyond taste.
2
Steve Ess,
The problem with your claim is that this changes from era to era. People who were considered great artists in one period can lose this status in later periods, and people who were judged to be of no worth have been considered great artists by a later age.
The "caliber" of artistic work is as fluid as any other concept in literature and art.
Now, it's also true that something considered to be scientifically proven can be disproved by later generations, but that's an entirely different method at work. That's the whole point.
The problem with your claim is that this changes from era to era. People who were considered great artists in one period can lose this status in later periods, and people who were judged to be of no worth have been considered great artists by a later age.
The "caliber" of artistic work is as fluid as any other concept in literature and art.
Now, it's also true that something considered to be scientifically proven can be disproved by later generations, but that's an entirely different method at work. That's the whole point.
4
The author demonstrates the dangers of pseudo-scientific thinking in this unfortunate opinion piece. His "theory" is that there there is no scientific method but a more general method of human inquiry. He seeks to prove his theory by showing how the method to create a poem is similar to how Keplar went about figuring out the orbits of the planets. He uses a common method of human inquiry which finds similarities and makes associations. This method is also frequently used to "prove" aliens, ESP, astrology, faked moon landings, etc. It bends the data to match the theory.
The scientific method, on the other hand, requires the scientist to create hypotheses to disprove their theory. This is how knowledge evolves. Similarities may give rise to theories but the scientific method is about making predictions that could disprove them.
In this case, his analogy can be easily disproved by numerous tests. For instance, if the method of making poetry was the same as that employed in science then a reasonable hypothesis would be that poems would continue to evolve as does scientific understanding and theories. No one would dare touch a poet's word (except through translation), even after millennia. They would be universally condemned. On the other hand, scientific theories such as evolution, have changed immensely and the scientists that discover new facts that change it are usually celebrated.
The scientific method, on the other hand, requires the scientist to create hypotheses to disprove their theory. This is how knowledge evolves. Similarities may give rise to theories but the scientific method is about making predictions that could disprove them.
In this case, his analogy can be easily disproved by numerous tests. For instance, if the method of making poetry was the same as that employed in science then a reasonable hypothesis would be that poems would continue to evolve as does scientific understanding and theories. No one would dare touch a poet's word (except through translation), even after millennia. They would be universally condemned. On the other hand, scientific theories such as evolution, have changed immensely and the scientists that discover new facts that change it are usually celebrated.
392
Of course poetry evolves: it's called interpretation. Duh. If you substitute "poetry" for any impactfully written statement such as the US Constitution or the Bible, you would see how they have greatly impacted human endeavor and that they have evolved through the passage of time and through constantly changing interpretations. I find the small mindedness of scientists amusing.
Just because their work helps to provide forward motion for human endeavor, they think they are already on Mount Olympus. I would like to see the last one standing as a giant, uncontrollable meteor comes hurtling towards the earth.
Just because their work helps to provide forward motion for human endeavor, they think they are already on Mount Olympus. I would like to see the last one standing as a giant, uncontrollable meteor comes hurtling towards the earth.
The author has had nearly fifty years with which to ponder his original impression that the poet Spender's method of editing was akin to the scientific method. In all that time, he might have entertained the notion that Spender's "rubric" testing the efficacy of his poetry is no proof of employing the scientific method and would be a poor way to start an Op-ed piece for the New York Times. Spender could apply the same rubric to judge the end result whether the words were generated by trial and error, conscious planning, or twelve monkeys banging away on typewriters. That this author does not offer proof that his first example is indeed similar to the scientific method makes the readers doubt that he truly understands the scientific method.
68
To me, the scientific method means reproducible results. People are not consistent.
21
does this mean that the social sciences are pseudo-sciences? that 'social science' is an oxymoron?
3
naive: Ostensibly, yes: pseudo. But the hard part is isolating variables, which is what you need to consider when you say "people are inconsistent." The scientific method can be applied to social science, but it's not clearly a good fit and the shortcomings need to be acknowledged.
3
I work hard as a science teacher to impress upon my students the importance of clear and simple writing and I work diligently as a scientist to design experiments and communicate our findings in ways that clarify, rather than turbidify, our understanding of our world.
In this column professor Blachowicz has, in clear and simple writing, laid bare his misunderstanding of the scientific method. However, from my experience in writing scientific papers, I would have to agree, that editing for precision (writing poetry?) leads to a deeper personal understanding of our results that I hope is communicated to my readers.
In this column professor Blachowicz has, in clear and simple writing, laid bare his misunderstanding of the scientific method. However, from my experience in writing scientific papers, I would have to agree, that editing for precision (writing poetry?) leads to a deeper personal understanding of our results that I hope is communicated to my readers.
40
I think Professor Blachowicz has mistaken the creative process, and the use of reason and organization to do something creative, with the scientific method. I certainly believe that scientists, like artists, can be creative. As such, I would not be surprised that scientists and artists use similar techniques to help their ideas reach fruition. However, my understanding of the scientific method is that its main purpose and value is to challenge ideas and to remove bias during that process. The key elements of the process are developing hypotheses (i.e. initial creative act), well designed experiments designed to challenge (falsify) hypothesis, and re-conception of hypotheses when experimental results clash with the original idea. The goal at the end is an objective clarity to thinking on an issue in the natural world that can be reproduced by others.
8
The key aspect of scientific inquiry is that it is tied to natural phenomena, and the scientific method is only “scientific” when it is tied to observations about the physical, natural world. Because nature exists independent of human thought, it is possible have an idea about nature that is wrong. It is also possible to test whether the idea is wrong. The same cannot be said of concepts like “justice” or “beauty” or “gender” or “equality of opportunity” because these are distinctly human concepts--indeed, they often vary across cultures and time periods. Two right-thinking individuals can start with the same information about such concepts and come to very different conclusions. It is frequently difficult or even impossible to discern either (or both) of these ideas is wrong. No matter whether the method used to arrive at these conclusions superficially resembles the scientific method, it cannot be truly scientific since the “observation” step is not grounded in nature. That’s not to say there is no truth in non-scientific disciplines. It’s just that these truths are difficult to verify, and many (though not all) change from society to society and from age to age.
35
This commenter reveals the critical flaw in Blachowiz's analyais: science deals with the tangible, physisical universe, a reality that, since Bacon and Descartes, we take as existing independent of human constructs. The "concepts" Blacowicz "tests" with his pseudoscientific method--courage, beauty, etc.--are all purely human, cultural concepts. They have no universal reality outside the cultural context in which they are judged. In a time when, as Isaac Asimov said, "democracy means my ignirance is as good as your knowledge'" Blachowicz's analysis is dangerously misleding sophistry.
9
Much of science is concerned with "natural phenomena", but not all. Consider the analysis of algorithms, which is a perfectly valid field of scholarly inquiry but has no "natural" component. By observing, theorizing, and hypothesis testing, deep understandings have emerged, which are surely "scientific" in their essence. I'm thinking of Donald Knuth's proof that [Order] N * log(N) is a lower bound for efficiency of any sorting method, which emerged from evidence which gradually yielded to theory.
Similarly, the deep theories underlying public-key encryption didn't emerge directly from mathematics but from observation of the (non-natural) world.
Science takes its raw material where it finds it, and makes of it what it can. The natural world is a fecund source, but there are others.
Similarly, the deep theories underlying public-key encryption didn't emerge directly from mathematics but from observation of the (non-natural) world.
Science takes its raw material where it finds it, and makes of it what it can. The natural world is a fecund source, but there are others.
1
I might suggest that Professor Blachowicz spend the holiday weekend binge-watching MYTHBUSTERS. The show demonstrates how "other forms of thinking" sometimes lead us to conclusions that may seem plausible, but are, empirically and (critically) measurably false. Our subjective minds play tricks on us; objective measurement and hypothesis testing corrects those tricks.
103
The author misses the main feature of science -- it is not to explain experiments already performed, but to predict the outcomes of future experiments. This is the main problem with the "patchwork" tailoring example -- it would be useless for prediction.
122
Science relies on falsifiable hypothesis, this is important and unmentioned. Also, this piece spends a lot of time defining the outlines of Ockham's Razor without getting there. Ockham's Razor is to science what a good definition of courage should be.
42
The author has a point that the arts have some features that resemble methodology used in science. I do test new harmonies when I write music, I stumble on sounds that work (or don't). There is a simplicity as well in art. My final constructions are crafted in many ways. In science, I work with observations, and I create and test models against those observations. Obviously, one of the things that defines a good piece of science is simplicity, universality (how well it applies to related situations), and of course the quality of the fit.
I think the main difference is that art is rather flexible in terms of the goal whereas science presumably has an objective explanation that is the goal. You can only say if you like a work of art or you don't. On the other hand, science, there really is a truth, and, in principle, the truth is discernable from the simplicity and universality of the concept.
I don't think we should take the analogy too far in this respect. Philosophy on how to live right is not the same as doing good science. This has competing values that are difficult to agree on completely. On the other hand, science is not, in of itself, about values. Robbing banks could become a "science" for a professional bank robber. However, philosophy would hardly condone such a practice, even though the skillful thief may "profit" greatly from such an adventure. A philosopher might chose to die for a simple principle rather than profit from doing evil. Hence, it is not so simple.
I think the main difference is that art is rather flexible in terms of the goal whereas science presumably has an objective explanation that is the goal. You can only say if you like a work of art or you don't. On the other hand, science, there really is a truth, and, in principle, the truth is discernable from the simplicity and universality of the concept.
I don't think we should take the analogy too far in this respect. Philosophy on how to live right is not the same as doing good science. This has competing values that are difficult to agree on completely. On the other hand, science is not, in of itself, about values. Robbing banks could become a "science" for a professional bank robber. However, philosophy would hardly condone such a practice, even though the skillful thief may "profit" greatly from such an adventure. A philosopher might chose to die for a simple principle rather than profit from doing evil. Hence, it is not so simple.
94
"You can only say if you like a work of art or you don't. " No, one can judge, perhaps or probably objectively, whether it is a work of art, and what sort of art it is. For example, poets are able to judge as poetry poems they hate. This means that there are characteristics that set the object apart - a “poetic order” as opposed to “pretty.” If one says they “like a poem,” this means it has poetic order and is (to them) pretty.
I might not like your music, Wayne (for example), but I can tell that it’s music.
I might not like your music, Wayne (for example), but I can tell that it’s music.
There is good poetry and bad, and there is good science and bad. The good is more reliable than the bad in both cases.
A good poet has some sense of positive and negative controls, which form a cornerstone of practical, reliable science. But they are often applied implicity. A good scientist has some sense of conceptual elegance and even "rhyme," the manner in which concepts in different areas naturally resemble each other.
The perfect scientist and the perfect poet might even converge.
Of course only a bad poet or a bad scientist would conclude that the existence of this shared structure invalidates either field. It elevates both!
A good poet has some sense of positive and negative controls, which form a cornerstone of practical, reliable science. But they are often applied implicity. A good scientist has some sense of conceptual elegance and even "rhyme," the manner in which concepts in different areas naturally resemble each other.
The perfect scientist and the perfect poet might even converge.
Of course only a bad poet or a bad scientist would conclude that the existence of this shared structure invalidates either field. It elevates both!
2
Science is the study of life's facts, The liberal arts are the study of life's truths. The method of study is the same when done with respect for the discipline.
3
You can show that a theory fails if an observable cannot be explained by that theory.
How do you show what "life's truths" are? Are the truths in your life the same as in everyone else's? If so, try providing a list of truths and see how far you get.
How do you show what "life's truths" are? Are the truths in your life the same as in everyone else's? If so, try providing a list of truths and see how far you get.
5
"..how is it that the results of science are more reliable than what is provided by these other forms?"
Answer: through attempts of other scientists to test and falsify one's findings. Please read Karl Popper on this, he figured it all out ages ago.
Answer: through attempts of other scientists to test and falsify one's findings. Please read Karl Popper on this, he figured it all out ages ago.
57
The quantification is only part of what makes science more efficient for obtaining accurate descriptions of the natural world. The relevant part that this article misses are systematic implementations to increase objectivity in judgement. Indeed, this is what one should call "method" in this context. These are eg requirements of reproducibility, peer review, guidelines for good scientific conduct, academic titles to begin with, measures of statistical significance etc.
There was also, once upon, an institution called "tenure," now mostly defunct, whose purpose it was to protect researchers from financial and peer pressure, hence allowing scientists to freely pursue the research they thought relevant. Those were the days.
As much as I value philosophers studying the process of science, they should come to realize that it's a human endeavor and can't be understood without paying attention to the sociology of groups and the reality of life in academia. It's a necessarily interdisciplinary topic.
There was also, once upon, an institution called "tenure," now mostly defunct, whose purpose it was to protect researchers from financial and peer pressure, hence allowing scientists to freely pursue the research they thought relevant. Those were the days.
As much as I value philosophers studying the process of science, they should come to realize that it's a human endeavor and can't be understood without paying attention to the sociology of groups and the reality of life in academia. It's a necessarily interdisciplinary topic.
7
If "no DISTINCTLY scientific method" is what you meant as stated in paragraph two, then why is this not the headline? This is extremely annoying.
28
It there a point to this? The scientific method works: you combine theory and disciplined observation, usually overseen by a community of trained professionals. Of course it's not perfect, but it does to tend to weed out mistakes and hence adds to theoretical understanding in the process. Even when there are accepted notions that approach orthodoxy, it is flexible enough to be self-questioning. Is it superior? That depends on what you want to do - if you want to order a planet or engineer car, I would choose science. If you want to address philosophical or religious questions that have no clear answers, I probably wouldn't employ the scientific method, but I still might.
13
This essay will make social 'scientists' everywhere gush. Utter nonsense.....though, as a philosopher once wrote, "were I to believe in nonsense this is the kind of nonsense I would believe in'
27
LOL. agreed
2
There is a distinctly scientific method, and it is often applied by artists of all stripes. In music, for example, details about notes, scales, chords, and timing are all subject to scientifically obtained rules by which the composer is able to achieve known results even if totally deaf. Likewise, painters follow scientifically obtained rules about color and texture. Novelists, poets, and authors in general follow rules for their genres. If someone develops something new the result is soon scientifically analyzed and incorporated into the rules. The scientific method not only exists, it has been successfully employed not just in physics, but in almost every human endeavor. So, we have etymologists, linguists, neologists, and lexicographers. All more skilled at arriving at definitions than philosophers.
11
Science is an objective, usually mathematical, analysis of a given phenomenon. Poetry is subjective. Poetry can describe a blue sky, sometimes in beautiful, moving language. Science can explain why the sky is blue.
25
>>>>
"Science is not a substitute for common sense but an extension of it” ........
"How… could one hope to find out about that external world from such meager traces? In short, if our science were true, how could we know it?”
W. V. O. Quine
"Science is not a substitute for common sense but an extension of it” ........
"How… could one hope to find out about that external world from such meager traces? In short, if our science were true, how could we know it?”
W. V. O. Quine
3
Science and the arts are not like oil and water. What a sadly anti-intellectual position to divide the world into scientists and non-scientists, as if science (literally knowledge) were something alien to Dr. Blachowicz's world.
14
'Early on, Kepler determined that the orbit of Mars was not a circle (the default perfect shape of the planetary spheres, an idea inherited from the Greeks).' ~ James Blachowicz
Not so. Early on, and for much of the years he spent on the matter, Kepler was convinced that the orbit of Mars must be a circle. Why? Because the philosophers insisted that it must be a circle:
'Kepler’s working notes show that he thought he must have made an error when he first made this comparison. Not until late in his process of discovery did he abandon the idea of a circular orbit for Mars.
"And me, Christ! - I had triumphed [over Mars] for two full years" he exclaims upon the revelation. (Donahue translation, p. 451)
"My first error," he relates, "was to suppose that the path of the planet is a perfect circle, a supposition that was all the more noxious a thief of time the more it was endowed with the authority of all philosophers, and the more convenient it was for metaphysics in particular.” (Donahue translation, p. 417)'
http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/NotaCircle.html
Not so. Early on, and for much of the years he spent on the matter, Kepler was convinced that the orbit of Mars must be a circle. Why? Because the philosophers insisted that it must be a circle:
'Kepler’s working notes show that he thought he must have made an error when he first made this comparison. Not until late in his process of discovery did he abandon the idea of a circular orbit for Mars.
"And me, Christ! - I had triumphed [over Mars] for two full years" he exclaims upon the revelation. (Donahue translation, p. 451)
"My first error," he relates, "was to suppose that the path of the planet is a perfect circle, a supposition that was all the more noxious a thief of time the more it was endowed with the authority of all philosophers, and the more convenient it was for metaphysics in particular.” (Donahue translation, p. 417)'
http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/NotaCircle.html
42
In general, Kepler was a fool. However, even fools sometimes get lucky with something.
Thanks for the Kepler quotes. After skimming Blachowicz's book, "Of Two Minds: The Nature of Inquiry", I believe that he is analysing the work of a hypothetical Kepler, not the real Kepler. So where you read "Kepler", you should mentally replace that with "H-Kepler".
as Einstein said "if you wish to learn from the theoretical physicist anything about the methods which he uses, I would give you the following piece of advice: Don't listen to his words, examine his achievements". the author states that "I am not a practicing scientist" (btw, what exactly is a 'non-practicing' scientist?). you can't talk the talk unless you've walked the walk. finally, the reason scientists don't study 'the scientific method 'was well-stated Feynman who said "philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds". so of what use is the philosophy of science? the answer is that it provides academic positions for certain people to use to study what they themselves can't possibly understand and that of no use to anyone else.
23
Wait a sec. I am all for thinking clearly and carefully. I am, as well, all for avoiding making assertions about a subject or a tradition of research and inquiry that are based on lazy cultural stereo-typing, and betrays a complete lack of acquaintance with the subject commented on. Finally, I think that distinguished physicists speaking in a public setting have a strong obligation to follow these good-sense scruples. The rich, long, core traditions of work by philosophers of physics, by philosophers of biology (and so on), is deeply informed by knowledge of the relevant sciences (and their history). This work by philosophers of science has been and is welcomed by the (many) empirical researchers who know it. Instead, the bald pronouncements made by Richard Feynman and by (more recently) by Stephen Hawking display zero knowledge of serious work in the philosophy of science:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/what-happened-befo...
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/what-happened-befo...
3
My problem has been, and will continue to be, that poets can make the sun rise from the west and can be applauded for doing so. This is an over simplified way of saying people are often willing to overlook the facts in the case of a good story. Being willing and able to attempt to disprove the theory du jour is a critical part of the process and unfortunately a great many people like to avoid the inconvenience of truth and possible embarrassment.
115
Bob Dylan makes the sun rise in the west and set in the east in the song I Shall Be Released. It goes like this: "I see my light come shining/from the west down to the east./Any day now, any day now,/I shall be released." I puzzled over this lyric for years, every time I heard the song. How can the sun rise in the west? Then it hit me. The song is from the point of view of a prisoner, who does not have access to the outside world where the sun naturally rises in the east. Enclosed in his cell, depending on the arrangement of the windows in the prison, he might see the "light" go from west to east. Perhaps the sunlight appears first on the western wall of his cell; then moves to the eastern quarter. This paradox illustrates the prisoner's confinement and how this confinement corrupts the natural world. Poetic, not scientific, but insightful.
13
The fundamental flaw in the scientific method is that we are limited by our senses.Science is based utilizing empirical evidence to establish an hypothesis and then testing and replicating that proposition. The problem is that their are dimensions and realities that our senses can't perceive. There are visual,auditory, and perhaps unknown spectrums we can't comprehend. The result is that any "scientific truth"we is temporary until superior ways of perceiving all realities are established.
2
Well....as you recognize by the end of your post, limitations in measurement isn't a problem with the scientific method because when new techniques are developed, the original hypothesis can be re-challenged. It's also the case that if a hypothesis is developed but which can't be challenged (i.e. because we lack the tools), we can't complete the cycle of the scientific method (i.e. experimentation that can falsify). However, it is possible that our insight and creativity could be limited by our experience and senses.
5
Scientists have in fact considered and acknowledged that.
One response has been to devise ways to see that which is beyond our unadorned five senses, whether it be the telescope and microscope or the large hadron collider.
Another response is the famous 1974 essay by Thomas Nagel, 'What Is It Like to Be a Bat?' exploring the problem of shared subjective experience and the possible limits of objective observation. (Amazingly, the column nowhere mentions Nagel. Perhaps because the column suffers by inevitable comparison.)
A third response is to note that poets and artists have embraced science, from the Renaissance sculptors and painters who benefited by the new insights into perspective and anatomy to Georges Seurat drawing on science to create his pointillist style, a trompe l'oeil in which the 'colour' is mixed in the observer's eye, not on the palette. We might also observe that Dante, Shakespeare, et al. incorporated the science of their day into their work, and while the poetry endures, the 'science' - the four humours, the heavenly spheres, etc. - requires suspension of disbelief.
Or, fourth, we could re-read CS Lewis' 'The Two Cultures' essay.
Or all the above. Surely a more productive use of time than reading The Stone.
One response has been to devise ways to see that which is beyond our unadorned five senses, whether it be the telescope and microscope or the large hadron collider.
Another response is the famous 1974 essay by Thomas Nagel, 'What Is It Like to Be a Bat?' exploring the problem of shared subjective experience and the possible limits of objective observation. (Amazingly, the column nowhere mentions Nagel. Perhaps because the column suffers by inevitable comparison.)
A third response is to note that poets and artists have embraced science, from the Renaissance sculptors and painters who benefited by the new insights into perspective and anatomy to Georges Seurat drawing on science to create his pointillist style, a trompe l'oeil in which the 'colour' is mixed in the observer's eye, not on the palette. We might also observe that Dante, Shakespeare, et al. incorporated the science of their day into their work, and while the poetry endures, the 'science' - the four humours, the heavenly spheres, etc. - requires suspension of disbelief.
Or, fourth, we could re-read CS Lewis' 'The Two Cultures' essay.
Or all the above. Surely a more productive use of time than reading The Stone.
5
"I think the answer is that science deals with highly quantified variables and that it is the precision of its results that supplies this reliability. But make no mistake: Quantified precision is not to be confused with a superior method of thinking."
I am a practicing engineer applying the scientific method every day in the products and services my firm provides our customers.
I'll take a different tack than Historic Home Plans, starting from the same point.
Merriam-Webster defines "superior" as "high or higher in quality" I would posit that higher reliability is higher quality and thus "superior". The basis of the scientific method is natural science. Reproducible results. A program based on an algorithm to predict results of natural processes should produce the same results each time with the same inputs, regardless of the computer it is run on. The results of the question, "define courage" will not result in the same answer from multiple people.
And there we come to the basic fallacy of this argument. This is comparing apples and oranges at this stage of human development. The workings of the human brain are too unknown today to make hypothesis with reproducible results. Possibly we humans will never fully understand our own brains without help from other forms of intelligence.
Questions like, "How old is the earth" can be answered definitively based on centuries of successive proven hypothesis based on the scientific method. There should be no debate about that.
I am a practicing engineer applying the scientific method every day in the products and services my firm provides our customers.
I'll take a different tack than Historic Home Plans, starting from the same point.
Merriam-Webster defines "superior" as "high or higher in quality" I would posit that higher reliability is higher quality and thus "superior". The basis of the scientific method is natural science. Reproducible results. A program based on an algorithm to predict results of natural processes should produce the same results each time with the same inputs, regardless of the computer it is run on. The results of the question, "define courage" will not result in the same answer from multiple people.
And there we come to the basic fallacy of this argument. This is comparing apples and oranges at this stage of human development. The workings of the human brain are too unknown today to make hypothesis with reproducible results. Possibly we humans will never fully understand our own brains without help from other forms of intelligence.
Questions like, "How old is the earth" can be answered definitively based on centuries of successive proven hypothesis based on the scientific method. There should be no debate about that.
20
The scientific method is "simple":
1 - Have an idea. Let's call it X. We have a hypothesis,
2 - Is X testable? If no, go back to step 1. Otherwise, continue to step 3.
3 - Design a way to test X.
4 - Test X. If the test is consistent with the expectation, we can continue to refine it. Otherwise, go back to 1. If our refined model consistently tests out ok, we can call it a theory. A scientific theory is not "just a theory". We build microprocessors and nuclear power plants based on theory.
This is very different from say Philosophy, whether or not we stop at step 1. E.g. Adam Smith's invisible hand and Marx's base and superstructure are examples where the philosopher stopped at 1. Both are interesting concepts and can be used to explain culture and economics. But are they accurate?
1 - Have an idea. Let's call it X. We have a hypothesis,
2 - Is X testable? If no, go back to step 1. Otherwise, continue to step 3.
3 - Design a way to test X.
4 - Test X. If the test is consistent with the expectation, we can continue to refine it. Otherwise, go back to 1. If our refined model consistently tests out ok, we can call it a theory. A scientific theory is not "just a theory". We build microprocessors and nuclear power plants based on theory.
This is very different from say Philosophy, whether or not we stop at step 1. E.g. Adam Smith's invisible hand and Marx's base and superstructure are examples where the philosopher stopped at 1. Both are interesting concepts and can be used to explain culture and economics. But are they accurate?
20
There are many roads by which scientist can reach a valid conclusion. What you describe is not THE scientific method but A scientific method.
1
Thanks for the clarifying post.
My only addition is that in # 3, "test" means "falsify." The experiments need to be designed to challenge and have the potential to exclude the possibility of the hypothesis.
My only addition is that in # 3, "test" means "falsify." The experiments need to be designed to challenge and have the potential to exclude the possibility of the hypothesis.
3
Blachowicz lost me at "great fear." All his argumentation thereafter becomes relative.
12
"Science" and the "scientific method" are based on observation.
- "Observations" are facts - what I see, hear, smell ... AND what others can see, hear, smell. Observations may rely on skill, but do not rely on special powers or revelation.
- The "assertion of authority" - my Dad said, my teacher said, my holy book says - are not "observations." What my Dad says may be true, but it is not a scientifically valid observation. A logical conclusion drawn from what my Dad says may also be true, but it is not a scientifically valid conclusion: logic provides no tools to test the truth or validity of premises.
- Quantitation provides some easy benchmarks for testing hypotheses, but does not affect the underlying, qualitative relationship (this is why we see so much "lying with numbers").
This is lecture 1 for all of my chemistry courses. We are in the science business. And there are rules. If you want to play "truth" and "beauty," see Professor X in the philosophy department.
- "Observations" are facts - what I see, hear, smell ... AND what others can see, hear, smell. Observations may rely on skill, but do not rely on special powers or revelation.
- The "assertion of authority" - my Dad said, my teacher said, my holy book says - are not "observations." What my Dad says may be true, but it is not a scientifically valid observation. A logical conclusion drawn from what my Dad says may also be true, but it is not a scientifically valid conclusion: logic provides no tools to test the truth or validity of premises.
- Quantitation provides some easy benchmarks for testing hypotheses, but does not affect the underlying, qualitative relationship (this is why we see so much "lying with numbers").
This is lecture 1 for all of my chemistry courses. We are in the science business. And there are rules. If you want to play "truth" and "beauty," see Professor X in the philosophy department.
333
What an irresponsible headline. In this age of anti-intellectualism and do it yourself media which allows, nay almost guarantees, the distortion and manipulation of meaning, why is the New York Times publishing a headline that will undoubtedly find its way into "debates" about evolution, climate change and all the other pseudo science out there?
831
Dead-on! Thank you for expressing my thoughts better than I could. At least the article itself avoided my worst fears and did not literally equate the scientific method with philosophy. But the ability of the anti-evolutionists and climate deniers to quote a NYT headline leaves me shivering.
26
It's a perfect example of a click bait headline.
82
I suggest that true anti-intellectualism would be expressed in rejecting a philosophical argument because of its title. Why would acceptance of the results of scientific inquiry require that there be a single definable method? Is there a single method for mathematics? For that matter, there is no single method for learning how to ride a bike. Does that mean bike riding does not actually exist?
I would not worry too much about possible misuse by those who deny evolution and climate change. Irrationality will always find ways to express itself regardless of what philosophical essays in the Times maintain.
I would not worry too much about possible misuse by those who deny evolution and climate change. Irrationality will always find ways to express itself regardless of what philosophical essays in the Times maintain.
1
I love “The Stone”; but sometimes … it seems as if its pieces heralded the eponymous legislation we recently saw in Colorado and Washington State.
Of course there is a scientific method and why its results are considered more reliable than those from other forms of human inquiry is manifestly evident.
The purpose of a poet’s systematic “investigation” is to produce a product of desired content. The purpose of science is to discover truth, whatever it might be – unless you happen to be an environmental scientist who invents data to support your ideological convictions.
One can bend the “method” as one wishes to produce a desired end; but the true scientist cannot bend the method to produce truth without missing the point entirely.
Of course there is a scientific method and why its results are considered more reliable than those from other forms of human inquiry is manifestly evident.
The purpose of a poet’s systematic “investigation” is to produce a product of desired content. The purpose of science is to discover truth, whatever it might be – unless you happen to be an environmental scientist who invents data to support your ideological convictions.
One can bend the “method” as one wishes to produce a desired end; but the true scientist cannot bend the method to produce truth without missing the point entirely.
14
.. or you happen to be a corporate scientist, dismissing data that doesn't please your employer.
11
Richard,
There are "Scientists" that are less than "true". The current "climate change" debate is an example of this. The "facts" are that the earth's climate has been changing for a long time. This can be demonstrated even though it can not yet be modeled or predicted in advance. In fact, without some major breakthroughs it may never be possible to exactly forecast the weather or model the earth's climate accurately enough to make any but the most general predictions.
As an example, the seas are rising and have been since the end of the last ice age. They have risen a number of hundred feet in a number of thousand years. They continue to rise today and will until the next ice age when they again start to fall. All very scientific and generally useless as a prediction of the future.
When will the next ice age start and the seas decline? When we were both younger the "Experts" said the process had already begun. Today the "Experts" say the opposite and that change is an "unquestionable religious dogma" yet we have only been able to accurately measure sea level since 1978 when the first GPS satellites were launched. Not quite a 40 year slice out of the last many thousands. Satellites have only been used to measure sea level accurately since 1992. The global change of .12" per year is still within the margin of error for the satellite technology used. That said it works out to 300' in 30K years which is the correct answer for the last 30K years. This is accelerated sea rise?
There are "Scientists" that are less than "true". The current "climate change" debate is an example of this. The "facts" are that the earth's climate has been changing for a long time. This can be demonstrated even though it can not yet be modeled or predicted in advance. In fact, without some major breakthroughs it may never be possible to exactly forecast the weather or model the earth's climate accurately enough to make any but the most general predictions.
As an example, the seas are rising and have been since the end of the last ice age. They have risen a number of hundred feet in a number of thousand years. They continue to rise today and will until the next ice age when they again start to fall. All very scientific and generally useless as a prediction of the future.
When will the next ice age start and the seas decline? When we were both younger the "Experts" said the process had already begun. Today the "Experts" say the opposite and that change is an "unquestionable religious dogma" yet we have only been able to accurately measure sea level since 1978 when the first GPS satellites were launched. Not quite a 40 year slice out of the last many thousands. Satellites have only been used to measure sea level accurately since 1992. The global change of .12" per year is still within the margin of error for the satellite technology used. That said it works out to 300' in 30K years which is the correct answer for the last 30K years. This is accelerated sea rise?
2
"The purpose of science is to discover truth, whatever it might be..."
Apparently your ideological convictions prevent you from discovering the truth, backed by ample data rooted in scientific method, that approximately 98% of legitimate environmental scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change and anthropogenic influence are threats to sustainability.
What will make truth evident for you? Testing the system to failure? Mass extinction? Or realizing that breathable air, fresh water, healthy soils and viable life support systems are essential to survival?
Sustainable life as we know it has evolved over the eons without the "benefit" of the denialists' fixations on incomplete balance sheets, maximium monetary profits and externalized costs.
Ben Franklin is attributed with the adage, "When the well's dry, we know the worth of water."
Apparently your ideological convictions prevent you from discovering the truth, backed by ample data rooted in scientific method, that approximately 98% of legitimate environmental scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change and anthropogenic influence are threats to sustainability.
What will make truth evident for you? Testing the system to failure? Mass extinction? Or realizing that breathable air, fresh water, healthy soils and viable life support systems are essential to survival?
Sustainable life as we know it has evolved over the eons without the "benefit" of the denialists' fixations on incomplete balance sheets, maximium monetary profits and externalized costs.
Ben Franklin is attributed with the adage, "When the well's dry, we know the worth of water."
8
I suggest that professor Blachowicz re-read Karl Popper. The ability to refute or reject a hypothesis is the foundation of the scientific method. It is certainly possible that other "non-scientific" hypotheses can be refuted in a similar manner. But that just simply suggests that the methods of scientific inquiry can be applied more broadly. It is the refutation, not the concordance that drives this approach to inquiry.
435
Absolutely. The author appears to have never met Karl Popper.
4
Blachowicz cites Popper repeatedly in his book, "Of Two Minds: The Nature of Inquiry". (see the index)
1
I am really surprised by editorial oversight of NYT - why didn't they ask the author about falsification criteria or Kuhn or Feyerabend? What a poorly articulated OpEd on such an important topic!
Also there is no mention of 'computation means' in contemporary Science (especially in Cosmology and Genetics) which are heavily used. There was this whole kurfel about where life time String Theorist tried to stay away from Observations and how they got a solid push back; all evident in a famous European conference:
http://www.nature.com/news/feuding-physicists-turn-to-philosophy-for-hel...
Also there is no mention of 'computation means' in contemporary Science (especially in Cosmology and Genetics) which are heavily used. There was this whole kurfel about where life time String Theorist tried to stay away from Observations and how they got a solid push back; all evident in a famous European conference:
http://www.nature.com/news/feuding-physicists-turn-to-philosophy-for-hel...
There *is* a scientific method. In science, any systemization of understanding, theory, rule, equation, is judged by whether it agrees with known facts, and whether it makes predictions that can be tested, and the tests confirm it. Reality is accepted as ad-hoc, one thing after another, unless successfully explained.
In "A Brief History of Time" Stephen Hawking addresses this directly. Aristotle, Hawking points out, said that our world was composed of fire, air, earth and water. An interesting way to classify the world, but it makes no predictions that can be tested.
Einstein said that acceleration was indistinguishable from gravity. A much smaller theory, but one that makes specific predictions which can be tested. Einstein's theory is the more scientific, the more useful, and will stop being interesting if it can be shown to be wrong.
In "A Brief History of Time" Stephen Hawking addresses this directly. Aristotle, Hawking points out, said that our world was composed of fire, air, earth and water. An interesting way to classify the world, but it makes no predictions that can be tested.
Einstein said that acceleration was indistinguishable from gravity. A much smaller theory, but one that makes specific predictions which can be tested. Einstein's theory is the more scientific, the more useful, and will stop being interesting if it can be shown to be wrong.
89
"Curve-fitting" is usually an example of bad science. Can it be that this writer and NYT editors are clueless about the Scientific Method (see Karl Popper or an Introduction to Biology course)? The attempt to reject a well-constructed Null Hypothesis is central to modern science and was designed to avoid ad hoc "empirical fitting" (a term not commonly used in science ). Falsifiable hypotheses with repeatable experiments that control independent variables make for good science. I seriously doubt this author was ever a scientist.
107
The author specifically states that "I am not a practicing scientist."
"I am not a practicing scientist. So who am I to criticize scientists’ understanding of their method?"
He admits as much.
He admits as much.
1
Yes, but then he goes on to say that the discussion of the nature of scientific method is a philosophical one. And since he is a philosopher, the obvious intent of that last paragraph is to give his opinion gravitas (as opposed to the self-depreciating earlier sentence).
4
"Quantified precision is not to be confused with a superior method of thinking."
What a difference one word makes... "superior"
With that one word we step from objectivity to subjectivity.
On what basis do we define the "superiority" of one way of thinking over another?
If we are going to rank, how do we rank?
I am not a religious person but I happened to be invited to a very special mass yesterday, at an ancient chapel on the Atlantic coast of France, where the bishop had come to officiate, honoring a local Celtic saint, the patron saint of mariners in this area. The whole ceremony was infused with a pre-Christian atmosphere. The chapel itself was built on a site that was sacred well before the Christian era. At a certain point we processed out to the cliff outside the chapel. The local coast guard stations had sent their rescue boats out to near where we were and the bishop sent his blessings out to those brave mariners who every year save lives.
It was a beautiful event to witness. But I couldn't help thinking, what is really saving lives here is not a mass to Saint They, but rather the science that has led to the technology that makes those Coast Guard ships incredible life saving machines. It is the advances of cool, rational, scientific thinking that has doubled the human life expectancy and vastly increased our physical comfort.
Is that a basis on which to judge "superiority" of thinking?
Of course, how empty our long lives would be without Blake and Keats.
What a difference one word makes... "superior"
With that one word we step from objectivity to subjectivity.
On what basis do we define the "superiority" of one way of thinking over another?
If we are going to rank, how do we rank?
I am not a religious person but I happened to be invited to a very special mass yesterday, at an ancient chapel on the Atlantic coast of France, where the bishop had come to officiate, honoring a local Celtic saint, the patron saint of mariners in this area. The whole ceremony was infused with a pre-Christian atmosphere. The chapel itself was built on a site that was sacred well before the Christian era. At a certain point we processed out to the cliff outside the chapel. The local coast guard stations had sent their rescue boats out to near where we were and the bishop sent his blessings out to those brave mariners who every year save lives.
It was a beautiful event to witness. But I couldn't help thinking, what is really saving lives here is not a mass to Saint They, but rather the science that has led to the technology that makes those Coast Guard ships incredible life saving machines. It is the advances of cool, rational, scientific thinking that has doubled the human life expectancy and vastly increased our physical comfort.
Is that a basis on which to judge "superiority" of thinking?
Of course, how empty our long lives would be without Blake and Keats.
54
In this case, I think the author intends superior as more likely to be correct.
1
"... It is the advances of cool, rational, scientific thinking that has doubled the human life expectancy and vastly increased our physical comfort...."
Historic Home Plans
"God is the concern of man for his fellow men."
Historic Home Plans
"God is the concern of man for his fellow men."
Why are the results of science more reliable? I would suggest the key lies in tangible refutability. A good scientific hypothesis makes tangible predictions that can be disproved - and a good scientist accepts the need to adjust or reject her own hypothesis if it is disproved - by logic or by evidence.
In other fields, while on an individual level a poet or philosopher may apply something akin to the scientific method, she is much less likely to concede that her solution was wrong if it is challenged, given the difficulty of disproving something so subjective.
I am reminded of the scene in Amadeus where Mozart replays Salieri's composition after hearing it once, and changes one chord because another works better. While everyone, even Salieri himself, might see that Mozart's chord does indeed work better, there is no process by which this can actually be proven, and most Salieri's in this position will simply deny that it does - often backed by the power of authority and position.
Compare this with planetary orbits. Despite the incredibly power of the church and its absolute desire to prove Galileo wrong, eventually the data proved Galileo right, and the church had to accept defeat.
That said, this is a really interesting analysis!
In other fields, while on an individual level a poet or philosopher may apply something akin to the scientific method, she is much less likely to concede that her solution was wrong if it is challenged, given the difficulty of disproving something so subjective.
I am reminded of the scene in Amadeus where Mozart replays Salieri's composition after hearing it once, and changes one chord because another works better. While everyone, even Salieri himself, might see that Mozart's chord does indeed work better, there is no process by which this can actually be proven, and most Salieri's in this position will simply deny that it does - often backed by the power of authority and position.
Compare this with planetary orbits. Despite the incredibly power of the church and its absolute desire to prove Galileo wrong, eventually the data proved Galileo right, and the church had to accept defeat.
That said, this is a really interesting analysis!
31
"A good definition is simple ..."
A philosopher should know better than to use the word "simple" without defining it first.
"Unfortunately, there is no simple equation for such an oval (although there is one for an ellipse)."
An ellipse has more symmetries[1] than an oval, so the ellipse is simpler. A circle has an infinity of symmetries, so it is simpler yet. Hence, the greater the number of symmetries, the greater the simplicity of a geometric figure.
The question is whether that definition of simplicity can be adapted to equations and to verbal definitions ...
[1] "Symmetry" can be defined with mathematical rigor, but that definition is beyond the scope of this comment. See "Symmetry" by Hermann Weyl.
A philosopher should know better than to use the word "simple" without defining it first.
"Unfortunately, there is no simple equation for such an oval (although there is one for an ellipse)."
An ellipse has more symmetries[1] than an oval, so the ellipse is simpler. A circle has an infinity of symmetries, so it is simpler yet. Hence, the greater the number of symmetries, the greater the simplicity of a geometric figure.
The question is whether that definition of simplicity can be adapted to equations and to verbal definitions ...
[1] "Symmetry" can be defined with mathematical rigor, but that definition is beyond the scope of this comment. See "Symmetry" by Hermann Weyl.
8
The traditionally accepted difference between scientific enquiry and other forms of enquiry is that scientific theories must be "falsifiable". Which means that the scientific theory must make predictions about unknown situations that can be tested after the theory is stated. The more testable predictions the theory makes, the more scientific it is.
136
Definitions are established the exact opposite of that, by usage,
If science was the same way then reality would also be determined by usage. If most people believe the sun goes around the earth, then it does! Writing poetry is identical to writing a scientific paper. "How can I best convey what I want to convey?" It's called editing, or working from a rough to the final draft.
If science was the same way then reality would also be determined by usage. If most people believe the sun goes around the earth, then it does! Writing poetry is identical to writing a scientific paper. "How can I best convey what I want to convey?" It's called editing, or working from a rough to the final draft.
13
Look, I see a flower in front of me. I don’t see any “matter” – it’s an abstract concept. What you have – at least, from the view of William James’ radical empiricism – is an array of colors and forms completely enfolded in awareness. Full stop.
Now, a scientist comes along, abstracts the awareness, abstracts the colors, abstracts the tangibility, and says, “I’m going to take out my ruler and get some numbers to play around with.”
.
So now what do we have? Some unknown “x” is stimulating my brain and senses and what appears is this “flower” – this array of colors/tangibility/form – and the scientist has his numbers which are associated with the experience.
In the 19th century some materialist philosophers came along and said that “X” is matter. Sometime in the 1920s the physicists started talking about all kinds of things which didn’t fit the 19th century definition matter, so the philosophers had to invent “physicalism.”
If you google “What does ‘physical’ mean?” you’ll quickly discover it has no meaning... go a bit deeper, you realize it has only a negative meaning. It means “the stuff of the universe is dead, unconscious and unintelligent.”
Then you have EVERYTHING to explain – how did things start, how did patterns emerge, how do they persist, how did consciousness emerge...
Materialism is, as Pauli said, “Not even wrong.”
www.remember-to-breathe.org