List, I found this very short provocative essay of interest. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/there-is-no-scientific-method.html?ref=opinion
The author's conclusion: 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. But make no mistake: Quantified precision is not to be confused with a superior method of thinking. I am not a practicing scientist. So who am I to criticize scientists’ understanding of their method? I would turn this question around. Scientific method is not itself an object of study for scientists, but it is an object of study for philosophers of science. It is not scientists who are trained specifically to provide analyses of scientific method. James Blachowicz <http://www.luc.edu/philosophy/faculty_blachowicz.shtml> is a professor emeritus of philosophy at Loyola University Chicago and the author of “Of Two Minds: The Nature of Inquiry <http://www.sunypress.edu/p-2705-of-two-minds.aspx>” and “Essential Difference: Toward a Metaphysics of Emergence <http://www.sunypress.edu/p-5374-essential-difference.aspx>.” Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690*
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
