Gary, List,
I am certainly overwhelmed and lost in translation so have mercy on me, simply try to find this merely amusing.... but how taking into account "revelation" or "miracles" "how is it that the results of science are more reliable than what is provided by these other forms?" Imho science is way behind in defining certain processes, concepts or things comparing to other forms... As an example of revelation, Dmitri Mendeleev was obsessed with finding a logical way to organize the chemical elements. It had been preying on his mind for months but... he made his discovery in a dream... Imho science is slowly describing in its own language of numbers and parameters what can be or was already fully grasped by a human mind and vivid imagination. It seems to me that Quantified precision with exceptions defeats ideal as a whole. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Word - ideal. Exceptions are limiting the whole without seeing the whole picture... If we talk about courage with exceptions, then retreating for the sake of winning in a long run, well known in history, is an exception of the exception? :) Once again, my sincere apologies, I'm not an expert in this field... :) Peace to all! Life to all! Love to all! Olga > On 05 Jul 2016, at 22:55, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 is a professor emeritus of philosophy at Loyola University > Chicago and the author of “Of Two Minds: The Nature of Inquiry” and > “Essential Difference: Toward a Metaphysics of Emergence.” > > Best, > > Gary R > > > > > 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 . > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
