Justin wrote:
>I am not sure what the point of the study of scientific method is,a nd I
>am specially trained in it. There may not be a single point. I doubt if
>there is.
Perhaps you had the wrong professors (and given your complaints about them,
that seems likely). But you don't present an argument for this proposition
that can be either endorsed or rejected, so we don't know if it's valid or
not.
>But I am absolutely certain that philosophers have no insight denied to
>scientists about what counts as good science. If the philosophers say,
>good science must do X , nd the scientists say, sez who!, the scientists
>should win.
So you think that having insights from outside of one's discipline never
helps? At least in economics, I know that knowing that ideology plays a
role in each of the major research programs. So it helps to pay attention
to such things, while philosophical reflection helps us to find the balance
between abstract model-building and empiricism. I also think that examining
epistemological discussions helps us avoid such views as dogmatism and
indeterminism.
In biology, it's clear that method (including ideology) plays a role: look
at Dawkins vs. Gould. A little discussion of what's wrong with reductionism
would help the former a lot. Levins & Lewontin apply a philosophical lever
to pry out all sorts of important stuff in their DIALECTICAL BIOLOGIST.
They don't eschew philosophy at all.
Even physics (the alleged king of the physical sciences), when it gets into
speculative stuff like string theory or cosmology, could use some
philosophical reflection, since the usual consensus is impossible to
attain. Though THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE (by Bruce Greene) is quite revealing
and even more brilliant, I think that it could have used some philosophical
insight (such as concerning the relationships between parts and wholes or
the nature of scientific inquiry) to make his exposition even clearer. The
Lakatosian idea of competing research programs also seems to apply to the
split between string theory and the "standard model," while Occam's Razor
might decide the debate in favor of the former.
I think it's better to have dialogue between different academic disciplines
rather than to set them off in little overspecialized boxes (all made of
ticky-tacky and they all look just the same). But even if the scientists
insist on being positivistic jerks, those who study science can learn from
philosophy, helping us choose which scientific theory or generalization is
most valid. Unless we decide to be ruled by scientists, such insights from
outside the scientific communities will be needed.
>So, you tell us what's good economics. Don't wait for us to tell you.
This is an absurd dichotomy (tell us/wait for us to tell you). Why can't
there be dialogue?
>That means it is up to you and your tenure committees. Sorry 'bout that.
So you think that academia is beyond hope? Probably, but if one's only
standards are those of the system, it leads to opportunism, cynicism, or
worse.
To paraphrase some dead old philosopher (who's likely to be ignored by
analytical philosophers), unexamined research isn't worth doing. One of the
reason why economics is bombarded by so much worthless research is because
people do it simply to climb up the academic ladder rather than because
they're genuinely interested in it.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
