Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Jerry Rhee]

Gary, list:

you said:  "It is not scientists who are trained specifically to provide
analyses of scientific method."

It may not solely be philosophers, either.

Best,
Jerry R

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Gary Richmond 
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​
>
>
>
> [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 <718%20482-5690>*
>
>
> -
> 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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Jerry Rhee]

Gary R, list:



I shouldn’t simply be flip.

I should try to figure out what Gary R’s intention was in forwarding that
article.



The question of “What is…” the scientific method is an old one.



There aren’t any novel observations in that nytimes article to warrant
taking the author any more seriously than others who have said the same
thing.



But what would Peirce say the scientific method is?



In fact, he does say.  He says it in different ways.  So, what does he say?



On the other hand, terms are used differently, which isn’t to say that
they’re used differently different every time.  There is regularity to the
different ways terms are interchanged.  For instance, see how “science” is
used in the following:



“Our description of the character of the *Politics* is manifestly
provisional.  “Common sense” as used in this description is understood in
contradistinction to “science”, i.e. primarily modern natural science, and
therewith presupposes “science” whereas the *Politics* itself does not
presuppose “science.”  We shall first attempt to reach a more adequate
understanding of the *Politics* by considering the objections to which our
contention is exposed.”

~Leo Strauss, The City and Man



There are double meanings for other terms that belong in this conversation
too, such as *justice* and *good *(c.f., Strauss, Benardete, *Republic*,
*Symposium*).



Best,
Jerry R

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Jerry Rhee  wrote:

> Gary, list:
>
> you said:  "It is not scientists who are trained specifically to provide
> analyses of scientific method."
>
> It may not solely be philosophers, either.
>
> Best,
> Jerry R
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Gary Richmond 
> 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​
>>
>>
>>
>> [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 <718%20482-5690>*
>>
>>
>> -
>> 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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Olga]

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  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 .

RE: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[John Collier]

Dear Olga, List,

Science has both advantages and limitations due to its method. On the advantage 
side, one can come up with ideas galore, but to be accepted as scientific they 
have to be tested and alternative explanations of the phenomena be shown to not 
provide an explanation. This requires that a) all scientific hypotheses must be 
falsifiable, b) there must be methods for testing these hypotheses (not quite 
the same as (a)), and c) due to the mutual dependence of (a) and especially (b) 
on other assumptions (called “auxiliary assumptions” in most places, science 
has to progress piecemeal based on previous scientific knowledge. Science is 
also subject to major shifts (revolutions) when we have ignored evidence (e.g., 
the properties of the very small as found in quantum mechanics) or 
misinterpreted it (e.g., Mercury’s precession values). Typically, though, much 
of established science is retained at least as an approximation in any new 
theory. I could add a lot (found in Kuhn, Feyerabend and other 
anti-reductionist-empiricists) about how science can progress in order to add 
to scientific knowledge, but it would take too long here. Suffice to say that 
these things further limit point (b). On the disadvantage side, the problems 
follow from the same factors, especially (b) and (c), since it means that 
science must proceed piecemeal, and at any given time there will be large areas 
that are not accessible to current science with it current methods and 
presuppositions. Much of this area to which current science is blind is exactly 
there area that is of most interest in our human pursuits. I might add that 
when science does try to deal outside of its current scope it often gets into 
trouble. I am thinking in particular of recent work that shows that fMRI 
(functional magnetic resonance imaging) has serious problems as it has been 
used in at least thousands of important neuropsychological studies, meaning  
they will need to be done over again, at the very least. This is hardly the 
only example, just one that is currently shaking things up. At least, though. 
The very methods of science can (and did in this case) find such problems and 
show how to correct them. The biggest strength of science is not its scope or 
ability to find general truths about the world, but its self-correcting 
character.

When dealing with things outside the scope of science, and even inside (given 
the fallibility of science) other areas of human knowledge are need. They are 
what we can fall back on. Myth, religion, literature, philosophy and so on can 
be very useful as long as we don’t place them on the same level of precision 
and  verifiability as we can science.

I think it helps even in these areas, though, to keep some of the scientific 
attitude and remain somewhat skeptical of untested results, taking them as at 
best tentative (and not God-given or from some other source of certainty). Our 
past experience has shown us that almost none of these other areas are 
universal for all space and time, or even between cultures.

So even if science has its built in limitations, and is far from being able to 
answer all the questions we might have about humans in the world, elements of 
the scientific attitude are still very helpful. But I think it would be to 
throw the baby out with the bathwater to just ignore everything that doesn’t 
meet current scientific standards.

I haven’t discussed the abuse of science, which like other sources of power 
gets misused by powerful and/or charismatic people, but it is  a danger that at 
least science itself is in principle capable of meeting through it very methods.

John Collier
Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier

From: Olga [mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, 05 July 2016 11:35 PM
To: Gary Richmond 
Cc: Peirce-L 
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific 
method

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<http://www.famousscientists.org/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 wi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Gary Richmond]

." This is just to suggest that
science and mathematics have sometimes been, imo, given too much emphasis
in the popular imagination, and that that weight can't always be sustained.

Well, this is all certainly too rouch to be of much value, as opposed to
your thoughtful post, John, which I'll reread and continue to reflect on in
the days to come. Meanwhile, I personally  hold science in high regard, and
will continue to take a scientific attitude in considering science and
cenoscopic science.

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*

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:30 AM, John Collier  wrote:

> Dear Olga, List,
>
>
>
> Science has both advantages and limitations due to its method. On the
> advantage side, one can come up with ideas galore, but to be accepted as
> scientific they have to be tested and alternative explanations of the
> phenomena be shown to not provide an explanation. This requires that a) all
> scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable, b) there must be methods for
> testing these hypotheses (not quite the same as (a)), and c) due to the
> mutual dependence of (a) and especially (b) on other assumptions (called
> “auxiliary assumptions” in most places, science has to progress piecemeal
> based on previous scientific knowledge. Science is also subject to major
> shifts (revolutions) when we have ignored evidence (e.g., the properties of
> the very small as found in quantum mechanics) or misinterpreted it (e.g.,
> Mercury’s precession values). Typically, though, much of established
> science is retained at least as an approximation in any new theory. I could
> add a lot (found in Kuhn, Feyerabend and other
> anti-reductionist-empiricists) about how science can progress in order to
> add to scientific knowledge, but it would take too long here. Suffice to
> say that these things further limit point (b). On the disadvantage side,
> the problems follow from the same factors, especially (b) and (c), since it
> means that science must proceed piecemeal, and at any given time there will
> be large areas that are not accessible to current science with it current
> methods and presuppositions. Much of this area to which current science is
> blind is exactly there area that is of most interest in our human pursuits.
> I might add that when science does try to deal outside of its current scope
> it often gets into trouble. I am thinking in particular of recent work that
> shows that fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) has serious
> problems as it has been used in at least thousands of important
> neuropsychological studies, meaning  they will need to be done over again,
> at the very least. This is hardly the only example, just one that is
> currently shaking things up. At least, though. The very methods of science
> can (and did in this case) find such problems and show how to correct them.
> The biggest strength of science is not its scope or ability to find general
> truths about the world, but its self-correcting character.
>
>
>
> When dealing with things outside the scope of science, and even inside
> (given the fallibility of science) other areas of human knowledge are need.
> They are what we can fall back on. Myth, religion, literature, philosophy
> and so on can be very useful as long as we don’t place them on the same
> level of precision and  verifiability as we can science.
>
>
>
> I think it helps even in these areas, though, to keep some of the
> scientific attitude and remain somewhat skeptical of untested results,
> taking them as at best tentative (and not God-given or from some other
> source of certainty). Our past experience has shown us that almost none of
> these other areas are universal for all space and time, or even between
> cultures.
>
>
>
> So even if science has its built in limitations, and is far from being
> able to answer all the questions we might have about humans in the world,
> elements of the scientific attitude are still very helpful. But I think it
> would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater to just ignore everything
> that doesn’t meet current scientific standards.
>
>
>
> I haven’t discussed the abuse of science, which like other sources of
> power gets misused by powerful and/or charismatic people, but it is  a
> danger that at least science itself is in principle capable of meeting
> through it very methods.
>
>
>
> John Collier
>
> Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
>
> University of KwaZulu-Natal
>
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
>
>
> *From:* Olga [mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 05 July 2016 11:35 PM
> *

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Jerry Rhee]

>> cultures.
>>
>>
>>
>> So even if science has its built in limitations, and is far from being
>> able to answer all the questions we might have about humans in the world,
>> elements of the scientific attitude are still very helpful. But I think it
>> would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater to just ignore everything
>> that doesn’t meet current scientific standards.
>>
>>
>>
>> I haven’t discussed the abuse of science, which like other sources of
>> power gets misused by powerful and/or charismatic people, but it is  a
>> danger that at least science itself is in principle capable of meeting
>> through it very methods.
>>
>>
>>
>> John Collier
>>
>> Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
>>
>> University of KwaZulu-Natal
>>
>> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Olga [mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 05 July 2016 11:35 PM
>> *To:* Gary Richmond 
>> *Cc:* Peirce-L 
>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly*
>> scientific method
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 <http://www.famousscientists.org/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  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 <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>.”
>>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[sb]

l outside of its current
>scope
>> it often gets into trouble. I am thinking in particular of recent
>work that
>> shows that fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) has serious
>> problems as it has been used in at least thousands of important
>> neuropsychological studies, meaning  they will need to be done over
>again,
>> at the very least. This is hardly the only example, just one that is
>> currently shaking things up. At least, though. The very methods of
>science
>> can (and did in this case) find such problems and show how to correct
>them.
>> The biggest strength of science is not its scope or ability to find
>general
>> truths about the world, but its self-correcting character.
>>
>>
>>
>> When dealing with things outside the scope of science, and even
>inside
>> (given the fallibility of science) other areas of human knowledge are
>need.
>> They are what we can fall back on. Myth, religion, literature,
>philosophy
>> and so on can be very useful as long as we don’t place them on the
>same
>> level of precision and  verifiability as we can science.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think it helps even in these areas, though, to keep some of the
>> scientific attitude and remain somewhat skeptical of untested
>results,
>> taking them as at best tentative (and not God-given or from some
>other
>> source of certainty). Our past experience has shown us that almost
>none of
>> these other areas are universal for all space and time, or even
>between
>> cultures.
>>
>>
>>
>> So even if science has its built in limitations, and is far from
>being
>> able to answer all the questions we might have about humans in the
>world,
>> elements of the scientific attitude are still very helpful. But I
>think it
>> would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater to just ignore
>everything
>> that doesn’t meet current scientific standards.
>>
>>
>>
>> I haven’t discussed the abuse of science, which like other sources of
>> power gets misused by powerful and/or charismatic people, but it is 
>a
>> danger that at least science itself is in principle capable of
>meeting
>> through it very methods.
>>
>>
>>
>> John Collier
>>
>> Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
>>
>> University of KwaZulu-Natal
>>
>> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Olga [mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 05 July 2016 11:35 PM
>> *To:* Gary Richmond 
>> *Cc:* Peirce-L 
>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly*
>> scientific method
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 <http://www.famousscientists.org/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 2

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Jerry Rhee]

ti-reductionist-empiricists) about how science can progress in order to
>>> add to scientific knowledge, but it would take too long here. Suffice to
>>> say that these things further limit point (b). On the disadvantage side,
>>> the problems follow from the same factors, especially (b) and (c), since it
>>> means that science must proceed piecemeal, and at any given time there will
>>> be large areas that are not accessible to current science with it current
>>> methods and presuppositions. Much of this area to which current science is
>>> blind is exactly there area that is of most interest in our human pursuits.
>>> I might add that when science does try to deal outside of its current scope
>>> it often gets into trouble. I am thinking in particular of recent work that
>>> shows that fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) has serious
>>> problems as it has been used in at least thousands of important
>>> neuropsychological studies, meaning  they will need to be done over again,
>>> at the very least. This is hardly the only example, just one that is
>>> currently shaking things up. At least, though. The very methods of science
>>> can (and did in this case) find such problems and show how to correct them.
>>> The biggest strength of science is not its scope or ability to find general
>>> truths about the world, but its self-correcting character.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When dealing with things outside the scope of science, and even inside
>>> (given the fallibility of science) other areas of human knowledge are need.
>>> They are what we can fall back on. Myth, religion, literature, philosophy
>>> and so on can be very useful as long as we don’t place them on the same
>>> level of precision and  verifiability as we can science.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think it helps even in these areas, though, to keep some of the
>>> scientific attitude and remain somewhat skeptical of untested results,
>>> taking them as at best tentative (and not God-given or from some other
>>> source of certainty). Our past experience has shown us that almost none of
>>> these other areas are universal for all space and time, or even between
>>> cultures.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So even if science has its built in limitations, and is far from being
>>> able to answer all the questions we might have about humans in the world,
>>> elements of the scientific attitude are still very helpful. But I think it
>>> would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater to just ignore everything
>>> that doesn’t meet current scientific standards.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I haven’t discussed the abuse of science, which like other sources of
>>> power gets misused by powerful and/or charismatic people, but it is  a
>>> danger that at least science itself is in principle capable of meeting
>>> through it very methods.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John Collier
>>>
>>> Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
>>>
>>> University of KwaZulu-Natal
>>>
>>> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Olga [mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu]
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 05 July 2016 11:35 PM
>>> *To:* Gary Richmond 
>>> *Cc:* Peirce-L 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly*
>>> scientific method
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 <http://www.famousscientists.org/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 ow

RE: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[gnox]

Stefan,

 

I think the “founding myth of modern science” is that it led a revolt against 
established authority by bringing experiential observation of nature into the 
loop; and historically, there’s a lot of truth to that. But science in the 
Peircean sense was always a loop, going back to Aristotle at least (who was a 
better observer than most Aristotelians were in the 15th-16th centuries). Also, 
many of the hypotheses which the early moderns tried to test were indeed 
derived from prior sources, so they certainly didn’t “start from scratch” in 
that sense either. And I’d concur with your observations about the current 
“sociological phenomenon” of “science.”

 

Gary f.  

 

From: sb [mailto:peirc...@semiotikon.de] 
Sent: 12-Jul-16 16:22



 

Gary, John, Olga,

what is this thing "science" you are talking about? Do you mean the 
sociological phenomen or the idea of science? I think these two are a bit mixed 
up in your exchange. When i look at science as a sociological phenomenen i must 
say i have seen much hedonism, betrayal, lying, irrationality and 
unreasonableness in this business. In contrast i have seen farmers, nurses, 
carpenters, in short the so called ordinary man in the street with quite a 
scientific attitude. And i think it is this attitude, that makes science. It's 
the attitude beyond fallibilism, that people are open to being proven false. Or 
even more the openess of people to see things from an different angle which is 
beyond the true/false binary. It's also the attitude to speak the truth. Speak 
the truth to power or a friend and the willingness to risk something in so 
doing.

Thoreau gave a short description of this ethos: "It takes two to speak the 
truth - one to speak and another to hear". Basically, that is the basis of the 
relation of Grapheus and the Graphist in the EG.

But all the techniques, methods, statistics etc. are almost decorative 
accessory in contrast to the ethos. It can be found inside and outside the 
sociological phenomenon "science". It also existed long before modern science. 
It is one of the founding myths of modern science that it started from scratch. 
But where did the knowledge of the scientific revolution come from? It came 
from philosophy, religion, alchemy, astrology etc. 

All the best
Stefan





-
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 .

RE: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[sb]

Gary F.,

yes i agree, Peirce reading of the history of science is based on the idea that 
we are standing on shoulders of giants.

But i doubt the revolt against authority hypothesis. Take for example Galileo, 
he never revolted against the church. He was deeply rooted in the tradition of 
christian natural philosophy. And the catholic church of the middle ages was 
quite tolerant towards natural philosophy. Galileo referred to this tolerant 
tradition in his defense. The intolerance against natural philosophy was 
something new and was a product of the church internal war between jesuits and 
dominicans. In this view Galileos ideas were the battle field but not the 
source of the battle. 

Or take Newton as another example. Did he revolt against tradition? No, he was 
deeply rooted in the hermetic tradition and most of his work is dedidicated to 
alchemy. The close relation between his work on gravity and his alchemical work 
has been shown by history of science. 

Newton as an alchemist shows that there was already a tradition of 
experimenting. Lots of it esoteric, but also proto-scientific or already 
serious chemistry. And were Galileos instruments constructed without 
experimenting?

Also many of the great scientist wanted their discoveries in accordance with 
their christian faith: Galileo, Newton, later Darwin and also Peirce did so.

Yes, the whole world view changed in the 16th century, but it is not that easy 
like the modern revolutionaries that rebell against authority on one side and 
the outdated antimodern on the other side. Knowledge production in that time 
was a complex web of social relations in which a complex set of ideas 
circulated. 

I know your not making it that simple (your comment about the source of the 
hypothesis) but many people in science still believe in the founding myth.

Putting the said above in the context of the original exchange between Olga, 
John and Gary my point is that when we look closer the sharp line between 
science and non-science gets blurred. I think it is important to keep the 
difference between the organizational borders of the sociological phenomenon 
science, the individual scientific skills (scientific craftsmanship like 
statistics, experiments etc.) and the scientifc ethos in mind. In my opinion 
the ethos is the most important whether someone is within an scientific 
organization and has scientific skills or not, because the latter are neither 
necessary nor sufficient conditions.

Best
Stefan



Am 13. Juli 2016 18:18:00 MESZ, schrieb g...@gnusystems.ca:
>Stefan,
>
> 
>
>I think the “founding myth of modern science” is that it led a revolt
>against established authority by bringing experiential observation of
>nature into the loop; and historically, there’s a lot of truth to that.
>But science in the Peircean sense was always a loop, going back to
>Aristotle at least (who was a better observer than most Aristotelians
>were in the 15th-16th centuries). Also, many of the hypotheses which
>the early moderns tried to test were indeed derived from prior sources,
>so they certainly didn’t “start from scratch” in that sense either. And
>I’d concur with your observations about the current “sociological
>phenomenon” of “science.”
>
> 
>
>Gary f.  
>
> 
>
>From: sb [mailto:peirc...@semiotikon.de] 
>Sent: 12-Jul-16 16:22
>
>
>
> 
>
>Gary, John, Olga,
>
>what is this thing "science" you are talking about? Do you mean the
>sociological phenomen or the idea of science? I think these two are a
>bit mixed up in your exchange. When i look at science as a sociological
>phenomenen i must say i have seen much hedonism, betrayal, lying,
>irrationality and unreasonableness in this business. In contrast i have
>seen farmers, nurses, carpenters, in short the so called ordinary man
>in the street with quite a scientific attitude. And i think it is this
>attitude, that makes science. It's the attitude beyond fallibilism,
>that people are open to being proven false. Or even more the openess of
>people to see things from an different angle which is beyond the
>true/false binary. It's also the attitude to speak the truth. Speak the
>truth to power or a friend and the willingness to risk something in so
>doing.
>
>Thoreau gave a short description of this ethos: "It takes two to speak
>the truth - one to speak and another to hear". Basically, that is the
>basis of the relation of Grapheus and the Graphist in the EG.
>
>But all the techniques, methods, statistics etc. are almost decorative
>accessory in contrast to the ethos. It can be found inside and outside
>the sociological phenomenon "science". It also existed long before
>modern science. It is one of the founding myths of modern science that
>it started from scratch. But where did the knowledge of the scientific
>revolution come from? It came from philosophy, religion, alchemy,
>astrology etc. 
>
>All the best
>Stefan





-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
---

RE: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[gnox]

Stefan, I would concur with everything you say here. “Revolt against authority” 
as a founding myth of “modern science” is, to me, not a hypothesis but an 
oversimplified story (all stories are simplified to some degree). One can find 
traces of it in, for example, the “Cosmos” television series, both the original 
with Carl Sagan and the more recent one with Neil deGrasse Tyson.

 

gary

 

From: sb [mailto:peirc...@semiotikon.de] 
Sent: 14-Jul-16 05:29



 

Gary F.,

yes i agree, Peirce reading of the history of science is based on the idea that 
we are standing on shoulders of giants.

But i doubt the revolt against authority hypothesis. Take for example Galileo, 
he never revolted against the church. He was deeply rooted in the tradition of 
christian natural philosophy. And the catholic church of the middle ages was 
quite tolerant towards natural philosophy. Galileo referred to this tolerant 
tradition in his defense. The intolerance against natural philosophy was 
something new and was a product of the church internal war between jesuits and 
dominicans. In this view Galileos ideas were the battle field but not the 
source of the battle. 

Or take Newton as another example. Did he revolt against tradition? No, he was 
deeply rooted in the hermetic tradition and most of his work is dedidicated to 
alchemy. The close relation between his work on gravity and his alchemical work 
has been shown by history of science. 

Newton as an alchemist shows that there was already a tradition of 
experimenting. Lots of it esoteric, but also proto-scientific or already 
serious chemistry. And were Galileos instruments constructed without 
experimenting?

Also many of the great scientist wanted their discoveries in accordance with 
their christian faith: Galileo, Newton, later Darwin and also Peirce did so.

Yes, the whole world view changed in the 16th century, but it is not that easy 
like the modern revolutionaries that rebell against authority on one side and 
the outdated antimodern on the other side. Knowledge production in that time 
was a complex web of social relations in which a complex set of ideas 
circulated. 

I know your not making it that simple (your comment about the source of the 
hypothesis) but many people in science still believe in the founding myth.

Putting the said above in the context of the original exchange between Olga, 
John and Gary my point is that when we look closer the sharp line between 
science and non-science gets blurred. I think it is important to keep the 
difference between the organizational borders of the sociological phenomenon 
science, the individual scientific skills (scientific craftsmanship like 
statistics, experiments etc.) and the scientifc ethos in mind. In my opinion 
the ethos is the most important whether someone is within an scientific 
organization and has scientific skills or not, because the latter are neither 
necessary nor sufficient conditions.

Best
Stefan





-
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 .

RE: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[sb]

Gary F.,

maybe i misread your original post. I was triggered by "and historically, 
there’s a lot of truth to that". Knee jerk reaction pushing an already open 
door...

Best
Stefan



Am 14. Juli 2016 15:47:42 MESZ, schrieb g...@gnusystems.ca:
>Stefan, I would concur with everything you say here. “Revolt against
>authority” as a founding myth of “modern science” is, to me, not a
>hypothesis but an oversimplified story (all stories are simplified to
>some degree). One can find traces of it in, for example, the “Cosmos”
>television series, both the original with Carl Sagan and the more
>recent one with Neil deGrasse Tyson.
>
> 
>
>gary
>
> 
>
>From: sb [mailto:peirc...@semiotikon.de] 
>Sent: 14-Jul-16 05:29
>
>
>
> 
>
>Gary F.,
>
>yes i agree, Peirce reading of the history of science is based on the
>idea that we are standing on shoulders of giants.
>
>But i doubt the revolt against authority hypothesis. Take for example
>Galileo, he never revolted against the church. He was deeply rooted in
>the tradition of christian natural philosophy. And the catholic church
>of the middle ages was quite tolerant towards natural philosophy.
>Galileo referred to this tolerant tradition in his defense. The
>intolerance against natural philosophy was something new and was a
>product of the church internal war between jesuits and dominicans. In
>this view Galileos ideas were the battle field but not the source of
>the battle. 
>
>Or take Newton as another example. Did he revolt against tradition? No,
>he was deeply rooted in the hermetic tradition and most of his work is
>dedidicated to alchemy. The close relation between his work on gravity
>and his alchemical work has been shown by history of science. 
>
>Newton as an alchemist shows that there was already a tradition of
>experimenting. Lots of it esoteric, but also proto-scientific or
>already serious chemistry. And were Galileos instruments constructed
>without experimenting?
>
>Also many of the great scientist wanted their discoveries in accordance
>with their christian faith: Galileo, Newton, later Darwin and also
>Peirce did so.
>
>Yes, the whole world view changed in the 16th century, but it is not
>that easy like the modern revolutionaries that rebell against authority
>on one side and the outdated antimodern on the other side. Knowledge
>production in that time was a complex web of social relations in which
>a complex set of ideas circulated. 
>
>I know your not making it that simple (your comment about the source of
>the hypothesis) but many people in science still believe in the
>founding myth.
>
>Putting the said above in the context of the original exchange between
>Olga, John and Gary my point is that when we look closer the sharp line
>between science and non-science gets blurred. I think it is important
>to keep the difference between the organizational borders of the
>sociological phenomenon science, the individual scientific skills
>(scientific craftsmanship like statistics, experiments etc.) and the
>scientifc ethos in mind. In my opinion the ethos is the most important
>whether someone is within an scientific organization and has scientific
>skills or not, because the latter are neither necessary nor sufficient
>conditions.
>
>Best
>Stefan

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Jerry Rhee]

Hi list;


The original question is whether there is a distinct scientific method…



Which is to ask whether there is a scientific method agreeable to not just
any mind but to *the* culture of *the* mind…

or a scientific method agreeable to the *commens*…

___



If we consciously adopt the *lanterna pedibus* for this dark question,



then the asserted parallels are;



The surprising fact, *scientific* *method*, is observed.

But if *contrite fallibilism* were true, C would be a matter of course…



or,



The surprising fact, *scientific method*, is observed.

But if *convergence theory of truth* were true…



or,



The surprising fact, *scientific method*, is observed.

But if *contrite fallibilism/convergence* were true…



or,



The surprising fact, *scientific method*, is observed.

But if *CP 5.189* were true…



So, which is best?  Which is vague?  Which is complete?  Which is clear?

Which is at the *end of inquiry*?  Which at the *here and now*?

Do they imply the same of one another or merely emphasize differences?

Must the working hypothesis come at the beginning?

Is there room for growth of symbols, where an act of knowing a real object
alters it?



If you carefully consider the question of pragmatism, *is it* nothing else
than the question of the logic of abduction?



Perhaps it is our conceit that there is only one way of understanding a
phenomenon…



Best,
Jerry Rhee

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:49 PM, sb  wrote:

> Gary F.,
>
> maybe i misread your original post. I was triggered by "and historically,
> there’s a lot of truth to that". Knee jerk reaction pushing an already open
> door...
>
> Best
> Stefan
>
>
>
>
> Am 14. Juli 2016 15:47:42 MESZ, schrieb g...@gnusystems.ca:
>>
>> Stefan, I would concur with everything you say here. “Revolt against
>> authority” as *a* founding myth of “modern science” is, to me, not a
>> hypothesis but an oversimplified story (all stories are simplified to some
>> degree). One can find traces of it in, for example, the “Cosmos” television
>> series, both the original with Carl Sagan and the more recent one with Neil
>> deGrasse Tyson.
>>
>>
>>
>> gary
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* sb [mailto:peirc...@semiotikon.de]
>> *Sent:* 14-Jul-16 05:29
>>
>>
>>
>> Gary F.,
>>
>> yes i agree, Peirce reading of the history of science is based on the
>> idea that we are standing on shoulders of giants.
>>
>> But i doubt the revolt against authority hypothesis. Take for example
>> Galileo, he never revolted against the church. He was deeply rooted in the
>> tradition of christian natural philosophy. And the catholic church of the
>> middle ages was quite tolerant towards natural philosophy. Galileo referred
>> to this tolerant tradition in his defense. The intolerance against natural
>> philosophy was something new and was a product of the church internal war
>> between jesuits and dominicans. In this view Galileos ideas were the battle
>> field but not the source of the battle.
>>
>> Or take Newton as another example. Did he revolt against tradition? No,
>> he was deeply rooted in the hermetic tradition and most of his work is
>> dedidicated to alchemy. The close relation between his work on gravity and
>> his alchemical work has been shown by history of science.
>>
>> Newton as an alchemist shows that there was already a tradition of
>> experimenting. Lots of it esoteric, but also proto-scientific or already
>> serious chemistry. And were Galileos instruments constructed without
>> experimenting?
>>
>> Also many of the great scientist wanted their discoveries in accordance
>> with their christian faith: Galileo, Newton, later Darwin and also Peirce
>> did so.
>>
>> Yes, the whole world view changed in the 16th century, but it is not that
>> easy like the modern revolutionaries that rebell against authority on one
>> side and the outdated antimodern on the other side. Knowledge production in
>> that time was a complex web of social relations in which a complex set of
>> ideas circulated.
>>
>> I know your not making it that simple (your comment about the source of
>> the hypothesis) but many people in science still believe in the founding
>> myth.
>>
>> Putting the said above in the context of the original exchange between
>> Olga, John and Gary my point is that when we look closer the sharp line
>> between science and non-science gets blurred. I think it is important to
>> keep the difference between the organizational borders of the sociological
>> phenomenon science, the individual scientific skills (scientific
>> craftsmanship like statistics, experiments etc.) and the scientifc ethos in
>> mind. In my opinion the ethos is the most important whether someone is
>> within an scientific organization and has scientific skills or not, because
>> the latter are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions.
>>
>> Best
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail
> gesendet.
>
>
> -
> PEIRCE-L subs

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[sb]

Jerry, List,

thanks for pointing back to the beginning of the thread. 

We always think that the scientific method, if there is *one*, is a extremely 
clever thing. Therefore, in contrast, I would turn the question upside down and 
ask: Is there a distinct method of idiocy?

I believe there are a million ways to make a fool of oneself. Or paraphrasing 
Manns Zauberberg: There are many ways of foolishness and intelligence is not 
the best of them. Or, abduction, induction, deduction and the combination of 
them is so universal that even the idiots make use of it.

Maybe we learn more by asking what makes the fool? Is it making mistakes? Is it 
being unlogic? Is it tenacity? Is it believing in apriori? Is it believing in 
authority? Is it...   What makes the fool and is it universal?

Depending on the idea of science we do not necessarily learn something about 
science by trying to answer these questions but at least we learn something 
about reasonableness.

Best
Stefan

P.S. @Convergence of truth: Do we know the mightiness of the icon? Can truth 
converge when the universe itself evolves?

Am 15. Juli 2016 20:05:29 MESZ, schrieb Jerry Rhee :
>Hi list;
>
>
>The original question is whether there is a distinct scientific method…
>
>
>
>Which is to ask whether there is a scientific method agreeable to not
>just
>any mind but to *the* culture of *the* mind…
>
>or a scientific method agreeable to the *commens*…
>
>___
>
>
>
>If we consciously adopt the *lanterna pedibus* for this dark question,
>
>
>
>then the asserted parallels are;
>
>
>
>The surprising fact, *scientific* *method*, is observed.
>
>But if *contrite fallibilism* were true, C would be a matter of course…
>
>
>
>or,
>
>
>
>The surprising fact, *scientific method*, is observed.
>
>But if *convergence theory of truth* were true…
>
>
>
>or,
>
>
>
>The surprising fact, *scientific method*, is observed.
>
>But if *contrite fallibilism/convergence* were true…
>
>
>
>or,
>
>
>
>The surprising fact, *scientific method*, is observed.
>
>But if *CP 5.189* were true…
>
>
>
>So, which is best?  Which is vague?  Which is complete?  Which is
>clear?
>
>Which is at the *end of inquiry*?  Which at the *here and now*?
>
>Do they imply the same of one another or merely emphasize differences?
>
>Must the working hypothesis come at the beginning?
>
>Is there room for growth of symbols, where an act of knowing a real
>object
>alters it?
>
>
>
>If you carefully consider the question of pragmatism, *is it* nothing
>else
>than the question of the logic of abduction?
>
>
>
>Perhaps it is our conceit that there is only one way of understanding a
>phenomenon…
>
>
>
>Best,
>Jerry Rhee
>
>On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:49 PM, sb  wrote:
>
>> Gary F.,
>>
>> maybe i misread your original post. I was triggered by "and
>historically,
>> there’s a lot of truth to that". Knee jerk reaction pushing an
>already open
>> door...
>>
>> Best
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 14. Juli 2016 15:47:42 MESZ, schrieb g...@gnusystems.ca:
>>>
>>> Stefan, I would concur with everything you say here. “Revolt against
>>> authority” as *a* founding myth of “modern science” is, to me, not a
>>> hypothesis but an oversimplified story (all stories are simplified
>to some
>>> degree). One can find traces of it in, for example, the “Cosmos”
>television
>>> series, both the original with Carl Sagan and the more recent one
>with Neil
>>> deGrasse Tyson.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> gary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* sb [mailto:peirc...@semiotikon.de]
>>> *Sent:* 14-Jul-16 05:29
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gary F.,
>>>
>>> yes i agree, Peirce reading of the history of science is based on
>the
>>> idea that we are standing on shoulders of giants.
>>>
>>> But i doubt the revolt against authority hypothesis. Take for
>example
>>> Galileo, he never revolted against the church. He was deeply rooted
>in the
>>> tradition of christian natural philosophy. And the catholic church
>of the
>>> middle ages was quite tolerant towards natural philosophy. Galileo
>referred
>>> to this tolerant tradition in his defense. The intolerance against
>natural
>>> philosophy was something new and was a product of the church
>internal war
>>> between jesuits and dominicans. In this view Galileos ideas were the
>battle
>>> field but not the source of the battle.
>>>
>>> Or take Newton as another example. Did he revolt against tradition?
>No,
>>> he was deeply rooted in the hermetic tradition and most of his work
>is
>>> dedidicated to alchemy. The close relation between his work on
>gravity and
>>> his alchemical work has been shown by history of science.
>>>
>>> Newton as an alchemist shows that there was already a tradition of
>>> experimenting. Lots of it esoteric, but also proto-scientific or
>already
>>> serious chemistry. And were Galileos instruments constructed without
>>> experimenting?
>>>
>>> Also many of the great scientist wanted their discoveries in
>accordance
>>> with their christian faith: Galileo, Newton, later Darwin and also
>Peirce
>>> did so.
>>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Jerry Rhee]

Stefan, list:



I think you’re right that we may learn something about reasonableness by
asking an analogous question, “what is…a fool”.  It is to ask and be aware
of what we are doing when we ask the Socratic “what is…?” question.



Yet, are we not being foolish by thinking we can add to the meaning of *the*
fool by starting from scratch with no guidance as if no one else has asked
and asserted on the notion before?  The assumption being made on a Peirce
list ought to be to speak for *everybody* on the meaning of *the* fool.
That is, the intention is to persuade others on a matter of common
conception through reasoning.  This is what we do for *the* scientific
method.  Yet, there is this great multiplicity when we should expect only
one.  So, are we being foolish or are we just expressing our nature?  It’s
fun to ask and answer “what is…”, is it not?  Is it not in our nature to do
so?



You said, “Or, abduction, induction, deduction and the combination of them
is so universal that even the idiots make use of it.”



Yes, there is the trivial business of distinguishing one, two, three; by
which I mean abduction, deduction, induction.  It is universal and even
idiots make use of it.  But this is not a theory intended for the
individual, as that is too complicated.  It is a method for a community to
adopt at the outset. Therefore, the better question is what makes
abduction/deduction/induction good or bad, not whether there is such a
thing and whether idiots make use of them.  It appears at least Peirce has
settled the matter of its universality.


You said, “P.S. @Convergence of truth: Do we know the mightiness of the
icon? Can truth converge when the universe itself evolves?”



I believe that is the question being raised in fallibilism/convergence.
Perhaps the answer is not addressed in your assumptions.  Perhaps we ought
to look to others for guidance.



“Only *everybody* can know the truth.”

“The opinion fated to be *ultimately* agreed to by *all who investigate* is
what we mean by the truth…”



“I may as well, however, say a word about the indifference to logic which
we find not on the part of “everybody”, - since “everybody” is more or less
a fool, but on the part of really superior minds.  Such minds desire to
understand the theory of every kind of doing in which they take part when
any question of superiority between different methods of doing it is
open…no *lanterna pedibus*, no light to guide their researches.” ~Peirce



“The attitude of an earlier type of writers was fundamentally different.
They believed that the gulf separating “the wise” and “the vulgar” was a
basic fact of human nature which could not be influenced by any progress of
popular education:  philosophy, or science, was essentially a privilege of
“the few”…



“Liberal education, which consists in the constant intercourse with the
greatest minds, is a training in the highest form of modesty, not to say of
humility. It is at the same time a training in boldness: it demands from us
the complete break with the noise, the rush, the thoughtlessness...



Liberal education is liberation from vulgarity. The Greeks had a beautiful
word for "vulgarity"; they called it *apeirokalia*, lack of experience in
things beautiful.  Liberal education supplies us with experience in things
beautiful.”

~Strauss, What is Liberal Education?



The mightiness of the icon can be understood with respect to experience in
things beautiful.  It is imbued with the power to bridge that great chasm
between the vulgar and the wise.



one, two, three...

beauty, goodness, truth...

icon, index, symbol...

esthetics, ethics, logic...


Best,

Jerry Rhee

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 6:23 AM, sb  wrote:

> Jerry, List,
>
> thanks for pointing back to the beginning of the thread.
>
> We always think that the scientific method, if there is *one*, is a
> extremely clever thing. Therefore, in contrast, I would turn the question
> upside down and ask: Is there a distinct method of idiocy?
>
> I believe there are a million ways to make a fool of oneself. Or
> paraphrasing Manns Zauberberg: There are many ways of foolishness and
> intelligence is not the best of them. Or, abduction, induction, deduction
> and the combination of them is so universal that even the idiots make use
> of it.
>
> Maybe we learn more by asking what makes the fool? Is it making mistakes?
> Is it being unlogic? Is it tenacity? Is it believing in apriori? Is it
> believing in authority? Is it... What makes the fool and is it universal?
>
> Depending on the idea of science we do not necessarily learn something
> about science by trying to answer these questions but at least we learn
> something about reasonableness.
>
> Best
> Stefan
>
> P.S. @Convergence of truth: Do we know the mightiness of the icon? Can
> truth converge when the universe itself evolves?
>
>
> Am 15. Juli 2016 20:05:29 MESZ, schrieb Jerry Rhee :
>>
>> Hi list;
>>
>>
>> The original question is whether there is a distinct scienti

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[sb]

Jerry, List,

the polish historian of science Ludwik Fleck once wrote:

"It is a particular interesting thing, how scholars, who dedicate their whole 
lifes to the separating of fiction from fact, are unable to separate their own 
dreams about science from the true form of science."

To some degree the three normative sciences are all fiction, since they tell us 
how the beautiful, the good and the truth ought to be found. 

Looking at the actual state of the art ;) in the sciences: is logic really the 
crux of the matter? From my point of view it is not, as long as we speak of 
ideal type examples of the combination of abduction, deduction induction. It 
gets interesting when looking at how reasoning really takes place e.g. in ones 
own research diary. You really get down to the things if you have to explain 
somebody what you really did. I mean really, really, really (!). Not the 
idealized research paper style explanation. And it would be even more 
interesting to analyze such real reasoning to develop more general heuristics 
to be able to teach real life scientific reasoning. We are far from that... 
But, nevertheless, as Spock said:" Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the 
end".

In my opinion the crux of the matter lies somewhere else. I am an oldschool 
german. The whole scientific project, as i see it, is about enlightenment. 
Now...

God created the cowboys and the indians, but when he was drunk the kantians!

"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the 
inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance." 

CSP goes for the same direction: "If it is their highest impulse to be 
intellectual slaves, then slaves they ought to remain."

Lessing opposed this stance in his essay "On Truth": Will some people never 
learn, that it is absolutely not true, that a man has ever deliberatly 
blindfolded himself"

Let's take Mendel as an example. Why did his contemporaries reject his ideas? I 
don't believe they deliberately blindfolded themselfes. They were just not able 
to see the same things as he did and that was the reason for their rejection. 
We learn to see things, the things are not just there, the construction of the 
thing is an active semiotic process. Something to be observed in every process 
of scientific socialization. Scientists are socialized into thought styles and 
thought collectives. These thought styles and collectives shape their field of 
experience. But this process also limits their experience, because it makes 
them see the rabbit and not the duck.

Therefore i absolutely agree with what you wrote: "The mightiness of the icon 
can be understood with respect to experience in things beautiful. It is imbued 
with the power to bridge that great chasm between the vulgar and the wise." It 
is important to teach people in esthetics as an propedeutics to phenomenology.

But before training the ability t make an experience comes the willingness to 
train. Which points back to my previous posts, where i tried to highlight the 
importance of ethics.

You stressed in your last post the importance of the community of inquirers. We 
alway think of this community as the peircean-habermasian ideal community. But 
the more realistic view is the fleckian thought collective. This leaves the 
open question whether foolishness is an individual trait or one of the 
community?

To make science better, we should study how it actually is and not how it 
should be. Only studying science as real phenomenon will enable us to put into 
practice the things on the should-be-to-do-list. Making the to do list longer 
doesn't really help.

Coming back to Blachowitz. He writes: " 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."

No, we don't need a another blind man to tell us how to study colors or driving 
instructors who never sat behind the wheel. It would be much better to teach 
practicing scientists the philosophy, history and sociology of science. This 
would be enlightenment in science...


Best,
Stefan


Am 17. Juli 2016 21:24:23 MESZ, schrieb Jerry Rhee :
>Stefan, list:
>
>
>
>I think you’re right that we may learn something about reasonableness
>by
>asking an analogous question, “what is…a fool”.  It is to ask and be
>aware
>of what we are doing when we ask the Socratic “what is…?” question.
>
>
>
>Yet, are we not being foolish by thinking we can add to the meaning of
>*the*
>fool by starting from scratch with no guidance as if no one else has
>asked
>and asserted on the notion before?  The assumption being made on a
>Peirce
>list ought to be to speak for *everybody* on the meaning of *the* fool.
>That is, the intention is to persuade others on 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Stefan, List:

You wrote ...

It would be much better to teach practicing scientists the philosophy,
history and sociology of science. This would be enlightenment in science...

The same is true for engineers and engineering, but I have found that most
of my fellow engineers have little to no interest in such matters.  As I
titled a conference presentation a few years ago, "Engineers Don't Think
Enough About Engineering."  I suspect that the same is true of scientists
and other professionals; they focus on simply doing the job, day in and day
out, and do not perceive the value of reflecting on HOW they go about it.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Jerry Rhee]

Stefan, Jon, list:



I think you hit an important point.  There are so few ideal examples; so
few Beautiful examples that take you the “long way” to an explanation of
*the* scientific method that does justice to why liberal education.  This
places us in a situation where there’s no knock down argument for why one
choice over another; no beautiful example that allows you to *safely*
*understand
the low in light of the high*.  Whatever works is just as good as any
other.  Why even bother about the relations between esthetics, ethics and
logic?  Practicing scientists don’t.  It’s all myth.  No proof for *the*
scientific method.



But there are professional estheticians and ethicists and logicians.  So,
why are they wasting their time?  What could they be up to and what could
they have to offer?  What would great thinkers of the past say about the
best scientific method?



Peirce presents pragmatism oddly in *Definition and Description of
Pragmatism*:



“[Pragmatism] is merely a method of ascertaining the meanings of hard words
and of abstract concepts… All pragmatists will further agree that their
method of ascertaining the meanings of words and concepts is no other than
that experimental method by which all the successful sciences (in which
number nobody in his senses would include metaphysics) have reached the
degrees of certainty that are severally proper to them today; this
experimental method being itself nothing but a particular application of an
older logical rule, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”



Here, the normative method is fundamental for thinking and meaning-making,
which serves as the foundation for doing science.  Again, the theory is not
specifically designed for the individual; it is developed to make the
community happy.  One wants to do well and fare well.  If it is a diverse
community and they respect one another- consider each other neighbors-,
then there are constraints and responsibilities for the way information is
shared.  It must be done with care toward economically organizing
experience.  Otherwise, members will get bored or frustrated and join
alternative communities.  This is one reason why silos are inevitable.  But
why, then, do we seek convergence of silos?  Unity must be desirable.



So, where is this Beautiful example to judge the low in light of the high?

Why not phi spiral abduction?  For by its fruits ye shall know it.

But again, too much promise; not enough performance.

Community doesn’t have time to “get it”.  Too busy.



Yet, there is unique opportunity in this example for education and treating
attitudes because the phi ratio is *divine.* The spiral enters through the
senses as an esthetic image of a natural material, nature promises definite
interrelations that can be made intelligible through use and development of
modern technology…  Importantly, there is promise of ascent to perfection
that takes care to cultivate the spirited, appetitive and rational parts
along the way.  This wholeness/completeness directly treats the nonage
problem.



I mean, what does one expect from a Beautiful example of a normative
method, anyways?



Best,
Jerry Rhee

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
wrote:

> Stefan, List:
>
> You wrote ...
>
> It would be much better to teach practicing scientists the philosophy,
> history and sociology of science. This would be enlightenment in science...
>
> The same is true for engineers and engineering, but I have found that most
> of my fellow engineers have little to no interest in such matters.  As I
> titled a conference presentation a few years ago, "Engineers Don't Think
> Enough About Engineering."  I suspect that the same is true of scientists
> and other professionals; they focus on simply doing the job, day in and day
> out, and do not perceive the value of reflecting on HOW they go about it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
>
> -
> 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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Ben Novak]

Dear Stefan and Jerry:

I want to add some personal experience to Stefan's observation:

"We learn to see things, the things are not just there."

I assume that you do not mean the things are not there; rather, that they
are not "just there." In other words, we do not see them just because they
are there, we often have to learn to see them.

*An Example of Tastes "just there" and "there"*

A third of  a century ago, I became interested in beer. I bought a lot of
books on beer, and even went to several national microbrew conferences. I
was asked by the editor of our local newspaper to write a bi-weekly column
about it, which I did for a couple of years in the mid-1980s. Eventually my
columns were published as a book, *The Birth of the Craft Brew Revolution,
*

When I  first became interested, the  biggest problem was how  to taste the
differences in beers. One experience: just about every book on beer I ever
read lauded Pilsner  Urquell as the finest beer in the world. So, I
tried to drink Pilsner Urquell at every opportunity. I got cases of it from
the local distributor. To get it on  tap, I had to go  to cities (it was
the early 1980s). Since I often visited DC and NYC, I only went to
restaurants that had it on tap.

Here the problem was, what was so great about it? Yes, I liked it, but I
didn't find anything that called for such unanimous praise.

So, I drank it off and on for two years. Gradually I began to notice some
other tastes in it. Then one day I will never forget, it happened. I took a
drink, sloshed it around, and suddenly I was tasting it all. It was like I
had a symphony orchestra of tastes in my mouth. Wow!

The same thing happened with other beers. I learned the scent of different
hops, and how different barleys (two row or six row), and different
roastings tasted. I became able to judge, i.e., discriminate among
different beers, depending on the quality of their ingredients and the
craft or art in their brewing.

All this was a learning process. All the tastes were "there," but they were
"just there"; it took a long time for me  to distinguish them, and
therefore to experience them. Only then were they really there for me.

 *Imagination*

Only after I had gone through that experience, could I really begin
imagining different tastes.
This led to later discovering beers that fulfilled  my dreams. Yes, I
discovered beers of which I could say, "this is better than anything I have
ever dreamed of." But I also came to experience the  sometimes greater joy
of finding a beer of which I could say, "this is what I have dreamed of,
but never thought I would actually taste; yet, here it is, in reality, in
my mouth and on my taste buds." It is kind of like what a scientist
experiences upon finally confirming a new hypothesis.

I suppose this is the same for learning science. Many learn a method, a set
of procedures, and only see what they have been trained to see, just as
many people never learn to appreciate new or even great tastes because they
never outgrow the taste of their mother's cooking.  For them, just as for
those who  learn "science" as a set of procedures, there is no  discussing
other ways of imagining things. For both, the rule is equally true: *De
gustibus non est disputandum, *meaning "In matters of taste, there can be
no disputes" (literally "about tastes, it should not be
disputed/discussed").

I offer all this as an example of things discussed by several in this
string of emails. First, how our consciousness organizes or sifts
experience; second, how we can learn to experience things that, unless we
put in the effort, are "just there," i.e., a little beyond our ability to
experience them as  actually there.

Finally, there my experience of learning about beer has also led me to
realize that there is or may be much about historical experience that we
may  never know.

For example, plants themselves, in addition to soils and climate, are
always changing. We may never be able to taste how barley or hops tasted a
century ago. Another example: Anchor Steam beer is, historically, the  only
original American style of beer. Yet, we know of  it only from verbal
descriptions; we do not know exactly how it was made, and we have not
figured out  how to recreate it. But, even if we knew these, we could not
be sure that  the barley and hops have not subtly changed.  So, no  matter
how hard  we try to duplicate recipes, we are very likely to  get a
different beer than what we are trying to  duplicate.

(BEER LOVERS NOTE: The beers produced by Anchor Steam beer today are
undoubtedly some of the best brews in America, largely due to the
dedication of Fritz Maytag in leaning and applying the science--and art--of
 brewing. For anyone who  cares, every year Anchor Steam creates a new and
different Christmas Ale, available only in late November till New Years,
which are dreams come true for me. But his 2011 brew was the best for me:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Clark Goble]

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 6:02 PM, sb  > wrote:
> 
> Coming back to Blachowitz. He writes: " 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."

I’m not sure this is true. First off I remain convinced there isn’t *a* method 
of science. How biologist worked in the 20th century seems quite different from 
physicists. Further, after criticism in the mid-20th century by both scientists 
and philosophers it seems things changed somewhat. (The place of teleological 
arguments or conclusions in biology) Which isn’t to deny some commonalities in 
focus and method.

I also think that the opposition between scientists and philosophers is 
frequently overstated. There’s a certain quasi-philosophical position that 
distrusts a lot philosophers do. This is what I’d call a naive instrumentalism 
of people like Richard Feynman. However that seems to be adopting a 
philosophical position. I also think the effect of this is ironically to get 
scientists (at least physicists) interested in philosophy. The difference in 
interest to philosophy or even seeing it as significant probably varies a lot 
from college to college. I know when I worked at Los Alamos I was quite 
surprised how curious about philosophy most of the physicists, chemists and 
engineers were. (Again that might be a social factor for the environment there)

Where I think some, with a bit of justification, get annoyed with philosophers 
are those philosophers writing on method who seem to downplay or outright 
justify ignorance of science as done. While I have problems with Kuhn, one 
thing he did was focus attention on such matters. I find very little empirical 
study of how scientists work in practice done. And even less informing 
philosophy of science. All too often philosophy of science is too close to 
armchair theorizing. (Again not always - there’s plenty of sophisticated 
philosophy of science about method)
-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Clark Goble]

(Sorry, I accidentally sent that last post while still working on it. So take 
it in terms of working out ideas and forgive me for not having a finished 
thought)


> On Jul 19, 2016, at 6:02 PM, sb  wrote:
> 
> "It is a particular interesting thing, how scholars, who dedicate their whole 
> lifes to the separating of fiction from fact, are unable to separate their 
> own dreams about science from the true form of science."

I think this is as true of philosophers as it is of scientists. As I mentioned 
in that last (unfinished) post I think there’s often a bit too much arm chair 
philosophizing by philosophers of science at times. Likewise I think some don’t 
take into appreciation the differences in practice between different fields or 
subfields.

That said, I also think it undeniable some scientists write on the subject 
without bothering to read up on arguments already made. i.e. a strong ignorance 
of literature on the subject. This is especially true of prominent scientists 
entering into the field of popularizing science literature.

I’ve come over time to find arguments over method as far less interesting than 
arguments over metaphysical implications of particular theories - especially in 
theoretical physics. Things such as the nature of time in light of general 
relativity and string theory.





-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Jerry Rhee]

Ben, Stefan, list:



Ben, thank you for that really great contribution.  I must keep it for my
records.

Among other things, I recognized in it many ideas embedded in Plato’s
fingers example (cf., 523c-525a), which interestingly, focuses on the sense
of sight.



The other matter is regarding the beautiful as opposed to *the Beautiful*.  If
it is a matter of esthethics, do you think we can come to agreement on a
notion of the *best* as a social principle?  It appears we do, more or
less.  For example, Lebron James is currently the best basketball
player…unless it’s Steph Curry.  But Lebron is bigger and plays better
defense…but Curry is a better shooter and dribbler.  Cavs won the
championship.  Warriors won last year.  Still, it is either Curry or James
but not Thompson, or Smith… So, if not Curry or James, which, and for what
reason?



Can we not apply this type of reasoning to the question of *the best*
scientific
method or does it devolve into something like what is the best meal?  For
certainly, taste is of such an individual nature and there are such
different tastes, there is no good reason to pursue an idea of the best
meal...or "the best scientific method".  If it devolves, then all potential
benefits that come from considering the low with respect to the high
disintegrates.  There is no longer a good way of persuading others of how
to judge goodness of qualities.



I think this is where the *divine* is useful.  Many things are beautiful
but not all beautiful things are divine.  Many log spirals are beautiful
but the phi spiral is divine.  Why divine?  *Because by their fruits ye
shall know them.  *In other words, Nature provides a “solid ground of fact”
where we have strong/weak assurances that we need not shift our footing
while "walking upon a bog, and can only say, this ground seems to hold for
the present.  Here I will stay till it begins to give way. (EP 2:55)”
Recognition of revelation as true opinion will depend on whether strong or
weak and piety.  The divine serves as the object of piety.  Ethics follows
esthetics.



One, two, three…Beauty, Goodness, Truth….Feeling, Reaction,
Thought…esthetics, ethics, logic….spiritedness, desire, reason…sophist,
statesman, philosopher.



As for how esthetics might be pleasing to our consciousness, perhaps the
answer has to do with constructing a well-ordered soul because not only is
that just, it is also happy.



“A man is just if the rational part of his soul is wise and rules and if
the spirited part, being the subject and ally of the rational part, assists
it in controlling the multitude of desires…This means however that only the
man in whom reason properly cultivated rules the two other parts properly
cultivated, i.e. only the wise man, can be truly just (cf. 442c); the soul
cannot be healthy if one of its parts…is atrophied. No wonder then that the
just man eventually proves to be identical with the philosopher. “

~Strauss, City and Man

__



One other thing:

You said, “The spiral enters through the senses as an esthetic image of a
natural material, nature promises definite [I would amend this to *infinite*
--BenN) interrelations that can be made intelligible through use and
development “



I’m so glad you amended it, though I respectfully disagree (more or
less)!  I believe this is the central distinction in Dewey and Peirce’s
ideas on convergence to truth.  Phi spirals on mouse corneas occupy an
~500um field.  One question is whether at the infinite limit, a community
of inquirers can ever solve this issue to satisfaction or whether the
symbol will continue to grow, whether there will remain interrelations that
require solving.


For this situation to even be worthy of consideration to speak on
convergence, we have to admit the argument as a representative
argument.  That is, we need to agree at the outset that this example
sensibly captures the essence that is implied of the Dewey/Peirce
distinction on Truth.  It is possible that we can never give an exact
solution to this situation but find that exactness is not desirable because
of social principles.  That is, we might simply get bored after we deem no
more information is worth having; that we have reached the limit of
measurement and construction.



With best wishes,
Jerry Rhee



On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Clark Goble  wrote:

> (Sorry, I accidentally sent that last post while still working on it. So
> take it in terms of working out ideas and forgive me for not having a
> finished thought)
>
>
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 6:02 PM, sb  wrote:
>
> "It is a particular interesting thing, how scholars, who dedicate their
> whole lifes to the separating of fiction from fact, are unable to separate
> their own dreams about science from the true form of science."
>
>
> I think this is as true of philosophers as it is of scientists. As I
> mentioned in that last (unfinished) post I think there’s often a bit too
> much arm chair philosophizing by philosophers of science at tim

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[kirstima]

Jon Alan,

I fully agree!!!
Kirsti

Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 20.7.2016 04:15:

Stefan, List:

You wrote ...


It would be much better to teach practicing scientists the
philosophy, history and sociology of science. This would be
enlightenment in science...


The same is true for engineers and engineering, but I have found that
most of my fellow engineers have little to no interest in such
matters.  As I titled a conference presentation a few years ago,
"Engineers Don't Think Enough About Engineering."  I suspect that the
same is true of scientists and other professionals; they focus on
simply doing the job, day in and day out, and do not perceive the
value of reflecting on HOW they go about it.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[2]


Links:
--
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt



-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[sb]

Ben, Jerry, list,

Ben, i also like to thank you. This is exactly what i was speaking about.

Best,
Stefan


Am 20. Juli 2016 22:46:54 MESZ, schrieb Jerry Rhee :
>Ben, Stefan, list:
>
>
>
>Ben, thank you for that really great contribution.  I must keep it for
>my
>records.
>
>Among other things, I recognized in it many ideas embedded in Plato’s
>fingers example (cf., 523c-525a), which interestingly, focuses on the
>sense
>of sight.
>
>
>
>The other matter is regarding the beautiful as opposed to *the
>Beautiful*.  If
>it is a matter of esthethics, do you think we can come to agreement on
>a
>notion of the *best* as a social principle?  It appears we do, more or
>less.  For example, Lebron James is currently the best basketball
>player…unless it’s Steph Curry.  But Lebron is bigger and plays better
>defense…but Curry is a better shooter and dribbler.  Cavs won the
>championship.  Warriors won last year.  Still, it is either Curry or
>James
>but not Thompson, or Smith… So, if not Curry or James, which, and for
>what
>reason?
>
>
>
>Can we not apply this type of reasoning to the question of *the best*
>scientific
>method or does it devolve into something like what is the best meal? 
>For
>certainly, taste is of such an individual nature and there are such
>different tastes, there is no good reason to pursue an idea of the best
>meal...or "the best scientific method".  If it devolves, then all
>potential
>benefits that come from considering the low with respect to the high
>disintegrates.  There is no longer a good way of persuading others of
>how
>to judge goodness of qualities.
>
>
>
>I think this is where the *divine* is useful.  Many things are
>beautiful
>but not all beautiful things are divine.  Many log spirals are
>beautiful
>but the phi spiral is divine.  Why divine?  *Because by their fruits ye
>shall know them.  *In other words, Nature provides a “solid ground of
>fact”
>where we have strong/weak assurances that we need not shift our footing
>while "walking upon a bog, and can only say, this ground seems to hold
>for
>the present.  Here I will stay till it begins to give way. (EP 2:55)”
>Recognition of revelation as true opinion will depend on whether strong
>or
>weak and piety.  The divine serves as the object of piety.  Ethics
>follows
>esthetics.
>
>
>
>One, two, three…Beauty, Goodness, Truth….Feeling, Reaction,
>Thought…esthetics, ethics, logic….spiritedness, desire, reason…sophist,
>statesman, philosopher.
>
>
>
>As for how esthetics might be pleasing to our consciousness, perhaps
>the
>answer has to do with constructing a well-ordered soul because not only
>is
>that just, it is also happy.
>
>
>
>“A man is just if the rational part of his soul is wise and rules and
>if
>the spirited part, being the subject and ally of the rational part,
>assists
>it in controlling the multitude of desires…This means however that only
>the
>man in whom reason properly cultivated rules the two other parts
>properly
>cultivated, i.e. only the wise man, can be truly just (cf. 442c); the
>soul
>cannot be healthy if one of its parts…is atrophied. No wonder then that
>the
>just man eventually proves to be identical with the philosopher. “
>
>~Strauss, City and Man
>
>__
>
>
>
>One other thing:
>
>You said, “The spiral enters through the senses as an esthetic image of
>a
>natural material, nature promises definite [I would amend this to
>*infinite*
>--BenN) interrelations that can be made intelligible through use and
>development “
>
>
>
>I’m so glad you amended it, though I respectfully disagree (more or
>less)!  I believe this is the central distinction in Dewey and Peirce’s
>ideas on convergence to truth.  Phi spirals on mouse corneas occupy an
>~500um field.  One question is whether at the infinite limit, a
>community
>of inquirers can ever solve this issue to satisfaction or whether the
>symbol will continue to grow, whether there will remain interrelations
>that
>require solving.
>
>
>For this situation to even be worthy of consideration to speak on
>convergence, we have to admit the argument as a representative
>argument.  That is, we need to agree at the outset that this example
>sensibly captures the essence that is implied of the Dewey/Peirce
>distinction on Truth.  It is possible that we can never give an exact
>solution to this situation but find that exactness is not desirable
>because
>of social principles.  That is, we might simply get bored after we deem
>no
>more information is worth having; that we have reached the limit of
>measurement and construction.
>
>
>
>With best wishes,
>Jerry Rhee
>
>
>
>On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Clark Goble  wrote:
>
>> (Sorry, I accidentally sent that last post while still working on it.
>So
>> take it in terms of working out ideas and forgive me for not having a
>> finished thought)
>>
>>
>> On Jul 19, 2016, at 6:02 PM, sb  wrote:
>>
>> "It is a particular interesting thing, how scholars, who dedicate
>their
>> whole lifes to the separating of fiction

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Helmut Raulien]

revolutions) when we have ignored evidence (e.g., the properties of the very small as found in quantum mechanics) or misinterpreted it (e.g., Mercury’s precession values). Typically, though, much of established science is retained at least as an approximation in any new theory. I could add a lot (found in Kuhn, Feyerabend and other anti-reductionist-empiricists) about how science can progress in order to add to scientific knowledge, but it would take too long here. Suffice to say that these things further limit point (b). On the disadvantage side, the problems follow from the same factors, especially (b) and (c), since it means that science must proceed piecemeal, and at any given time there will be large areas that are not accessible to current science with it current methods and presuppositions. Much of this area to which current science is blind is exactly there area that is of most interest in our human pursuits. I might add that when science does try to deal outside of its current scope it often gets into trouble. I am thinking in particular of recent work that shows that fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) has serious problems as it has been used in at least thousands of important neuropsychological studies, meaning  they will need to be done over again, at the very least. This is hardly the only example, just one that is currently shaking things up. At least, though. The very methods of science can (and did in this case) find such problems and show how to correct them. The biggest strength of science is not its scope or ability to find general truths about the world, but its self-correcting character.

 

When dealing with things outside the scope of science, and even inside (given the fallibility of science) other areas of human knowledge are need. They are what we can fall back on. Myth, religion, literature, philosophy and so on can be very useful as long as we don’t place them on the same level of precision and  verifiability as we can science.

 

I think it helps even in these areas, though, to keep some of the scientific attitude and remain somewhat skeptical of untested results, taking them as at best tentative (and not God-given or from some other source of certainty). Our past experience has shown us that almost none of these other areas are universal for all space and time, or even between cultures.

 

So even if science has its built in limitations, and is far from being able to answer all the questions we might have about humans in the world, elements of the scientific attitude are still very helpful. But I think it would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater to just ignore everything that doesn’t meet current scientific standards.

 

I haven’t discussed the abuse of science, which like other sources of power gets misused by powerful and/or charismatic people, but it is  a danger that at least science itself is in principle capable of meeting through it very methods.

 


John Collier

Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate

University of KwaZulu-Natal

http://web.ncf.ca/collier


 




From: Olga [mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, 05 July 2016 11:35 PM
To: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method





 



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/opi

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Helmut Raulien]

 be shown to not provide an explanation. This requires that a) all scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable, b) there must be methods for testing these hypotheses (not quite the same as (a)), and c) due to the mutual dependence of (a) and especially (b) on other assumptions (called “auxiliary assumptions” in most places, science has to progress piecemeal based on previous scientific knowledge. Science is also subject to major shifts (revolutions) when we have ignored evidence (e.g., the properties of the very small as found in quantum mechanics) or misinterpreted it (e.g., Mercury’s precession values). Typically, though, much of established science is retained at least as an approximation in any new theory. I could add a lot (found in Kuhn, Feyerabend and other anti-reductionist-empiricists) about how science can progress in order to add to scientific knowledge, but it would take too long here. Suffice to say that these things further limit point (b). On the disadvantage side, the problems follow from the same factors, especially (b) and (c), since it means that science must proceed piecemeal, and at any given time there will be large areas that are not accessible to current science with it current methods and presuppositions. Much of this area to which current science is blind is exactly there area that is of most interest in our human pursuits. I might add that when science does try to deal outside of its current scope it often gets into trouble. I am thinking in particular of recent work that shows that fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) has serious problems as it has been used in at least thousands of important neuropsychological studies, meaning  they will need to be done over again, at the very least. This is hardly the only example, just one that is currently shaking things up. At least, though. The very methods of science can (and did in this case) find such problems and show how to correct them. The biggest strength of science is not its scope or ability to find general truths about the world, but its self-correcting character.

 

When dealing with things outside the scope of science, and even inside (given the fallibility of science) other areas of human knowledge are need. They are what we can fall back on. Myth, religion, literature, philosophy and so on can be very useful as long as we don’t place them on the same level of precision and  verifiability as we can science.

 

I think it helps even in these areas, though, to keep some of the scientific attitude and remain somewhat skeptical of untested results, taking them as at best tentative (and not God-given or from some other source of certainty). Our past experience has shown us that almost none of these other areas are universal for all space and time, or even between cultures.

 

So even if science has its built in limitations, and is far from being able to answer all the questions we might have about humans in the world, elements of the scientific attitude are still very helpful. But I think it would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater to just ignore everything that doesn’t meet current scientific standards.

 

I haven’t discussed the abuse of science, which like other sources of power gets misused by powerful and/or charismatic people, but it is  a danger that at least science itself is in principle capable of meeting through it very methods.

 


John Collier

Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate

University of KwaZulu-Natal

http://web.ncf.ca/collier


 




From: Olga [mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, 05 July 2016 11:35 PM
To: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method





 



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 retr

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Jerry Rhee]

;> Cooper-Union in NYC) commented when I asked him where chaos theory was
>> headed, Alan being one of the earliest researchers into mathematical chaos
>> theory: "It's pretty much reached a dead end." This is just to suggest that
>> science and mathematics have sometimes been, imo, given too much emphasis
>> in the popular imagination, and that that weight can't always be sustained.
>>
>> Well, this is all certainly too rouch to be of much value, as opposed to
>> your thoughtful post, John, which I'll reread and continue to reflect on in
>> the days to come. Meanwhile, I personally  hold science in high regard, and
>> will continue to take a scientific attitude in considering science and
>> cenoscopic science.
>>
>> 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*
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:30 AM, John Collier 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Olga, List,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Science has both advantages and limitations due to its method. On the
>>> advantage side, one can come up with ideas galore, but to be accepted as
>>> scientific they have to be tested and alternative explanations of the
>>> phenomena be shown to not provide an explanation. This requires that a) all
>>> scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable, b) there must be methods for
>>> testing these hypotheses (not quite the same as (a)), and c) due to the
>>> mutual dependence of (a) and especially (b) on other assumptions (called
>>> “auxiliary assumptions” in most places, science has to progress piecemeal
>>> based on previous scientific knowledge. Science is also subject to major
>>> shifts (revolutions) when we have ignored evidence (e.g., the properties of
>>> the very small as found in quantum mechanics) or misinterpreted it (e.g.,
>>> Mercury’s precession values). Typically, though, much of established
>>> science is retained at least as an approximation in any new theory. I could
>>> add a lot (found in Kuhn, Feyerabend and other
>>> anti-reductionist-empiricists) about how science can progress in order to
>>> add to scientific knowledge, but it would take too long here. Suffice to
>>> say that these things further limit point (b). On the disadvantage side,
>>> the problems follow from the same factors, especially (b) and (c), since it
>>> means that science must proceed piecemeal, and at any given time there will
>>> be large areas that are not accessible to current science with it current
>>> methods and presuppositions. Much of this area to which current science is
>>> blind is exactly there area that is of most interest in our human pursuits.
>>> I might add that when science does try to deal outside of its current scope
>>> it often gets into trouble. I am thinking in particular of recent work that
>>> shows that fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) has serious
>>> problems as it has been used in at least thousands of important
>>> neuropsychological studies, meaning  they will need to be done over again,
>>> at the very least. This is hardly the only example, just one that is
>>> currently shaking things up. At least, though. The very methods of science
>>> can (and did in this case) find such problems and show how to correct them.
>>> The biggest strength of science is not its scope or ability to find general
>>> truths about the world, but its self-correcting character.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When dealing with things outside the scope of science, and even inside
>>> (given the fallibility of science) other areas of human knowledge are need.
>>> They are what we can fall back on. Myth, religion, literature, philosophy
>>> and so on can be very useful as long as we don’t place them on the same
>>> level of precision and  verifiability as we can science.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think it helps even in these areas, though, to keep some of the
>>> scientific attitude and remain somewhat skeptical of untested results,
>>> taking them as at best tentative (and not God-given or from some other
>>> source of certainty). Our past experience has shown us that almost none of
>>> these other areas are universal for all space and time, or even between
>>> cultures.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So even

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Helmut Raulien]

 charismatic people, but it is  a danger that at least science itself is in principle capable of meeting through it very methods.

 


John Collier

Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate

University of KwaZulu-Natal

http://web.ncf.ca/collier


 




From: Olga [mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, 05 July 2016 11:35 PM
To: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method





 



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 .




 






-
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

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Jerry Rhee]

omena be shown to not provide an explanation. This requires that a) all
>>>> scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable, b) there must be methods for
>>>> testing these hypotheses (not quite the same as (a)), and c) due to the
>>>> mutual dependence of (a) and especially (b) on other assumptions (called
>>>> “auxiliary assumptions” in most places, science has to progress piecemeal
>>>> based on previous scientific knowledge. Science is also subject to major
>>>> shifts (revolutions) when we have ignored evidence (e.g., the properties of
>>>> the very small as found in quantum mechanics) or misinterpreted it (e.g.,
>>>> Mercury’s precession values). Typically, though, much of established
>>>> science is retained at least as an approximation in any new theory. I could
>>>> add a lot (found in Kuhn, Feyerabend and other
>>>> anti-reductionist-empiricists) about how science can progress in order to
>>>> add to scientific knowledge, but it would take too long here. Suffice to
>>>> say that these things further limit point (b). On the disadvantage side,
>>>> the problems follow from the same factors, especially (b) and (c), since it
>>>> means that science must proceed piecemeal, and at any given time there will
>>>> be large areas that are not accessible to current science with it current
>>>> methods and presuppositions. Much of this area to which current science is
>>>> blind is exactly there area that is of most interest in our human pursuits.
>>>> I might add that when science does try to deal outside of its current scope
>>>> it often gets into trouble. I am thinking in particular of recent work that
>>>> shows that fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) has serious
>>>> problems as it has been used in at least thousands of important
>>>> neuropsychological studies, meaning  they will need to be done over again,
>>>> at the very least. This is hardly the only example, just one that is
>>>> currently shaking things up. At least, though. The very methods of science
>>>> can (and did in this case) find such problems and show how to correct them.
>>>> The biggest strength of science is not its scope or ability to find general
>>>> truths about the world, but its self-correcting character.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When dealing with things outside the scope of science, and even inside
>>>> (given the fallibility of science) other areas of human knowledge are need.
>>>> They are what we can fall back on. Myth, religion, literature, philosophy
>>>> and so on can be very useful as long as we don’t place them on the same
>>>> level of precision and  verifiability as we can science.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it helps even in these areas, though, to keep some of the
>>>> scientific attitude and remain somewhat skeptical of untested results,
>>>> taking them as at best tentative (and not God-given or from some other
>>>> source of certainty). Our past experience has shown us that almost none of
>>>> these other areas are universal for all space and time, or even between
>>>> cultures.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So even if science has its built in limitations, and is far from being
>>>> able to answer all the questions we might have about humans in the world,
>>>> elements of the scientific attitude are still very helpful. But I think it
>>>> would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater to just ignore everything
>>>> that doesn’t meet current scientific standards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I haven’t discussed the abuse of science, which like other sources of
>>>> power gets misused by powerful and/or charismatic people, but it is  a
>>>> danger that at least science itself is in principle capable of meeting
>>>> through it very methods.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John Collier
>>>>
>>>> Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
>>>>
>>>> University of KwaZulu-Natal
>>>>
>>>> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Olga [mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu]
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 05 July 2016 11:35 PM
>>>> *To:* Gary Richmond 
>>>> *Cc:* Peirce-L 
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim:

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Helmut Raulien]

 work that shows that fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) has serious problems as it has been used in at least thousands of important neuropsychological studies, meaning  they will need to be done over again, at the very least. This is hardly the only example, just one that is currently shaking things up. At least, though. The very methods of science can (and did in this case) find such problems and show how to correct them. The biggest strength of science is not its scope or ability to find general truths about the world, but its self-correcting character.

 

When dealing with things outside the scope of science, and even inside (given the fallibility of science) other areas of human knowledge are need. They are what we can fall back on. Myth, religion, literature, philosophy and so on can be very useful as long as we don’t place them on the same level of precision and  verifiability as we can science.

 

I think it helps even in these areas, though, to keep some of the scientific attitude and remain somewhat skeptical of untested results, taking them as at best tentative (and not God-given or from some other source of certainty). Our past experience has shown us that almost none of these other areas are universal for all space and time, or even between cultures.

 

So even if science has its built in limitations, and is far from being able to answer all the questions we might have about humans in the world, elements of the scientific attitude are still very helpful. But I think it would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater to just ignore everything that doesn’t meet current scientific standards.

 

I haven’t discussed the abuse of science, which like other sources of power gets misused by powerful and/or charismatic people, but it is  a danger that at least science itself is in principle capable of meeting through it very methods.

 


John Collier

Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate

University of KwaZulu-Natal

http://web.ncf.ca/collier


 




From: Olga [mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, 05 July 2016 11:35 PM
To: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method





 



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

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Helmut Raulien]

current scope it often gets into trouble. I am thinking in particular of recent work that shows that fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) has serious problems as it has been used in at least thousands of important neuropsychological studies, meaning  they will need to be done over again, at the very least. This is hardly the only example, just one that is currently shaking things up. At least, though. The very methods of science can (and did in this case) find such problems and show how to correct them. The biggest strength of science is not its scope or ability to find general truths about the world, but its self-correcting character.

 

When dealing with things outside the scope of science, and even inside (given the fallibility of science) other areas of human knowledge are need. They are what we can fall back on. Myth, religion, literature, philosophy and so on can be very useful as long as we don’t place them on the same level of precision and  verifiability as we can science.

 

I think it helps even in these areas, though, to keep some of the scientific attitude and remain somewhat skeptical of untested results, taking them as at best tentative (and not God-given or from some other source of certainty). Our past experience has shown us that almost none of these other areas are universal for all space and time, or even between cultures.

 

So even if science has its built in limitations, and is far from being able to answer all the questions we might have about humans in the world, elements of the scientific attitude are still very helpful. But I think it would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater to just ignore everything that doesn’t meet current scientific standards.

 

I haven’t discussed the abuse of science, which like other sources of power gets misused by powerful and/or charismatic people, but it is  a danger that at least science itself is in principle capable of meeting through it very methods.

 


John Collier

Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate

University of KwaZulu-Natal

http://web.ncf.ca/collier


 




From: Olga [mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, 05 July 2016 11:35 PM
To: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method





 



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 o

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Jerry Rhee]

; now, but which include some parts of science and metaphysics (e.g. aspects
>>>> of cosmology, string theory, etc.) sometimes seeming, to this observer at
>>>> leas,t to smack of science fiction as much as of science. In addition, as
>>>> my friend and colleague, Alan Wolf (now head of the physics department at
>>>> Cooper-Union in NYC) commented when I asked him where chaos theory was
>>>> headed, Alan being one of the earliest researchers into mathematical chaos
>>>> theory: "It's pretty much reached a dead end." This is just to suggest that
>>>> science and mathematics have sometimes been, imo, given too much emphasis
>>>> in the popular imagination, and that that weight can't always be sustained.
>>>>
>>>> Well, this is all certainly too rouch to be of much value, as opposed
>>>> to your thoughtful post, John, which I'll reread and continue to reflect on
>>>> in the days to come. Meanwhile, I personally  hold science in high regard,
>>>> and will continue to take a scientific attitude in considering science and
>>>> cenoscopic science.
>>>>
>>>> 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*
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:30 AM, John Collier 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Olga, List,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Science has both advantages and limitations due to its method. On the
>>>>> advantage side, one can come up with ideas galore, but to be accepted as
>>>>> scientific they have to be tested and alternative explanations of the
>>>>> phenomena be shown to not provide an explanation. This requires that a) 
>>>>> all
>>>>> scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable, b) there must be methods for
>>>>> testing these hypotheses (not quite the same as (a)), and c) due to the
>>>>> mutual dependence of (a) and especially (b) on other assumptions (called
>>>>> “auxiliary assumptions” in most places, science has to progress piecemeal
>>>>> based on previous scientific knowledge. Science is also subject to major
>>>>> shifts (revolutions) when we have ignored evidence (e.g., the properties 
>>>>> of
>>>>> the very small as found in quantum mechanics) or misinterpreted it (e.g.,
>>>>> Mercury’s precession values). Typically, though, much of established
>>>>> science is retained at least as an approximation in any new theory. I 
>>>>> could
>>>>> add a lot (found in Kuhn, Feyerabend and other
>>>>> anti-reductionist-empiricists) about how science can progress in order to
>>>>> add to scientific knowledge, but it would take too long here. Suffice to
>>>>> say that these things further limit point (b). On the disadvantage side,
>>>>> the problems follow from the same factors, especially (b) and (c), since 
>>>>> it
>>>>> means that science must proceed piecemeal, and at any given time there 
>>>>> will
>>>>> be large areas that are not accessible to current science with it current
>>>>> methods and presuppositions. Much of this area to which current science is
>>>>> blind is exactly there area that is of most interest in our human 
>>>>> pursuits.
>>>>> I might add that when science does try to deal outside of its current 
>>>>> scope
>>>>> it often gets into trouble. I am thinking in particular of recent work 
>>>>> that
>>>>> shows that fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) has serious
>>>>> problems as it has been used in at least thousands of important
>>>>> neuropsychological studies, meaning  they will need to be done over again,
>>>>> at the very least. This is hardly the only example, just one that is
>>>>> currently shaking things up. At least, though. The very methods of science
>>>>> can (and did in this case) find such problems and show how to correct 
>>>>> them.
>>>>> The biggest strength of science is not its scope or ability to find 
>>

Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Helmut Raulien]

s is all certainly too rouch to be of much value, as opposed to your thoughtful post, John, which I'll reread and continue to reflect on in the days to come. Meanwhile, I personally  hold science in high regard, and will continue to take a scientific attitude in considering science and cenoscopic science.

 

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





 



On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:30 AM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:




Dear Olga, List,

 

Science has both advantages and limitations due to its method. On the advantage side, one can come up with ideas galore, but to be accepted as scientific they have to be tested and alternative explanations of the phenomena be shown to not provide an explanation. This requires that a) all scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable, b) there must be methods for testing these hypotheses (not quite the same as (a)), and c) due to the mutual dependence of (a) and especially (b) on other assumptions (called “auxiliary assumptions” in most places, science has to progress piecemeal based on previous scientific knowledge. Science is also subject to major shifts (revolutions) when we have ignored evidence (e.g., the properties of the very small as found in quantum mechanics) or misinterpreted it (e.g., Mercury’s precession values). Typically, though, much of established science is retained at least as an approximation in any new theory. I could add a lot (found in Kuhn, Feyerabend and other anti-reductionist-empiricists) about how science can progress in order to add to scientific knowledge, but it would take too long here. Suffice to say that these things further limit point (b). On the disadvantage side, the problems follow from the same factors, especially (b) and (c), since it means that science must proceed piecemeal, and at any given time there will be large areas that are not accessible to current science with it current methods and presuppositions. Much of this area to which current science is blind is exactly there area that is of most interest in our human pursuits. I might add that when science does try to deal outside of its current scope it often gets into trouble. I am thinking in particular of recent work that shows that fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) has serious problems as it has been used in at least thousands of important neuropsychological studies, meaning  they will need to be done over again, at the very least. This is hardly the only example, just one that is currently shaking things up. At least, though. The very methods of science can (and did in this case) find such problems and show how to correct them. The biggest strength of science is not its scope or ability to find general truths about the world, but its self-correcting character.

 

When dealing with things outside the scope of science, and even inside (given the fallibility of science) other areas of human knowledge are need. They are what we can fall back on. Myth, religion, literature, philosophy and so on can be very useful as long as we don’t place them on the same level of precision and  verifiability as we can science.

 

I think it helps even in these areas, though, to keep some of the scientific attitude and remain somewhat skeptical of untested results, taking them as at best tentative (and not God-given or from some other source of certainty). Our past experience has shown us that almost none of these other areas are universal for all space and time, or even between cultures.

 

So even if science has its built in limitations, and is far from being able to answer all the questions we might have about humans in the world, elements of the scientific attitude are still very helpful. But I think it would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater to just ignore everything that doesn’t meet current scientific standards.

 

I haven’t discussed the abuse of science, which like other sources of power gets misused by powerful and/or charismatic people, but it is  a danger that at least science itself is in principle capable of meeting through it very methods.

 


John Collier

Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate

University of KwaZulu-Natal

http://web.ncf.ca/collier


 




From: Olga [mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, 05 July 2016 11:35 PM
To: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method





 



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 sci

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Jerry Rhee]

ul and/or charismatic people, but it is  a
>>>>> danger that at least science itself is in principle capable of meeting
>>>>> through it very methods.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We probably have seen the misuse of science in the interest of power
>>>>> increase in modern times (although this is a moot point), while there are
>>>>> other questions regarding science which come to mind which I can't get 
>>>>> into
>>>>> now, but which include some parts of science and metaphysics (e.g. aspects
>>>>> of cosmology, string theory, etc.) sometimes seeming, to this observer at
>>>>> leas,t to smack of science fiction as much as of science. In addition, as
>>>>> my friend and colleague, Alan Wolf (now head of the physics department at
>>>>> Cooper-Union in NYC) commented when I asked him where chaos theory was
>>>>> headed, Alan being one of the earliest researchers into mathematical chaos
>>>>> theory: "It's pretty much reached a dead end." This is just to suggest 
>>>>> that
>>>>> science and mathematics have sometimes been, imo, given too much emphasis
>>>>> in the popular imagination, and that that weight can't always be 
>>>>> sustained.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, this is all certainly too rouch to be of much value, as opposed
>>>>> to your thoughtful post, John, which I'll reread and continue to reflect 
>>>>> on
>>>>> in the days to come. Meanwhile, I personally  hold science in high regard,
>>>>> and will continue to take a scientific attitude in considering science and
>>>>> cenoscopic science.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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*
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:30 AM, John Collier 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Olga, List,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Science has both advantages and limitations due to its method. On the
>>>>>> advantage side, one can come up with ideas galore, but to be accepted as
>>>>>> scientific they have to be tested and alternative explanations of the
>>>>>> phenomena be shown to not provide an explanation. This requires that a) 
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable, b) there must be methods for
>>>>>> testing these hypotheses (not quite the same as (a)), and c) due to the
>>>>>> mutual dependence of (a) and especially (b) on other assumptions (called
>>>>>> “auxiliary assumptions” in most places, science has to progress piecemeal
>>>>>> based on previous scientific knowledge. Science is also subject to major
>>>>>> shifts (revolutions) when we have ignored evidence (e.g., the properties 
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the very small as found in quantum mechanics) or misinterpreted it (e.g.,
>>>>>> Mercury’s precession values). Typically, though, much of established
>>>>>> science is retained at least as an approximation in any new theory. I 
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> add a lot (found in Kuhn, Feyerabend and other
>>>>>> anti-reductionist-empiricists) about how science can progress in order to
>>>>>> add to scientific knowledge, but it would take too long here. Suffice to
>>>>>> say that these things further limit point (b). On the disadvantage side,
>>>>>> the problems follow from the same factors, especially (b) and (c), since 
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> means that science must proceed piecemeal, and at any given time there 
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> be large areas that are not accessible to current science with it current
>>>>>> methods and presuppositions. Much of this area to which current science 
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> blind is exactly there area that is of most interest in our human 
>>>>>> pursuits.
>>&g

Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Helmut Raulien]

ems as it has been used in at least thousands of important neuropsychological studies, meaning  they will need to be done over again, at the very least. This is hardly the only example, just one that is currently shaking things up. At least, though. The very methods of science can (and did in this case) find such problems and show how to correct them. The biggest strength of science is not its scope or ability to find general truths about the world, but its self-correcting character.

 

When dealing with things outside the scope of science, and even inside (given the fallibility of science) other areas of human knowledge are need. They are what we can fall back on. Myth, religion, literature, philosophy and so on can be very useful as long as we don’t place them on the same level of precision and  verifiability as we can science.

 

I think it helps even in these areas, though, to keep some of the scientific attitude and remain somewhat skeptical of untested results, taking them as at best tentative (and not God-given or from some other source of certainty). Our past experience has shown us that almost none of these other areas are universal for all space and time, or even between cultures.

 

So even if science has its built in limitations, and is far from being able to answer all the questions we might have about humans in the world, elements of the scientific attitude are still very helpful. But I think it would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater to just ignore everything that doesn’t meet current scientific standards.

 

I haven’t discussed the abuse of science, which like other sources of power gets misused by powerful and/or charismatic people, but it is  a danger that at least science itself is in principle capable of meeting through it very methods.

 


John Collier

Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate

University of KwaZulu-Natal

http://web.ncf.ca/collier


 




From: Olga [mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, 05 July 2016 11:35 PM
To: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method





 



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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Jerry Rhee]

t;>> leas,t to smack of science fiction as much as of science. In addition, as
>>>>>> my friend and colleague, Alan Wolf (now head of the physics department at
>>>>>> Cooper-Union in NYC) commented when I asked him where chaos theory was
>>>>>> headed, Alan being one of the earliest researchers into mathematical 
>>>>>> chaos
>>>>>> theory: "It's pretty much reached a dead end." This is just to suggest 
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> science and mathematics have sometimes been, imo, given too much emphasis
>>>>>> in the popular imagination, and that that weight can't always be 
>>>>>> sustained.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, this is all certainly too rouch to be of much value, as opposed
>>>>>> to your thoughtful post, John, which I'll reread and continue to reflect 
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> in the days to come. Meanwhile, I personally  hold science in high 
>>>>>> regard,
>>>>>> and will continue to take a scientific attitude in considering science 
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> cenoscopic science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:30 AM, John Collier 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Olga, List,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Science has both advantages and limitations due to its method. On
>>>>>>> the advantage side, one can come up with ideas galore, but to be 
>>>>>>> accepted
>>>>>>> as scientific they have to be tested and alternative explanations of the
>>>>>>> phenomena be shown to not provide an explanation. This requires that a) 
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable, b) there must be methods for
>>>>>>> testing these hypotheses (not quite the same as (a)), and c) due to the
>>>>>>> mutual dependence of (a) and especially (b) on other assumptions (called
>>>>>>> “auxiliary assumptions” in most places, science has to progress 
>>>>>>> piecemeal
>>>>>>> based on previous scientific knowledge. Science is also subject to major
>>>>>>> shifts (revolutions) when we have ignored evidence (e.g., the 
>>>>>>> properties of
>>>>>>> the very small as found in quantum mechanics) or misinterpreted it 
>>>>>>> (e.g.,
>>>>>>> Mercury’s precession values). Typically, though, much of established
>>>>>>> science is retained at least as an approximation in any new theory. I 
>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>> add a lot (found in Kuhn, Feyerabend and other
>>>>>>> anti-reductionist-empiricists) about how science can progress in order 
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> add to scientific knowledge, but it would take too long here. Suffice to
>>>>>>> say that these things further limit point (b). On the disadvantage side,
>>>>>>> the problems follow from the same factors, especially (b) and (c), 
>>>>>>> since it
>>>>>>> means that science must proceed piecemeal, and at any given time there 
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> be large areas that are not accessible to current science with it 
>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>> methods and presuppositions. Much of this area to which current science 
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> blind is exactly there area that is of most interest in our human 
>>>>>>> pursuits.
>>>>>>> I might add that when science does try to deal outside of its current 
>>>>>>> scope
>>>>>>> it often gets into trouble. I am thinking in particular of recent work 
>

Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Helmut Raulien]

 very helpful. But I think it would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater to just ignore everything that doesn’t meet current scientific standards.

 

I haven’t discussed the abuse of science, which like other sources of power gets misused by powerful and/or charismatic people, but it is  a danger that at least science itself is in principle capable of meeting through it very methods.

 


John Collier

Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate

University of KwaZulu-Natal

http://web.ncf.ca/collier


 




From: Olga [mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, 05 July 2016 11:35 PM
To: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method





 



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 .




 






-
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 .




 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[Jerry Rhee]

on of Shakespeare's
>>>>>>> accomplishment in that genre. I've also been involved in a rather 
>>>>>>> intensive
>>>>>>> look at his *A Midsummer Night's Dream*, having just seen my 7th
>>>>>>> production of it this year (4 theatrical productions, two ballets, and a
>>>>>>> filmed version). After these several hundreds of years Shakespeare 
>>>>>>> still,
>>>>>>> it seems to me, sheds light--and, typically, new light with each 
>>>>>>> re-reading
>>>>>>> or re-hearing--on human relations and 'vital' matters of "the human 
>>>>>>> heart."
>>>>>>> These are, I think necessarily *not* precise, and they are at best
>>>>>>> only *vaguely* verifiable (while, however, my emotional response to
>>>>>>> a line of dialogue, say, can be confirmed by an entire audience's 
>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>> reaction--say laugher, or a communal gasp).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As to the second paragraph above, I would tend not so much to think
>>>>>>> that we should approach such forms as music, literature and the like 
>>>>>>> from a
>>>>>>> "scientific attitude," but, again, rather with a sense of
>>>>>>> *fallibility* since, as you wrote, " Our past experience has shown
>>>>>>> us that almost none of these other areas are universal for all space and
>>>>>>> time, or even between cultures." Still, for example, some of
>>>>>>> Shakespeare's insights have held for hundreds of years and across many,
>>>>>>> many cultures (one might note that his work has been translated into 80
>>>>>>> languages). You continued:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JC: So even if science has its built in limitations, and is far from
>>>>>>> being able to answer all the questions we might have about humans in the
>>>>>>> world, elements of the scientific attitude are still very helpful. But I
>>>>>>> think it would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater to just 
>>>>>>> ignore
>>>>>>> everything that doesn’t meet current scientific standards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet throwing that proverbial baby out with the bath water is exactly
>>>>>>> what some scientists would like to do, and in attempting and 
>>>>>>> recommending
>>>>>>> and nearly insisting on this, they are in effect meaning to reduce all
>>>>>>> 'true' knowledge to that which is 'precise' and 'verifiable', making
>>>>>>> virtually everything but science culturally 'relative' (at best). You
>>>>>>> concluded:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JC: I haven’t discussed the abuse of science, which like other
>>>>>>> sources of power gets misused by powerful and/or charismatic people, 
>>>>>>> but it
>>>>>>> is  a danger that at least science itself is in principle capable of
>>>>>>> meeting through it very methods.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We probably have seen the misuse of science in the interest of power
>>>>>>> increase in modern times (although this is a moot point), while there 
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> other questions regarding science which come to mind which I can't get 
>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>> now, but which include some parts of science and metaphysics (e.g. 
>>>>>>> aspects
>>>>>>> of cosmology, string theory, etc.) sometimes seeming, to this observer 
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>> leas,t to smack of science fiction as much as of science. In addition, 
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> my friend and colleague, Alan Wolf (now head of the physics department 
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>> Cooper-Union in NYC) commented when I asked him where chaos theory was
>>>>>>> headed, Alan being one of the earliest research