[Vo]:about the Scientific Method
it seems we have to re-define some basic concepts The author (who, if I remember well, has supported the idea of Cold Fusion, writes here about our dear Scientific Method: There is no Scientific Method: http://bigthink.com/in-their-own-words/there-is-no-scientific-method Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:about the Scientific Method
after reading Thomas Kuhn, Nassim Nicholas taleb, Wade&Broad, Roland Benabou, and after some experience in the backcourt of democracy and Science, you know that it is a myth... anyway, with hurts and delays it finally works... with some bloody revolution regularly. 2013/5/2 Peter Gluck > it seems we have to re-define some basic concepts > The author (who, if I remember well, has supported the idea of Cold Fusion, > writes here about our dear Scientific Method: > > There is no Scientific Method: > > http://bigthink.com/in-their-own-words/there-is-no-scientific-method > > Peter > > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
Re: [Vo]:about the Scientific Method
Yes, eventually it works, but what works actually is the Science of tomorrow not the Science with which we start On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > after reading Thomas Kuhn, Nassim Nicholas taleb, Wade&Broad, Roland > Benabou, and after some experience in the backcourt of democracy and > Science, you know that it is a myth... > > anyway, with hurts and delays it finally works... with some bloody > revolution regularly. > > > 2013/5/2 Peter Gluck > >> it seems we have to re-define some basic concepts >> The author (who, if I remember well, has supported the idea of Cold >> Fusion, >> writes here about our dear Scientific Method: >> >> There is no Scientific Method: >> >> http://bigthink.com/in-their-own-words/there-is-no-scientific-method >> >> Peter >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Peter Gluck >> Cluj, Romania >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >> > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:about the Scientific Method
I think what people are saying: The concept of science works but the application frequently sucks! The Scientific method is a guide, like the Ten Commandments, but is likewise frequently ignored. Nevertheless, the idea works and provides an incentive for people who need a guide. Ed Storms On May 2, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: Yes, eventually it works, but what works actually is the Science of tomorrow not the Science with which we start On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: after reading Thomas Kuhn, Nassim Nicholas taleb, Wade&Broad, Roland Benabou, and after some experience in the backcourt of democracy and Science, you know that it is a myth... anyway, with hurts and delays it finally works... with some bloody revolution regularly. 2013/5/2 Peter Gluck it seems we have to re-define some basic concepts The author (who, if I remember well, has supported the idea of Cold Fusion, writes here about our dear Scientific Method: There is no Scientific Method: http://bigthink.com/in-their-own-words/there-is-no-scientific-method Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:about the Scientific Method
I think that in case experiments cannot be done, reality (facts) cannot be known, theory cannot be verified or modified, the virtuous cycle is interrupted and the scientific method fails. Let's focus on LENR Peter On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: > I think what people are saying: The concept of science works but the > application frequently sucks! The Scientific method is a guide, like the > Ten Commandments, but is likewise frequently ignored. Nevertheless, the > idea works and provides an incentive for people who need a guide. > > Ed Storms > > > > On May 2, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > > Yes, eventually it works, but what works actually is the Science of > tomorrow > not the Science with which we start > > > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > >> after reading Thomas Kuhn, Nassim Nicholas taleb, Wade&Broad, Roland >> Benabou, and after some experience in the backcourt of democracy and >> Science, you know that it is a myth... >> >> anyway, with hurts and delays it finally works... with some bloody >> revolution regularly. >> >> >> 2013/5/2 Peter Gluck >> >>> it seems we have to re-define some basic concepts >>> The author (who, if I remember well, has supported the idea of Cold >>> Fusion, >>> writes here about our dear Scientific Method: >>> >>> There is no Scientific Method: >>> >>> http://bigthink.com/in-their-own-words/there-is-no-scientific-method >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Peter Gluck >>> Cluj, Romania >>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >>> >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:about the Scientific Method
Edmund Storms wrote: I think what people are saying: The concept of science works but the > application frequently sucks! > Well, also that the method is not perfect. It works sometimes but not other times. It is like any other technique, or any other institution. Some people have excessive faith in the scientific method. This is like assuming as a matter of faith that the Bank of America can never accidentally debit your account for the wrong amount. The actual nuts and bolts of the scientific method vary from one field to another. Experiments and replication are essential in physics, but they do not exist in astronomy, natural science, or other observational sciences. An industrial chemist once told me that replication is not important in his field. If you make it work, people take it for granted they can make it work eventually. They accept the result at face value. Irreproducible results are rare. Not unheard of, but rare. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:about the Scientific Method
I agree more with the vision of Kuhn and Taleb, that it is not accident but structural. all blackswan, paradigm change, inconvenient anomalies, are treated the same, for reason that are clear and unavoidable. today what happened with LENR is described perfectly by Kuhn. nothing else could have happened. science will not discover LENR, never. of course history will be rewritten, to claim the opposite. only solution to limit what is happening today, is to allow various islands of science, and not a huge continent of scientific community where science is settled. it was one strength of balkanized european zone in medieval period... and the big science spirit was the weakness of china. 2013/5/2 Jed Rothwell > Edmund Storms wrote: > > I think what people are saying: The concept of science works but the >> application frequently sucks! >> > > Well, also that the method is not perfect. It works sometimes but not > other times. It is like any other technique, or any other institution. > > Some people have excessive faith in the scientific method. This is like > assuming as a matter of faith that the Bank of America can never > accidentally debit your account for the wrong amount. > > The actual nuts and bolts of the scientific method vary from one field to > another. Experiments and replication are essential in physics, but they do > not exist in astronomy, natural science, or other observational sciences. > > An industrial chemist once told me that replication is not important in > his field. If you make it work, people take it for granted they can make it > work eventually. They accept the result at face value. Irreproducible > results are rare. Not unheard of, but rare. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:about the Scientific Method
On May 2, 2013, at 9:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Edmund Storms wrote: > >> I think what people are saying: The concept of science works but the >> application frequently sucks! > > Well, also that the method is not perfect. It works sometimes but not other > times. I think that in general scientific method is very loosely defined. Science is based on a method, but what is exactly the method, it is defined case by case. Science is very practical institution. And everything that is practical is very difficult for common people to grasp. People are typically used to theorize a priori generalities in ivory towers. Therefore they have often hard time to understand what constitutes science. Practicality in general is under-appreciated in philosophy. Also I disagree with Edmund. Scientific method does indeed work very often and very well. People are just biased to notice when the application of method is erroneous and science fails and thus they think that errors are more frequent than they actually are. However, more than often science works brilliantly, but when science does good, people do not appreciate it enough. ―Jouni
Re: [Vo]:about the Scientific Method
Let me clarify my pithy and brief comment. Yes the scientific method works fine when applied to studies that have no importance to anyone other than the person doing the study. However, once the subject becomes important to a larger group, such as global warming or cold fusion, to give recent examples, the method is distorted and does not work. Having done studies that used the scientific method with good effect and in cold fusion where the method has broken down, I'm naturally more sensitive to the implications of the failure rather than bering proud of the success. Yes, we can all be proud that the scientific method works, but its failures cause the damage that needs to be addressed. Ed On May 6, 2013, at 2:44 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: On May 2, 2013, at 9:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: I think what people are saying: The concept of science works but the application frequently sucks! Well, also that the method is not perfect. It works sometimes but not other times. I think that in general scientific method is very loosely defined. Science is based on a method, but what is exactly the method, it is defined case by case. Science is very practical institution. And everything that is practical is very difficult for common people to grasp. People are typically used to theorize a priori generalities in ivory towers. Therefore they have often hard time to understand what constitutes science. Practicality in general is under-appreciated in philosophy. Also I disagree with Edmund. Scientific method does indeed work very often and very well. People are just biased to notice when the application of method is erroneous and science fails and thus they think that errors are more frequent than they actually are. However, more than often science works brilliantly, but when science does good, people do not appreciate it enough. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:about the Scientific Method
Edmund Storms wrote: > However, once the subject becomes important to a larger group, such as > global warming or cold fusion, to give recent examples, the method is > distorted and does not work. > I would say it does not work as well. It works to some extent. After all, cold fusion was replicated, and those replications were published in the peer-reviewed literature. When the subject becomes important, many institutions become dysfunctional because of politics, greed, fear, and other human foibles. That statement applies to banking, health care, national government, the military, higher education, setting computer standards, agriculture . . . everything, really. In the events leading up to the crash of 2008, banking became highly dysfunctional because of the housing bubble and the separation of mortgages and the lending institutions. However, just because banking is sometimes dysfunctional to some extent in some ways, that does not mean that all banks are hopeless and they can never play a constructive role in the economy. It means they have their limits. They must be regulated carefully and reformed from time to time. Just because mainstream science has been largely dysfunctional in the cold fusion fiasco, that does not mean all major scientific institutions have failed, or that the method itself always fails when politics interfere with its workings. The ENEA has not totally failed. Cold fusion may yet succeed, after all. Wikipedia is an example of a dysfunctional institution, overrun by politics, because of the way the institution is designed. Despite the many inherent problems, there are good articles in Wikipedia. It is not a total failure, by any means. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:about the Scientific Method
what you say remind me what I've learned about markets, risk management. most of the time financial models are right, but you lose all the cash gain whan it worked when they get suddenly wrong. one blackswan lost can kill all the benefit of the chicken farm. 2013/5/6 Edmund Storms > Let me clarify my pithy and brief comment. Yes the scientific method works > fine when applied to studies that have no importance to anyone other than > the person doing the study. However, once the subject becomes important to > a larger group, such as global warming or cold fusion, to give recent > examples, the method is distorted and does not work. Having done studies > that used the scientific method with good effect and in cold fusion where > the method has broken down, I'm naturally more sensitive to the > implications of the failure rather than bering proud of the success. Yes, > we can all be proud that the scientific method works, but its failures > cause the damage that needs to be addressed. > > Ed > > On May 6, 2013, at 2:44 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: > > > On May 2, 2013, at 9:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Edmund Storms wrote: > > I think what people are saying: The concept of science works but the >> application frequently sucks! >> > > Well, also that the method is not perfect. It works sometimes but not > other times. > > > I think that in general scientific method is very loosely defined. Science > is based on a method, but what is exactly the method, it is defined case by > case. Science is very practical institution. > > And everything that is practical is very difficult for common people to > grasp. People are typically used to theorize *a priori* generalities in > ivory towers. Therefore they have often hard time to understand what > constitutes science. > > Practicality in general is under-appreciated in philosophy. > > Also I disagree with Edmund. Scientific method does indeed work very often > and very well. People are just biased to notice when the application of > method is erroneous and science fails and thus they think that errors are > more frequent than they actually are. However, more than often science > works brilliantly, but when science does good, people do not appreciate it > enough. > > —Jouni > > >
