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

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

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

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 en

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

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

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

(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

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

> 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 o

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

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

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

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 argu

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

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 inter

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

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

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

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 mea

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

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

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

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 *

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

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.

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

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, b

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

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 christi

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

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 Arist

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

nt), 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. >>&

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

estions 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 li

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

nce) 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. >&g

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

> 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. >> >>

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

personally hold science in high >>>>>> regard, >>>>>> and will continue to take a scientific attitude in considering science >>>>>> and >>>>>> cenoscopic science. >>>>>> >>>>&

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

e, 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

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

; 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 >>>>>> “

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

by 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 me

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

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 factor

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

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  

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

. 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 l

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

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 th

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

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.

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

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 >>>

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

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 htt

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

f 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.

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

at 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

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

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 > > > &g

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

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&q

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 s

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

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 se

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

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.

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

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 sc