Reminds me of Clever Hans. Apparently the scientists found repeated consistent evidence by independent observers and reached a tentativley accepted truth. But fortunately, a psychologist came to the rescue.
I think the definition of science is problematic and no definition will satisfy everyone (unless it is as long as the APA guide for writing). And probably, there is a difference between what science should be and what it actually is. Which one should be defined? Both? If science as practiced is defined would it (should it?) mention things like science being "steered" by money interests and societal gestalt? Science, as practiced, is after all a social phenomenon. --Mike On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:07 PM, K. H. Grobman <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Chris & Everyone, > > That is a surprising definition of "science" from an authoritative source. > My undergraduate degree is in physics. I then studied philosophy of > science because quantum mechanics disillusioned me and made me wonder if > science really can tell us anything special. After being satisfied with > traditional philosophy of science, but dismayed by newer philosophy of > science, I returned to science by studying developmental psychology. Here's > my definition: > > ====== > Science is the pursuit of knowledge by predicting new phenomena from prior > phenomena, while imposing the greatest degree of skepticism possible and yet > assuming just enough to allow shared knowledge among those maintaining just > as much skepticism. Repeated consistently-found evidence of phenomena by > independent observers leads this pursuit of knowledge to > tentatively-accepted truths. Two minimal assumptions of science that allow > shared knowledge while remaining as skeptical as possible are: (1) truth is > a correspondence between observed phenomena and statements (e.g.., > hypotheses, mathematical equations) and (2) an understanding of a whole > phenomena is the combination of understanding of parts of the phenomena. > ====== > > The definition excludes religion, intuition, values, and common sense. > However, the definition does not include so much skepticism that we end up > believing nothing (e.g., solipsism) or extreme forms of post-modernism. > Intelligent Design is not science because it makes an assumption that is > not necessary to predict phenomena (i.e., it is not as skeptical as > possible) and because it invokes teleological mechanisms instead of > explaining solely from prior causes. Any domain can be studied > scientifically. "Content analysis" by our colleagues in mass communication > is scientific study of television and there is no reason the same can not be > done for art, literature, or history (e.g., Herb Simon's computation models > based on diaries of historically important scientists, Howard Gardener's > studies of children's changing appreciation of different kinds of > paintings). Nobody always does science; I teach with intuition and make > choices according to moral feelings. So I am certainly not saying that > because something is not science, that it is somehow not worthwhile. > Nevertheless, science has a special place in our lives precisely because > its truths required so much skepticism be overcome to be produced. No > matter how much we disagree on issues of faith, intuition, common sense, or > emotion - we can still agree to incorporate scientific truth into our > world-views. > > Kevin > > > > _.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._ > ~ all that you can take with you is that which you've given away ~ > ~ teaching & learning developmental psychology ~ > ~ http://www.DevPsy.org <http://www.devpsy.org/> ~ > > > > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
