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 <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> 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
