Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,101 Year: 5,358/9,624 Month: 383/323 Week: 23/204 Day: 23/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific method biased..?
straightree
Member (Idle past 4858 days)
Posts: 57
From: Near Olot, Spain
Joined: 09-26-2008


(1)
Message 14 of 21 (536392)
11-22-2009 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Huntard
11-19-2009 1:50 AM


When considering the scientific method, it helps a lot to listen to Karl Popper.
1. The scientific method creates an objective knowledge. When a scientist produces a theory that is published, it is no longer his. It belongs to society. It is an addition to the universal objective knowledge.
2. The scientist, not only relies in his experimentation, but in all pertinent published knowledge (objective knowledge). In fact there are theories produced by pure theorists, like Max Planck, founder of Quantum Mechanics, that was a theoretical physicist. Most of Darwin conclusions were worked out from other naturalist’s works.
3. No amount of positive confirmation is enough to validate any theory. One negative result suffices to invalidate it. For this reason, any theory needs to have the possibility to be falseated (proved false) in order to be scientific. Based on this, K. Popper, for instance, considered that Psychoanalysis was not science, because it was not possible to submit it to falseation process.
4. Theories are not true or false. They are approximations to truth.
All this for K. Popper. Now for me, and regarding the main subject of this thread, bias, I would call it a tendency for any theory to resists competing ones. It is quite natural, but at the end selection does its work. The same mentioned Max Planck, explains how he found great resistance for the new concepts of Physics, by the guardians of the old theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Huntard, posted 11-19-2009 1:50 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Coyote, posted 11-22-2009 7:17 PM straightree has replied
 Message 16 by Blue Jay, posted 11-22-2009 9:19 PM straightree has replied

  
straightree
Member (Idle past 4858 days)
Posts: 57
From: Near Olot, Spain
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 18 of 21 (536518)
11-23-2009 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Coyote
11-22-2009 7:17 PM


Re: Popper to Kuhn
As a Philosopher, Popper said how things ought to be. Kuhn was more a historian, and explained how they in fact are. Nevertheless, my sympathy goes for Popper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Coyote, posted 11-22-2009 7:17 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dr Jack, posted 11-23-2009 3:11 PM straightree has replied

  
straightree
Member (Idle past 4858 days)
Posts: 57
From: Near Olot, Spain
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 20 of 21 (536524)
11-23-2009 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Blue Jay
11-22-2009 9:19 PM


When more than 90-95% of a scientific community agree on something and actively discriminate against all competitors, it is not usually because of dogma, but because of objective support for a theory that has shown exceptional empirical merit.
Yes, but. These scientists should reflect on the fact, that at the end the final result is not very different from the result of dogma: barring progress. No matter how exceptional a theory has been for the progress of a science, it can not expect to last for ever. It should be prepared to produce offsprings!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Blue Jay, posted 11-22-2009 9:19 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
straightree
Member (Idle past 4858 days)
Posts: 57
From: Near Olot, Spain
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 21 of 21 (536528)
11-23-2009 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dr Jack
11-23-2009 3:11 PM


Re: Popper to Kuhn
(the only reason to trust deductive reasoning is that empirically it works; thus trying to use it to justify empiricism is ultimately futile).
I prefer to admit that this is too cryptic for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dr Jack, posted 11-23-2009 3:11 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024