Yep. RG is equating science with experiments. There may be those who like this, but experimentation is NOT THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC METHOD (and I would argue that experimentation is THE LEAST OF IT -- especially if one is developing a new perspective and approach). RG appears to have no appreciation for "just" verified observations -- even though that may be exactly what really new discovery looks like . Those observations may, in time (but not right away), be followed by experimentation. Verified observations by themselves may be very important and all we have for some time (in some new areas/kinds of investigation).
The outrageous bias of RG is so great that they now hide the Project Updates (of the Log) with multiple queries about one's experiments and hypotheses -- as if all good, clear hypotheses could be put "in a nut shell" (in a small "blank", with little context) AND that experiments are all that matter (or at least all that deserves several special headings). How about a heading for: "Verified Observations"?
I would ask: What experiments did Einstein do to lead and come up with his understanding of the universe? Did he start with experiments? NO!! He started with observation and MATH (which is basically verified observation). True, eventually some experiments were done to VERIFY HIS IMPORTANT OBSERVATIONS -- but all this did NOT begin with experiments..
And, all of this is not to mention major swathes of Biology. Come on, give us a break.
There's a lot involved surrounding science. That's for sure. There's theory development, which is kind of a design thinking process. There's also the development of narrative, which helps us understand and explain our models. And finally there's the part that I generally think of as being science: the testing of theories, in an attempt to falsify and prioritize them. I'm certain that's science. I'm not sure about the rest.
But I do still generally consider science to be any high quality work, made available for public criticism, which adds to the body of scientific theory and evidence. It's one reason why I promote my idea of the Call to Research paper format so much: Preprint Call to Research: A need for a new paper format
Dear Vincent Raphael Nyirenda
Certainly. IF AND WHEN POSSIBLE. Look at the lab; look at your setting there; look at the time frame; then, ask what is and is not possible to experiment on.
Brad Jesness,
If a theory cannot be tested through some kind of experiment, then it is not scientific. A scientific theory must be potentially falsifiable.
Dear Daniel Goldman
You say: " There's a lot involved surrounding science. That's for sure. There's theory development, which is kind of a design thinking process. There's also the development of narrative, which helps us understand and explain our models. " (end quote).
THEN you seem to discount all that and "honor" only experimentation. I think I know why. You have the empirical order of something out of place, indicated by "helps us understand and explain our models". Look: Decent and scientific models ONLY FOLLOW verified and agreed-upon OBSERVATIONS (with good inter-rater/inter-observer reliabilities) -- however those are obtained: OTHERWISE you are a priori asserting the nature of phenomenon. PERIOD. If you realize THIS, you would not so much discount all the other except experiments and you would NOT think only experiments are really important. You would not do anything remotely like that.
This idea that one should (or CAN) conjure up a model (perhaps based on informal observation(s)) and ONLY THEN look to verify it is absolutely un-empirical and unscientific (frankly, it is needlessly desperate, as well as un-empirical and unscientific). You can look at any of the established sciences to verify models "come second", to the content, to see convincingly for yourself, or for anyone else.
[ Philosophers used to do this kind of wrongful thinking -- sitting in their arm-chairs -- but ALL science and aspiring science should have left ANYTHING LIKE THAT BEHIND _AND_ UNUSED . ]
And: Daniel Goldman:
OBSERVATIONS are are as falsifiable as experiments -- it can be shown if they have OR lack high inter-observer reliablities (P.S.: p
Brad Jesness, this is a personal debate with myself. Not a philosophical position that I think others should necessary consider. I am at a personal impasse wrt what I would consider to be science, and what I would consider to be associated with science. The narrative aspect is subjective. To include it within science itself makes science subjective. That may be fine. I don't know. But one thing I will say on this matter is that scicomm is not science, and science is not scicomm.
Now, onto falsification: an observation is an observation. We compare observations against models in an attempt to falsify them (Popperian science). I do not accept Baconian science or a bastardization between Popperian and Baconian sciences.
"Proven" used in science is another issue that I have. Science is not able to prove things. If we could solve the problem of induction, things would be different. Then I could accept Baconian science or its derivatives.
Now, of course I don't mean that a theory has to be tested right away to be scientific, but we have to know how we could test and potentially falsify it in order for it to be a scientific theory. A mathematical model which does not present any method of falsification is a purely mathematical model, not a scientific one, for the time being. Closed timelike curves are probably a good example of this situation.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences