Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
11 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,465 Year: 3,722/9,624 Month: 593/974 Week: 206/276 Day: 46/34 Hour: 2/6


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Is It Science? ⇒

Scientific method biased..?

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
Author Topic:   Scientific method biased..?
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2719 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008

Blue Jay Posts Only
Message 16 of 21 (536402)
11-22-2009 9:19 PM 		Reply to: Message 14 by straightree
11-22-2009 4:53 PM

Hi, Straightree.
​
straightree writes:
​
The same mentioned Max Planck, explains how he found great resistance for the new concepts of Physics, by the guardians of the old theories.
​
Science is supposed to work this way.
​
To an extent, the conflict of competing theories helps science progress and discover which theory is the best available, so diversity of opinion and disagreements are often the sign of healthy, vibrant science. If you're looking for the "cutting-edge" science, find out the stuff that large groups of science are fighting about.
​
But, once one theory overwhelms all competing theories through the scientific method, indiscriminate open-mindedness can actually become a hindrance to science. Scientists should not be asked to review the possible evidence for all vanquished theories from the past without unequivocal reason to think it is necessary.
​
Objectivity does not require neutrality: in fact, it very often requires the opposite. 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.
​
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
​
Darwin loves you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by straightree, posted 11-22-2009 4:53 PM straightree has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by straightree, posted 11-23-2009 3:26 PM Blue Jay has not replied
  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2719 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008

Blue Jay Posts Only
Message 17 of 21 (536403)
11-22-2009 9:22 PM 		Reply to: Message 3 by subbie
11-19-2009 10:17 AM

Hi, Subbie.
​
subbie writes:
​
My impression is that it's considerably harder to get funding to pay for research that challenges the current paradigm, whatever the field.
​
In general, yes. And it makes sense. If you consider that funding for research in a scientific field is awarded by scientists in that field (via peer review), then the degree of pervasiveness of a certain paradigm within that field will give a strong indication as to the support any challenger will be likely to find on his/her peer-review panel.
​
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
​
Darwin loves you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 11-19-2009 10:17 AM subbie has not replied
  
straightree
Member (Idle past 4772 days)
Posts: 57
From: Near Olot, Spain
Joined: 09-26-2008

straightree Posts Only
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
  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.4

Dr Jack Posts Only
Message 19 of 21 (536520)
11-23-2009 3:11 PM 		Reply to: Message 18 by straightree
11-23-2009 3:06 PM

Re: Popper to Kuhn
Popper has some interesting contributions but his whole aim is silly (the only reason to trust deductive reasoning is that empirically it works; thus trying to use it to justify empiricism is ultimately futile).
​
Kuhn has some interesting insights, but his notion of scientific paradigms is simplified to the point of absurdity.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by straightree, posted 11-23-2009 3:06 PM straightree has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by straightree, posted 11-23-2009 3:51 PM Dr Jack has not replied
  
straightree
Member (Idle past 4772 days)
Posts: 57
From: Near Olot, Spain
Joined: 09-26-2008

straightree Posts Only
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 4772 days)
Posts: 57
From: Near Olot, Spain
Joined: 09-26-2008

straightree Posts Only
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
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Prev12
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024