Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Working Hypothesis -- what is the value?
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 26 of 92 (735610)
08-18-2014 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by RAZD
08-18-2014 5:45 PM


Re: Example 4 -- bridge design
Hey RAZD, just my 2 cents here (seasonally adjusted for inflation and unemployment)... the term scientist describes an occupation - a person who engages in a systematic activity in order to acquire knowledge. As does engineer, geologist, statistician, etc. I don't think it is a statement about whether that individual actually applies the scientific method or not.
For example, I would say my current occupation is a scientist. However, I have been working in the lab for about 8 weeks now and have not once developed an hypothesis or even tested a falsifiable premise. My primary job is to characterize a soil fungus (Rhizoctonia solani) isolated from dry beans in East Africa. I am going about that characterization in a systematic way and the product of my work will simply be the knowledge associated with that characterization (which will include some practical applications such as resistant varieties of beans). Even the controlled experiment I conducted was more of an application experiment rather than a falsifiable testing of an hypothesis.
Also, another point, I will use a lot of statistics in my job but that doesn't make me a statistician because it is not my primary purpose. So in that sense I agree, an engineer would not be a scientist just because during the course of their work they apply the scientific method. They are engineers because their primary function is to produce usable products through applied science. I don't think it is an issue of them not applying the scientific method but that their end goal is to produce usable products ratehr than basic knowledge.
So back to how this all got started, Walt Brown is not a scientist because he does not engage in systematic activity in order to acquire knowledge; not because he has a mechanical engineering degree as opposed to a more "scientist-type" degree. The degree he has is a separate issue from the occupation he engages in. And again, whether he is an authority on any of the issues he writes about would depend on not only the degree he has but also the occupation he engages in; a degree alone does not makes one an authority. I would say he is more of a science fiction writer.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 08-18-2014 5:45 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 08-18-2014 10:00 PM herebedragons has replied
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2014 9:53 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 27 of 92 (735611)
08-18-2014 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
08-13-2014 8:05 PM


Would you clarify for me what you mean by the term "working hypothesis?" How is that different than a regular hypothesis?
I have used the term myself but meant it to mean a hypothesis that can be used to develop testable predictions. You seem to be using the term in a slightly different way, I'm not quite sure.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2014 8:05 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2014 10:03 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 29 of 92 (735613)
08-18-2014 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by NoNukes
08-18-2014 10:00 PM


Re: Example 4 -- bridge design
I guess I am arguing for the more restricted sense as well, except for what seems to be a different reason than what RAZD seems to be saying. My contention is that a person is a scientist by occupation. If a mechanical engineer spends 98% of his time using strictly applied science (ie. not using the scientific method) and then for a short period of time uses the scientific method to solve a complex problem, he does not then become a scientist for that short period of time and then revert back to non-scientist when the problem has been solved.
Another issue is what it means to be "engaged in a systematic activity." That doesn't mean going to the library and reading every book on a subject in alphabetical order. It means the methodology that generally follows the scientific method, although, as in the example of my job, doesn't necessarily use the scientific method directly. So engineers may be engaged in a systematic activity, but the difference is their primary output is not knowledge, it is a usable product.
An area of science where this distinction gets a bit blurry is geology. I don't think I would refer to petroleum geologists as scientists, since they typically engage in applied science with the primary output to be a definable product (petroleum). Certainly they engage in scientific activity, and certainly that doesn't discredit their occupation at all. However, a geologist who documents the rocks of the Grand Canyon simply for the sake of the knowledge that it provides, I would consider a scientist, because the primary output is knowledge.
So I guess my position is more expansive in the sense that it isn't just a person who engages in the scientific method - that's too restrictive, but also not so expansive that it includes everyone who works with science.
On the other hand, in EvC debates, there is another, even more restricted sense in which the term is used. In most cases, it is unimportant whether an economist is actually a scientist or not because we don't expect an economist's opinion on evolution, cosmology, or geology or other science relevant to a debate about Christian Science to be of any special relevance.
Well, unless there is an appeal to authority (such as what sparked this whole line of discussion) arguments should stand on their own regardless of the credentials of the individual. A person with only a high school diploma can have valid, relevant opinions on any topic we discuss here. So if an economist writes a book about evolution, it would be presumptuous to dismiss it because it was written by an economist. It should be judged on its own merits. Although honestly, I have pretty much gotten to the point where I automatically dismiss anything written by a YEC; experience has shown it is always of little value.
a mechanical engineer is not a mechanic, and an electrical engineer is not a tv repair man.
Indeed. In fact, engineers as a whole are the brightest and most gifted individuals on a college campus.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 08-18-2014 10:00 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by NoNukes, posted 08-19-2014 12:06 AM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2014 10:30 AM herebedragons 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