So I Wrote A Book On The Scientific Method

Kidnap some German toddlers and infants and sneak them into the UK?

Sadly, that wouldn't work - we have a law which requires all 11 year olds to undergo a procedure, which removes their ability to take penalties.

I am interested in seeing it.

I am not sure I am reading it like an editor would at all. I am not finding anything I would change.I like the flow and the examples very much. So far, so great.May I 'lend' a copy to a friend of mine?

Well, then we must consider the possibility that it's a flawless work of unadulterated genius. If he promises to find no faults in it, or to find them all in the next week or so.

You're a bit late. You may have to wait 'til it's published.

Just a note to say I will buy this when it is published. Well, unless the per page price is toooo much.In fact, if you are forced to self publish as an e-book. Make sure I know how to buy that.

I would warn the reader that, after supplying such an interesting insight as "The opposite of trying to prove a theory true is not trying to prove it false: the opposite of both these things if indifference, apathy, and complacence.", our writer then slides this in when we are lulled into trusting him: "Seismologists (for example) might be influenced by their preferred hypotheses into over- or underestimating the strength of a given earthquake; a seismometer, on the other hand, would be swayed only by the earthquake and not by prejudice."Delivered subtly belying it's outrageousness.

I think it would be helped (but maybe too difficult or expensive) if you could have a scattering of illustrative and/or funny cartoons.

This is what the friend I lent the book to had so say. Certainly more useful input than I can come up with."Just a few observations that the author may or may not care about.Per the Flamingos smile Darwin believed in the old way of looking at categorization (per Victorian mores) until months after return from his trip.
Showing that he changed his mind upon 1) evidence and experience and 2) input from other experts in biology that showed him that the finches were NOT separate birds species but adaptations, supports many of the authors points that he is trying to make.Another observation is re the actual whether pigs have wings part of the book. Further to mass observation that proves the rule (at least 99.9 percent of the time) I think there is another salient message to be made here about science and the scientific method.That would be that with further; more detailed analysis and thought on this; you can usually (often?) in science come up with some very good reasons (from your observational hypothesis that pigs do NOT have wings (or fly or ever did fly)) as to why this is. The last time that anything that was non birdlike (ie hollow bones, feathers, etc) the size of a pig actually flew was the Pterodactyls and Pteranodons of the dinosaur eras. Recent discoveries point to two reasons why everything was so big then, 1) much more oxygen in the air so that less fuel could support bigger sizes 2) many/most/all dinosaurs were hybrids of cold/warm blooded animals (as the tails of sharks are today) and had the benefits of both types of systems.The pig does not have the bone structure to fly and it is too big to fly given the lower oxygen content of our atmosphere and it’s purely warm blooded nature which requires too much fuel to fly something that big with non hollow bones and no feathers (the Fruit bat seems to be about the biggest thing that can fly with membranes these days). So physics, biology and chemistry also point to it being unlikely to find any flying pigs (and the fossil record doesn’t show any flying pigs so no vestigial wings either).Another small bit of input might be around the section where the author talks about observing the orange colour and stripes and concluding it is a tiger. The focus here seemed to be again that mass observation led us to use these two things as key signposts (that could keep you alive) that IT IS A TIGER! I think that a further point about the scientific approach could be made here. That is that if we are still not absolutely sure it is not just a large striped tabby cat; science allows us to peer closer at the animal (hopefully dead or unconscious) and do detailed analysis of it’s structure down to the DNA level to compare it with known tigers. So we have ways to be mightily sure (just not in time to save us maybe).It is interesting that none of the above approaches help us explain away unicorns. There are no physics, chemistry or biological constraints to limit the existance of such an animal (look at the narwhal). Only massive amounts of observation all over the world.Anyway that’s it. Otherwise a very well written explanation of this topic. I enjoyed the way the book built upon the various parts of the scientific method, addressing each in turn and how
they build to something that we can trust (to a reasonable extent). The parts I liked the best was where the author confronted the various ways that pseudo science and believers’'(and philosophers) have tried to attack or even highjack for themselves some of the various premises of the scientific method. The use of examples and thought experiments throughout was excellent. I particularly enjoyed the
undoing of the ICR and it’s approach as I am dismayed as to how many times these creationists and their ilk keep reappearing throughout the world (and particularly in the US southern states )."

I'm not sure what this is in relation to. Actually, that's a reason why choosing pigs with wings as an example might have been a bad example. I am specifically using it as an example of something that we think isn't true because of our experience of pigs, and which we would therefore fold on if we found a winged pig. The fact that we can also think of other reasons based on other well-substantiated theories why they shouldn't exist is actually something I deliberately didn't talk about. I'm using it as an example of things we know from experience, if I added that the theory of evolution also supports this belief things would get confusing. This is something I might well have talked about more. I use the existence of a tiger to illustrate how what we describe as a fact is also a theory. I could certainly have gone on further and explained how the theory predicts what will happen if we poke the region where we think the tiger is, or if we X-ray the supposed tiger, or dissect it, and in fact this was a strong temptation which I shall go with if most people advocate it. I was held back from this by two considerations: one is that it would break up the flow of the chapter; and the other is that this is one of the longest sections of the book already, and is merely doing the rather dull job of persuading people not to use terms like "fact" and "theory" in bullshit ways. But perhaps I could put it in another chapter.

Well, can you think of any?I agree that this is a tough book, and that therefore it would be nice if I could jolly the reader along. On the other hand ... I can't think of any good cartoons.Also, I do wish the book to be taken seriously as well. I intend it to be a popular book, but there are two or three places where I think I've made a genuine, original, and much-needed contribution to the philosophy of science. I spent a few months writing this book in the lightest style I thought I could get away with; but before that I have spent literally a decade thinking about this book as seriously as anyone has ever thought about anything. I've been as amusing as I dared; I draw the line at cartoons.

Eddington's motives in conducting the observations were impugned, and even now the issue is not resolved. If Eddington's experiment was capable of distinguishing between GR predicted light bending and Newtonian bending, it was not excessively capable of so doing.

Don't worry about it. I meant cartoons not in the sense of funny but as sort of as illustrative:e.g., a winged pig, planets in orbit etc.The book is not, to me, tough or difficult. I find it crisp, clear, full of thought (in fact, dense with insight). Enjoyable to read and a good reference to just hand to someone in an argument, tell them to read it, and get back.I might not be the core of your audience though. I am discerning, intelligent and knowledgeable beyond the average. (no )

By now it ought to be clear that Dr. Adequate is fishing for exactly that kind of compliment. I'm not giving the 'A' the satisfaction.NoNukes