[MD] Alternatives to the scientific method

[ian glendinning]

Jos, Ham, whoever ...

Ham I'd never seen you as one of these all or nothing people. You are
being very unscientific, by in any meaning of the word.

(Out on a limb ? Before I go on, the thesis expressed, is actually
Nick Maxwell's - philosopher of science at University College London,
I posted an essay and links on the subject - Is Science Neurotic ?)

As to grounds for the claim that "the 1,2,3,4 process is the only
basis for science" is itself an untestable hypothesis ... that's easy.
You find me any test for it that has been conceived, proposed, or
executed, anywhere ever ... have a go yourself. That doesn't mean it's
wrong, just that it's not a very scientific hypothesis, if it's not
testable. The burden is on disproof, failing an empirical test, that's
what the process says.

As to whether science has been a very successful enterprise so far,
and the 1,2,3,4 process a successful part of that. Well yes, I never
said it hadn't, and neither does Nick, but you're using the "sun will
rise tomorrow" argument.  Pure induction, generalising from many
specific cases, but that's not part of the 1&2 must lead to 3&4 story.

1,2,3,4 is not necessarily wrong, it's just unprovable, and not
necessarily the whole story. Alternative proposal ... also easy.
First, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The 1,2,3,4
process is here to stay, its a well tried and tested working
assumption that it works most cases so far. We should only modify,
improve, evolve it, not reject it.

Second what do we need to add ? Clearly we need to look at those cases
where it doesn't appear to be working ... the classic quantum cases
and more ... and there we'd be getting into realms of conjecture
beyond any of our current expertise ... (which we can come back to)
... Nick's book has a number of prescriptions ... which involve
"values" - being honest about what we "should be aiming for" ... which
is why I reference him in the MoQ context.

Jos' proposed re-statement of 1,2,3,4 actually illustrates the problem
... "until nothing else can be conceived of" ... ie It's actually
limited only by where the scientists in question draw their conceptual
lines - in terms of the hypotheses and tests, and the metaphors that
relate them ... eg how the proposed test relates to the hypothesis
itself ... it's possible to conceive of a hypotheis which is highly
abstract and metaphorical, beyond the realms of everyday
phenomenology, and not necessarily conceive of how a "real life" test
would relate to it ... the gap between 1&2 and 3&4.

Not quite sure where Ham was going in his orginal argument ... other
than his own flavour of essentialism again ... but Jos, I'd be
interested if you at least accept the main point here ...

Ian

On 7/27/07, Laycock, Jos (OSPT) <Jos.Laycock at offsol.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:
> Ian --
> >
> > > I was not referring to the hypothesis, but the four step
> > process itself;
> > > that is presumed common sense too, but unfounded and untestable
> > > in itself. (A meta-problem)
>
> Ham
>
> What grounds do you have for this claim?  And what would Ian Glendinning
> propose as a more efficacious alternative to the scientific method?
>
> Me:
>
> Ham, I think that by asking that question you miss your own opportunity to even try and come up with something, would you like to join Ian out on his limb and see if anything springs to mind?
>
> To re-state it:
>
> 1)Propose an explanatory hypothesis to describe the operation of a given system,
> 2)Invent experiments that are potentially confounding of that hypothesis and test it to destruction.
> 3)Repeat steps 1 & 2 iteratively until satisfied that no further potentially confounding experiments can be conceived of.
> 4)Write down your conclusions and show them to some other scientists.
>
> Seems reasonable enough, but the issues are:
> Why look at that particular system?
> Why test these particular hypotheses?
> What defines the operational parameters of the system? - and further,
> When science by its nature makes a requirement of impartiality, how do you ensure that you pursue hypothesis formulation with equal zeal as experimental investigation? Its like asking a lawyer to be defence and prosecution at the same time.
>
> So, enough negativity then, lets have some suggestions,
> Mine is as follows:
>
>
> "Test everything"
> Random/Chaotic hypothesis formulations are made by a supercomputer SC1 based on a dataset of all available data. These are constantly "tested" by an adversarial supercomputer SC2, and the results of SC2 are fed back to SC1 as further information on which to base new hypotheses.
> Communications between computers 1 & 2 is monitored by 3rd independent supercomputer which maps the iterations and extrapolates from the developing patterns to predict end points. These are also fed back to SC1, and the communications between SC3 and SC1 are monitored and mapped by you guessed it SC4 etc.....
>
> The logical operations of SC2, 3 and 4 etc... need to be defined and I suggest using a further independent supercomputer to use genetic algorithms to define the logic of the other computers pragmatically from the results of their own early experiments, constantly refreshing them with "new best logics" as it refines them.
>
> So the whole thing would create layers of patterns of information, and define sets of pragmatic rules to operate at each level, generating no answers at all, but instead setting out the available data in one large ordered pattern allowing an observer to......
>
> oh.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
>
> This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
>
> This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>