[MD] Alternatives to the scientific method

Tue Jul 31 04:12:52 PDT 2007

Sorry Platt, you're right there's no need for me to be so mean - but seriously of all the references you could have chosen! Will have a think about the Wilber quote now.

My critique is simply that there is "the method" which is a philosophical concept, then there are various overlaid practical instructions that assist in doing the method "well". I think that these overlaid bits should be recognised as context dependent. I'm also agog to see how self proclaimed scientists choose to define themselves so I posted the following:

Hi Science experts! 

Whilst locked in debate in a philosophy forum about the supposed differences between "science", dialogue, rhetoric and various other forms of thinking, I put forward the contention that the scientific method is in fact ubiquitously embedded in all other forms of thinking. Namely hypothesis formulation, experimental analysis, modification, peer review etc... My fellow investigators have suggested though that expert rating systems for example deal with ostensibly subjective markings and thus are "not scientific" and would not be valid as experimental measurements. Likewise thought experiments, suffer from a similar difficulties. 

Rather than endlessly row about how scientists think they define themselves, I resolved to simply ask some and google evidently likes you guys. 

We would appreciate your opinions in response to the following questions: 
According to "scientists" - 

Does "the method" as inferred from Popper et al specifically require objectivism? 

In its most reduced theoretical terms how would you define "the method"? 

Do "you" consider that you hold a particular metaphysical position? 

How do you categorise "scientists", and who would you specifically exclude from that group? 

Many thanks

> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of
> pholden at davtv.com
> Sent: 31 July 2007 12:02
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Alternatives to the scientific method
> 
> 
> Quoting "Laycock, Jos (OSPT)" <Jos.Laycock at OFFSOL.GSI.GOV.UK>:
> 
> > "SCIENCE BUDDIES.COM ?" !!!
> > Excuse me whist I compose myself, Platt you really do quote 
> the most wonderful
> > sources of information, this is a website designed for ages 
> 13 and over to provide
> > help with projects for "show and tell" science fairs.
> > 
> > They're hardly offering up the pure method for rhetorical 
> analysis, this is a site
> > for helping children to grasp the basic principles - you 
> dont run before you can
> > walk.
> > 
> > Anyway, for a laugh I've used their "ask an expert" section 
> to post various
> > theoretical questions and will report back shortly, with 
> "the opinion of
> > scientists" for your perusal.
> > 
> > Thanks for a good laugh!
> > 
> 
> Laugh if you must but I don't hear any critique of the 
> description of the 
> scientific method as presented. Until I do, I will take it as 
> being accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> 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/
> 
> This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the 
> Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by 
> Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM 
> Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) In case of problems, please 
> call your organisations IT Helpdesk. 
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, 
> monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 

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.