This page is for discussing the contents of Against method.
Comments:
2010-07-26 19:16:07 Anon has not noticed this page is a series of direct quotations... not the place for conrary opinions.
Here's what he said:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 6: Line 6:
This is incredibly ridiculous. Science is not an ideology nor a philosophy. It is not conspicuous, noisy and impudent, but it is superior in the sense that it is self-correcting. Science is a process, not and ideology. Humans do good and terrible things in the name of God, political affiliations, etc., but not in the name of science.
[NN comments - peculiarly naive claim this! What about the Nazis - very much claimed to be acting in the name of science, and so were innumerable other atrocities - eg the US sterilisation program of Native Americans, to give just one...]
No one high-fives the guy or girl next to him ans say, "Yeah! That was for special relativity!" Furthermore, science frequently goes in wrong directions, sometimes for a few months, sometimes for a few centuries, but it is a cumulative process. The more it adds to itself the more it is able to re-examine and correct its mistakes, and the more it is able to bolster its successes. "Simplicity, elegance or consistency are never necessary conditions of (scientific) practice," [p24] but they are the goals. Science looks for unifying theories- elegant equations that reveal the complexity of the universe in simple terms. Scientist are finding these and refining them.
[[NN comments: Well, we could have an interesting discussion about whether scientists find simplicity or impose it, couldn't we? The Doc would say Climate science is complex, but there is a political desire to simplify it and certain scientists are pleased to help them. - Anon, if you really believe what you saying, why not start a page and argue your case properly?]
Line 14: Line 16:
Line 58: Line 61:
The author can thank science for the typewriter he wrote this on.
Line 85: Line 89:
On Astrology On Astrology - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Astrologers have none.
Line 94: Line 98:
Against ‘reason’ Against ‘reason’ Why be against reason?
Line 96: Line 100:
“... what our historical examples seem to show is this: there are situations when our most liberal judgements and our most liberal rules would have eliminated an idea or a point of view which we regard today as essential for science... and such situations occur quite frequently. The ideas survived and they can now be said to be in agreement with reason. They survived because prejudice, passion, conceit, errors, sheer pigheadedness, in short because all the elements that characterise the context of discovery, opposed the dictates of reason and because there irrational elements were permitted to have their way. To express it differently: Copernicism and other ‘rational’ views exist today only because reason was overruled at some time in their past. “... what our historical examples seem to show (they don't) is this: there are situations when our most liberal judgements(?) and our most liberal rules(?) would have eliminated an idea or a point of view which we regard today as essential for science... and such situations occur quite frequently. The ideas survived and they can now be said to be in agreement with reason. They survived because prejudice, passion, conceit, errors, sheer pigheadedness, in short because all the elements that characterise the context of discovery, opposed the dictates of reason and because there irrational elements were permitted to have their way. To express it differently: Copernicism and other ‘rational’ views exist today only because reason was overruled at some time in their past.
Line 105: Line 109:
Let us take a step forward and let us abandon this last trace of dogmatism in science! [pp168-9] Let us take a step forward and let us abandon this last trace of dogmatism in science! [pp168-9]
[Anon adds:}
Yes let's abandon things like logic, evidence, space, travel, medicine, radio, computers, internet, and all the other wonderful advancements that science has given us in favor of a world where everyone's personal rationality and beliefs are given equal weight and value. It's been shown to work in the past, right?
[NN adds: and the oppostie position, where an authority imposes their view of 'rationality' and what is 'right' ahs also been shown to work in the past - right?]
— The above anonymous contribution was posted here by —docmartinso that it could be considered more fully.
2011-11-02 15:17:37 We should put a picture on this fine essay, methinks... Any ideas? —docmartin
