In article <3pcq72$t7i at jhunix1.hcf.jhu.edu>,
cthoburn at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu <Chris Thoburn> wrote:
>In article <3p92l1$mvl at agate.berkeley.edu>, frauwirt at notmendel.Berkeley.EDU>(Ken Frauwirth (BioKen)) writes:
>>>In article <3p8uso$bhp at ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Christopher Thoburn <cthoburn at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Science requires that one be able to test a hypothesis, and to be able to
>>disprove it. If that is not (at least theoretically) possible, then the
>>hypothesis has no place in the Scientific Method. Philosophy has no such
>>requirement - in fact, Philosophy is best applied to concepts which cannot be
>>disproved - the existence of the supernatural, ethical considerations, and
>>questions of "why".
[snip]
>>I think perhaps the center of our disagreement is in the way that we define
>>"why?" In my mind, this is different from the definition of "how?" If you
>>do not find a difference in the questions "What is the reason that something
>>happens" and "What is the mechanism by which something happens", then we are
>>discussing different things.
>>I do not think we are discussing different things at all. The Scientific
>Method is indeed a very powerful tool by which one can 'frame' a particular
>question. I agree that it is by far the most used (and misused) tool that
>scientists have. I agree that Philosophy has no place in the implementation of
>the scientific method. Science is however, much more than the Scientific
>Method (which is BTW a 'philosophy'). I think Science is a philosophy (which
>is perhaps composed of many smaller phiolosophies). The Scientific Method is
>but a shadow of the whole of Science. In fact if you limit your view of
>Science to just the Scientific Method, then I think you have effectively become
>a technologist.
>> Chris Thobur
I suppose this is where I have to say that we must agree to disagree. I
believe that the Scientific Method is, if not the entire "philosophy" of
Science (if by "philosophy" you simply mean the approach taken to analyze a
problem), the most basic and overriding one. It is what differentiates
Science from any other method of learning about the universe. Put another
way, the Scientific Method is *the* way that Scientists study nature (which is
why it is called the Scientific Method). The Scientific Method cares not
about the "significance", "importance", or "practicality" of knowledge, and
its exclusive use does not make one a technologist. The difference between
Science and Technology is in the ends, not the means. The Scientist seeks
knowledge for its own sake, while the Technologist seeks knowledge to solve a
specific practical problem. But the Scientist can only learn what s/he can
test, so there are still practical concerns in the pursuit of Science.
BioKen
--
Ken Frauwirth (MiSTie #33025) _ _
frauwirt at mendel.berkeley.edu |_) * |/ (_ |\ |
Dept. of Molec. & Cell Bio. |_) | () |\ (_ | \|
Univ. of Cal., Berkeley "Yes, we have second bananas" - Torgo the White
