On 10 Apr 2000 14:06:32 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts)
wrote:

> here are a few (fastly found i admit) urls about scientific method ... some 
> are quite interesting
 < snip; so that no one might think that I recommend the citations > 

I saved this note because it had references, but I was disappointed by
them, now that I finally got around to checking -- after the first
three, I quit checking.  

The first one had the tone such that I wondered if the author was
going to point me to Biblical Creationism as what he *recommended* .  
Well, it is not the perspective you will see in your Social Science
textbooks.

I recommend, instead, that if you want to understand how a scientist's
mind works, you might want to read a critique of that neurotic U.S.
movement -- Try Stephen Jay Gould, when he is writing essays and book
reviews (rather than the excellent Naturalist topics, which make up
most of his books).  I think "Urchins in the storm"  is a book of
reviews.  He also wrote an excellent piece about the role of biasses
in social science history, "The Mismeasure of Man".

For deep consideration of the scientific method, I recommend,
"Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge" (Lakatos, ed.).  This book
happens to be from the proceedings of a symposium devoted to exploring
Thomas Kuhn's thesis about revolutions in scientific discovery, and it
is a modern classic.

-- 
Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html


===========================================================================
This list is open to everyone.  Occasionally, less thoughtful
people send inappropriate messages.  Please DO NOT COMPLAIN TO
THE POSTMASTER about these messages because the postmaster has no
way of controlling them, and excessive complaints will result in
termination of the list.

For information about this list, including information about the
problem of inappropriate messages and information about how to
unsubscribe, please see the web page at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
===========================================================================

Reply via email to