>>> Well, inasmuch that the whole of the* processes involved* in this "allocation deliberation" [should] explore, examine, and incorporate the paradigmatic structures operating within the individual & collective intellects - considering the methodologies that precipitate from those, I'd have to say *"decidedly so..."* - *at least where the philosophy of science is involved.* The inherent systemic & systematic implementations involved, for myself, i.e., the design aspects, controls, procedures, etc., - all the pragmatic issues, working definitions, and established criteria - these pretty much are at the heart of the research initiatives we deem to be "good science." And, I view our *periodic* epistemological reviews as essential "fail-safes" in lieu of the systems boundedness with which we must all contend... so it is [should be] an integral part of any scientific undertaking. If I am understanding your question correctly, that's pretty much the whole of *my* take on this....
This IS an age-old & pertinent issue... one that plagues the whole of science. For this, I 'd assume others would want to respond to it, and explore the question of this dynamic further.>> I'm sure we all could offer some anecdotal entries to spur on the discourse. On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:54 AM, aruzinsky <[email protected]>wrote: > But, is it a part of philosophy of science or epistemology? > > On Oct 27, 4:07 pm, Timothy Monicken <[email protected]> wrote: > > Naturally, it would seem that the experiment that *might* produce the > *biggest > > payoff* is to be determined - whether that be *confirmation* of numerous > > hypothetical constructs, and/or the *elimination* of other > > substantive,*alternate explanations > > * to a specific problem... my own group periodically conducts "epigenetic > > surveys & evals" as they relate to goal apprehension/ progress. Of > > course, *probability > > assessments, *conjoined to the inherent risk management components, are > > brought into focus, but the question of resource allocation is always an > > unwelcome 'reality," or "inconvenient truth." Sadly, protracted R&D is > > often an excruciating reminder of one's own levels of patience and > resolute > > perseverance. *Good Luck & Good Will in Your Hunting!* > > > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:57 PM, aruzinsky > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > What is the best criteria for allocating limited resources to > > > different science experiments? WLOG, assume that you have plans/ > > > proposals for two experiments but only have monetary funding for one. > > > How do you choose? You can't base your choice on the exact results of > > > the two experiments because you do not know them before performing the > > > experiments. > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > "Epistemology" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]<epistemology%[email protected]> > <epistemology%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<epistemology%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
