>
> Yes, scientists are human, but when we try to define something, shouldn't
> it define what is, not what its practitioners mistakenly assume it to be ?
> Science in its description of itself denies the entire right brain creative
> side of itself. It does this because the mythology of science is
> objectivity and subjective pattern making is heresy to that mythology. Yet
> in fact science is a blend of the two.
>
Science is a method. I detest any separation of
thinking into "artist" and "scientist". I think we
all do and need both, but this has nothing to do with
the way science works.
Eva
> Mike H
>
> >Mike H:
> >> Regarding the subject of what is science and definitions which emphasized
> >> observation and rejection of theories when counter factual data is
> >> presented, I thought the two following documents would be of interest.
> >>
> >> Scientists do not as a rule observe and then theorize. They typically do
> >> it the other way round. When they find the data does not confirm the
> >> hypothesis, the usual reaction is not to reject the hypothesis, but to
> >> assume it was a bad set of data and proceed to draw another set.
> >>
> >
> >Scientists are human, they not always adhere to their own principles.
> >That doesn't make those principles defunct. The good news is that
> >the method always wins out in the long run, when all the data is in
> >the public domain, and peers have a free run at the re-analysis.
> >I sent on your piece on Gold for a review...
> >
> >Eva
> >"So the universe is not quite as you thought
> >it was.
> > You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then.
> > Because you certainly can't rearrange the
> > universe."
> > -- Isaac Asimov &
> > Robert Silverberg,
> > _Nightfall_
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
