John C, Gary R, Peirce-list: Are those things you say or things Peirce says of scientific method?
Thanks, Jerry R On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Olga, John, list, > > Thank you for your thoughts in this matter, Olga. It is so nice to see you > on peirce-l, and I'll look forward to future posts from you. Indeed, your > first post has already elicited this, in my opinion, excellent outline by > John Collier. > > John, thank you for this excellently well balanced assessment of the > situation. I'm about to head off to Victoria, BC, Canada for a nine day > vacation commencing tomorrow and am caught up in preparations for that, yet > I'd like to briefly comment on some of your concluding remarks. You wrote: > > JC: When dealing with things outside the scope of science, and even inside > (given the fallibility of science) other areas of human knowledge are need. > They are what we can fall back on. Myth, religion, literature, philosophy > and so on can be very useful as long as we don’t place them on the same > level of precision and verifiability as we can science. > > > > I think it helps even in these areas, though, to keep some of the > scientific attitude and remain somewhat skeptical of untested results, > taking them as at best tentative (and not God-given or from some other > source of certainty). Our past experience has shown us that almost none of > these other areas are universal for all space and time, or even between > cultures. > > > > > Yes, fallibilism in all things scientific as well as those outside the > scope of science. Yet, I wonder a bit about your emphasis in the first of > the two paragraphs above on "the same level of precision and verifiability" > as we sometimes--but not always--have seen in science, and slightly > question whether these other non-scientific areas ought be characterized as > that which we can "fall back on." > > Recently, as a result of reading Michael Shapiro's study on sound and > meaning in Shakespeare's Sonnets, I've been looking quite closely at a > number of the sonnets with increased appreciation of Shakespeare's > accomplishment in that genre. I've also been involved in a rather intensive > look at his *A Midsummer Night's Dream*, having just seen my 7th > production of it this year (4 theatrical productions, two ballets, and a > filmed version). After these several hundreds of years Shakespeare still, > it seems to me, sheds light--and, typically, new light with each re-reading > or re-hearing--on human relations and 'vital' matters of "the human heart." > These are, I think necessarily *not* precise, and they are at best only > *vaguely* verifiable (while, however, my emotional response to a line of > dialogue, say, can be confirmed by an entire audience's similar > reaction--say laugher, or a communal gasp). > > As to the second paragraph above, I would tend not so much to think that > we should approach such forms as music, literature and the like from a > "scientific attitude," but, again, rather with a sense of *fallibility* > since, as you wrote, " Our past experience has shown us that almost none > of these other areas are universal for all space and time, or even between > cultures." Still, for example, some of Shakespeare's insights have held > for hundreds of years and across many, many cultures (one might note that > his work has been translated into 80 languages). You continued: > > JC: So even if science has its built in limitations, and is far from being > able to answer all the questions we might have about humans in the world, > elements of the scientific attitude are still very helpful. But I think it > would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater to just ignore everything > that doesn’t meet current scientific standards. > > > > Yet throwing that proverbial baby out with the bath water is exactly what > some scientists would like to do, and in attempting and recommending and > nearly insisting on this, they are in effect meaning to reduce all 'true' > knowledge to that which is 'precise' and 'verifiable', making virtually > everything but science culturally 'relative' (at best). You concluded: > > > JC: I haven’t discussed the abuse of science, which like other sources of > power gets misused by powerful and/or charismatic people, but it is a > danger that at least science itself is in principle capable of meeting > through it very methods. > > > We probably have seen the misuse of science in the interest of power > increase in modern times (although this is a moot point), while there are > other questions regarding science which come to mind which I can't get into > now, but which include some parts of science and metaphysics (e.g. aspects > of cosmology, string theory, etc.) sometimes seeming, to this observer at > leas,t to smack of science fiction as much as of science. In addition, as > my friend and colleague, Alan Wolf (now head of the physics department at > Cooper-Union in NYC) commented when I asked him where chaos theory was > headed, Alan being one of the earliest researchers into mathematical chaos > theory: "It's pretty much reached a dead end." This is just to suggest that > science and mathematics have sometimes been, imo, given too much emphasis > in the popular imagination, and that that weight can't always be sustained. > > Well, this is all certainly too rouch to be of much value, as opposed to > your thoughtful post, John, which I'll reread and continue to reflect on in > the days to come. Meanwhile, I personally hold science in high regard, and > will continue to take a scientific attitude in considering science and > cenoscopic science. > > Best, > > Gary R > > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:30 AM, John Collier <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Olga, List, >> >> >> >> Science has both advantages and limitations due to its method. On the >> advantage side, one can come up with ideas galore, but to be accepted as >> scientific they have to be tested and alternative explanations of the >> phenomena be shown to not provide an explanation. This requires that a) all >> scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable, b) there must be methods for >> testing these hypotheses (not quite the same as (a)), and c) due to the >> mutual dependence of (a) and especially (b) on other assumptions (called >> “auxiliary assumptions” in most places, science has to progress piecemeal >> based on previous scientific knowledge. Science is also subject to major >> shifts (revolutions) when we have ignored evidence (e.g., the properties of >> the very small as found in quantum mechanics) or misinterpreted it (e.g., >> Mercury’s precession values). Typically, though, much of established >> science is retained at least as an approximation in any new theory. I could >> add a lot (found in Kuhn, Feyerabend and other >> anti-reductionist-empiricists) about how science can progress in order to >> add to scientific knowledge, but it would take too long here. Suffice to >> say that these things further limit point (b). On the disadvantage side, >> the problems follow from the same factors, especially (b) and (c), since it >> means that science must proceed piecemeal, and at any given time there will >> be large areas that are not accessible to current science with it current >> methods and presuppositions. Much of this area to which current science is >> blind is exactly there area that is of most interest in our human pursuits. >> I might add that when science does try to deal outside of its current scope >> it often gets into trouble. I am thinking in particular of recent work that >> shows that fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) has serious >> problems as it has been used in at least thousands of important >> neuropsychological studies, meaning they will need to be done over again, >> at the very least. This is hardly the only example, just one that is >> currently shaking things up. At least, though. The very methods of science >> can (and did in this case) find such problems and show how to correct them. >> The biggest strength of science is not its scope or ability to find general >> truths about the world, but its self-correcting character. >> >> >> >> When dealing with things outside the scope of science, and even inside >> (given the fallibility of science) other areas of human knowledge are need. >> They are what we can fall back on. Myth, religion, literature, philosophy >> and so on can be very useful as long as we don’t place them on the same >> level of precision and verifiability as we can science. >> >> >> >> I think it helps even in these areas, though, to keep some of the >> scientific attitude and remain somewhat skeptical of untested results, >> taking them as at best tentative (and not God-given or from some other >> source of certainty). Our past experience has shown us that almost none of >> these other areas are universal for all space and time, or even between >> cultures. >> >> >> >> So even if science has its built in limitations, and is far from being >> able to answer all the questions we might have about humans in the world, >> elements of the scientific attitude are still very helpful. But I think it >> would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater to just ignore everything >> that doesn’t meet current scientific standards. >> >> >> >> I haven’t discussed the abuse of science, which like other sources of >> power gets misused by powerful and/or charismatic people, but it is a >> danger that at least science itself is in principle capable of meeting >> through it very methods. >> >> >> >> John Collier >> >> Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate >> >> University of KwaZulu-Natal >> >> http://web.ncf.ca/collier >> >> >> >> *From:* Olga [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 05 July 2016 11:35 PM >> *To:* Gary Richmond <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* >> scientific method >> >> >> >> Gary, >> >> >> >> List, >> >> >> >> I am certainly overwhelmed and lost in translation so have mercy on me, >> simply try to find this merely amusing.... but how taking into account >> "revelation" or "miracles" >> >> >> >> "how is it that the results of science are more reliable than what is >> provided by these other forms?" >> >> >> >> Imho science is way behind in defining certain processes, concepts or >> things comparing to other forms... >> >> >> >> As an example of revelation, >> >> Dmitri Mendeleev <http://www.famousscientists.org/dmitri-mendeleev/> was >> obsessed with finding a logical way to organize the chemical elements. It >> had been preying on his mind for months but... he made his discovery in a >> dream... >> >> Imho science is slowly describing in its own language of numbers and >> parameters what can be or was already fully grasped by a human mind and >> vivid imagination. It seems to me that >> >> >> >> Quantified precision with exceptions defeats *ideal* as a whole. >> >> >> >> "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word >> was God." >> >> >> >> Word - ideal. Exceptions are limiting the whole without seeing the whole >> picture... >> >> >> >> If we talk about courage with exceptions, then retreating for the sake of >> winning in a long run, well known in history, is an exception of the >> exception? :) >> >> >> >> >> >> Once again, my sincere apologies, I'm not an expert in this field... :) >> >> >> >> Peace to all! Life to all! Love to all! >> >> Olga >> >> >> On 05 Jul 2016, at 22:55, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> List, >> >> >> >> I found this very short provocative essay of interest. >> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/there-is-no-scientific-method.html?ref=opinion >> >> >> >> The author's conclusion: >> >> >> >> If scientific method is only one form of a general method employed in all >> human inquiry, how is it that the results of science are more reliable than >> what is provided by these other forms? I think the answer is that science >> deals with highly quantified variables and that it is the precision of its >> results that supplies this reliability. But make no mistake: Quantified >> precision is not to be confused with a superior method of thinking. >> >> I am not a practicing scientist. So who am I to criticize scientists’ >> understanding of their method? >> >> I would turn this question around. Scientific method is not itself an >> object of study for scientists, but it is an object of study for >> philosophers of science. It is not scientists who are trained specifically >> to provide analyses of scientific method. >> >> James Blachowicz <http://www.luc.edu/philosophy/faculty_blachowicz.shtml> is >> a professor emeritus of philosophy at Loyola University Chicago and the >> author of “Of Two Minds: The Nature of Inquiry >> <http://www.sunypress.edu/p-2705-of-two-minds.aspx>” and “Essential >> Difference: Toward a Metaphysics of Emergence >> <http://www.sunypress.edu/p-5374-essential-difference.aspx>.” >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Gary R >> >> >> >> >> >> [image: Gary Richmond] >> >> >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> >> *Communication Studies* >> >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> >> *C 745* >> >> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at >> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at >> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
