Michael Perelman wrote: > I am working on a book on 17C & early 18th C economists. At the time there > was a wierd mix of science & superstition. Astrologers were seen as > scientists, especially because some of their observations were useful for > navigators. Earlier John Dee, the court astrologer, was a major figure in > developing mathematics and astrology. > > The history of medicine has numerous "scientific" practices that turned out > to be hokum, but haven't some of the "primitive" procedures turned out to > have merit? > > That seems to be what Jim meant by a critical approach to science?
The critical side of science is supposed to weed out the nonsense, separating the wheat from the chaff. As I said, the other side (respect for one's peers, professional consensus) can undermine the positive role of criticism: dominated by consensus, criticism can be used to weed out good science (as with the Chicago school that Michael P. referred to). Of course, with insufficient professional consensus, criticism can go too far -- to produce intellectual anarchy (as in sociological or literary theory, I'm told). -- Jim Devine / "If heart-aches were commercials, we'd all be on TV." -- John Prine _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
