On 4 March 2009 Michael Smith wrote (no doubt tongue in cheek) on the issue of the definition of science:
>Reminds me of Clever Hans. >Apparently the scientists found repeated consistent evidence >by independent observers and reached a tentativley accepted >truth. But fortunately, a psychologist came to the rescue. Several websites recycle the statement that a team of "scientists" upheld the "Clever Hans" claim, e.g., http://tinyurl.com/buf3gn and http://skepdic.com/cleverhans.html I haven't been able to ascertain the membership of the team, but according to the Wikipedia entry the Commission set up to examine the claims "consisted of a veterinarian, a circus manager, a Cavalry officer, a number of school teachers, and the director of the Berlin zoological gardens." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans It is evident that the Commission failed to use a blind test of the claims (a procedure known since the beginning of the nineteenth century), so their examination of the horse's abilities can hardly be described as scientific. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org *********************************** Subject: Re: Does the new definition of science measure up? | Science | guardian.co.uk From: Michael Smith <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:14:12 -0700 Reminds me of Clever Hans. Apparently the scientists found repeated consistent evidence by independent observers and reached a tentativley accepted truth. But fortunately, a psychologist came to the rescue. I think the definition of science is problematic and no definition will satisfy everyone (unless it is as long as the APA guide for writing). And probably, there is a difference between what science should be and what it actually is. Which one should be defined? Both? If science as practiced is defined would it (should it?) mention things like science being "steered" by money interests and societal gestalt? Science, as practiced, is after all a social phenomenon. --Mike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
