...a memry stirs...(Javer (Philip Quast), Les Miserables, 10th anniversary DVD (1998), Filmed at the Royal Albert Hall, London, 1995--not APA I'm sure, but I can't be bothered fixing it)
Yes, tongue in cheek, but now that you brought it to mind, I do remember comments about the commision not being 'stellar'. Yay, for the historians--keep us from making the same mistake over and over and over and.... --Mike On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Allen Esterson <[email protected] > wrote: > 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]) > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
