On May 2, 2013, at 9:54 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think what people are saying: The concept of science works but the >> application frequently sucks! > > Well, also that the method is not perfect. It works sometimes but not other > times.
I think that in general scientific method is very loosely defined. Science is based on a method, but what is exactly the method, it is defined case by case. Science is very practical institution. And everything that is practical is very difficult for common people to grasp. People are typically used to theorize a priori generalities in ivory towers. Therefore they have often hard time to understand what constitutes science. Practicality in general is under-appreciated in philosophy. Also I disagree with Edmund. Scientific method does indeed work very often and very well. People are just biased to notice when the application of method is erroneous and science fails and thus they think that errors are more frequent than they actually are. However, more than often science works brilliantly, but when science does good, people do not appreciate it enough. ―Jouni
