Peer review is just a slightly more formal kind of debate, but debate doesn’t work and isn’t about finding truth.
Traditional empirical science depends on a mechanistic (as opposed to humanistic) principle for obtaining truth: the scientific method.
The traditional scientific method provides a strong principle for evaluating theories. For some fields of inquiry (physics, chemistry), this principle works very well. But modern scientists want theories about economics, nutrition, medicine, climate change, computer vision, and so on. The traditional method does not justify theories in these fields.
To go further, we must discover new mechanistic principles of truth-seeking. We should never ask: “What would it be good to know?” That road leads to alchemy. Rather we should ask: “For what types of questions can the answers be evaluated by mechanistic principles?”
Debate does work under certain circumstances. The pretense that those circumstances aren’t necessary, by those who wish to seize the status of reasoned debate, dilutes what outsiders see until it looks like debate doesn’t work.
Peer review is just a slightly more formal kind of debate, but debate doesn’t work and isn’t about finding truth.
Absolutely!
To go further, we must discover new mechanistic principles of truth-seeking. We should never ask: “What would it be good to know?” That road leads to alchemy.
Or engineering. Perhaps even aerodynamics (wouldn’t it be good to know how to fly?). The main problem with alchemy was that it was too difficult to make any genuine progress.
I’m not sure I’m with you on this one. Wanting to know stuff is a rather important motivator for finding out stuff. Often you’ll even end up finding out stuff completely different to the stuff you wanted to know.
Rather we should ask: “For what types of questions can the answers be evaluated by mechanistic principles?”
Lots of really boring things that I don’t particularly care about. Also, some that I do care about. It’d be good to know those ones.
What is the “scientific method” and can you point to an important scientific discovery made in history that used this method and only this method? Of course, I am asking for an actual historical event, not a rational reconstruction of a historical event.
Obviously, my question is rhetorical and is meant to point out that any such method is far from “mechanistic”.
Obviously, my question is rhetorical and is meant to point out that any such method is far from “mechanistic”.
I would say Einstein’s prediction of the bending of light around the sun was such an example.
Note that I’m only claiming that the actual method of deciding between theories must be mechanistic. The process Einstein followed to obtain the theory was far from mechanistic.
I’m sympathetic to the idea that science is much messier when it’s actually being done than it appears in retrospect. But I think it’s critical to have a mechanistic principle for choosing theories, even if in practice theories are chosen by disheveled grad students while playing beer pong. Because those grad students are kept honest by the fact that if they humanistically choose the wrong theory, someone will eventually show up and prove them wrong using the mechanistic principle.
Peer review is just a slightly more formal kind of debate, but debate doesn’t work and isn’t about finding truth.
Traditional empirical science depends on a mechanistic (as opposed to humanistic) principle for obtaining truth: the scientific method.
The traditional scientific method provides a strong principle for evaluating theories. For some fields of inquiry (physics, chemistry), this principle works very well. But modern scientists want theories about economics, nutrition, medicine, climate change, computer vision, and so on. The traditional method does not justify theories in these fields.
To go further, we must discover new mechanistic principles of truth-seeking. We should never ask: “What would it be good to know?” That road leads to alchemy. Rather we should ask: “For what types of questions can the answers be evaluated by mechanistic principles?”
Debate does work under certain circumstances. The pretense that those circumstances aren’t necessary, by those who wish to seize the status of reasoned debate, dilutes what outsiders see until it looks like debate doesn’t work.
Absolutely!
Or engineering. Perhaps even aerodynamics (wouldn’t it be good to know how to fly?). The main problem with alchemy was that it was too difficult to make any genuine progress.
I’m not sure I’m with you on this one. Wanting to know stuff is a rather important motivator for finding out stuff. Often you’ll even end up finding out stuff completely different to the stuff you wanted to know.
Lots of really boring things that I don’t particularly care about. Also, some that I do care about. It’d be good to know those ones.
What is the “scientific method” and can you point to an important scientific discovery made in history that used this method and only this method? Of course, I am asking for an actual historical event, not a rational reconstruction of a historical event.
Obviously, my question is rhetorical and is meant to point out that any such method is far from “mechanistic”.
I would say Einstein’s prediction of the bending of light around the sun was such an example.
Note that I’m only claiming that the actual method of deciding between theories must be mechanistic. The process Einstein followed to obtain the theory was far from mechanistic.
I’m sympathetic to the idea that science is much messier when it’s actually being done than it appears in retrospect. But I think it’s critical to have a mechanistic principle for choosing theories, even if in practice theories are chosen by disheveled grad students while playing beer pong. Because those grad students are kept honest by the fact that if they humanistically choose the wrong theory, someone will eventually show up and prove them wrong using the mechanistic principle.