[troymc]

Originally Posted by recluse

... I see the race to "tear down" religious institutions and moral codes as a symptom of this thinking and a harbinger of worse to come.

I see that religious institutions have declined as the education level of the general population has risen. And religion's own rigidity, mis-steps and crimes (pedophilic priests being only the latest of that comedy of horrors) have done far more to tear it down than a free-thinking public.

And moral codes are in no way tied to religions. But I can see how they may be perceived that way by people who were raised in a religion and had their morals dictated to them by others their entire lives. Thus as religions falter, there are more people questioning their morals and the values they're based upon.

Originally Posted by TimMason

... For one thing, there is no single 'scientific method'; the sciences may, as Wittgenstein might have put it, bear a family resemblance to one another, but do not lend themselves to one overarching and constraining definition. Meterology is other than particle physics, and both are other than psychology, which, in turn, should not really be confused with evolutionary biology.

Originally Posted by kennyc

... There is only ONE scientific method. Again you seem to be confusing practice with theory. The Scientific method goes thus:

1. Create a falsifiable hypothesis based on experience or existing knowledge
2. Design a repeatable, replicable experiment to test the hypothesis
3. If the hypothesis passes the test (and is repeatable and replicable) it is deemed to be true and is now a theory describing the particular behavior or activity etc.
If the hypothesis fails the test then it's back to step 1.

If I may go out on a limb here, I think Tim's point, supported by the examples he gave, was about the differing natures of differing sciences. The basic scientific method Kenny describes is only applicable to the empirical sciences and cannot be applied in the same way to other more theoretical sciences. eg.
Cosmology - care to create an experiment to test singular vs multiple universe theories? this field is completely mathematical.
Astronomy - experiment with galaxy formation? stellar death? the vast majority of astronomy is primarily observation & analysis - some simulation - no experimentation.

Historical sciences, eg.
Geology - experiments in continental drift?
Climatology - experiment with ice ages?
Archeaology - experiment???

or the "soft", social sciences. eg.
Anthropology - no experimentation here
Sociology - etc
Psychology - etc

The scientific method and how it is applied varies greatly depending upon the nature of the science being investigated. What's rigid science in one field may not pass muster in another.

The definition of "science" simply cannot be constrained to only empirical sciences.

Originally Posted by TimMason

... It's the motor behind a scientific career: that's why, despite the rhetoric, scientists very rarely go in for replication. They want to make a name for *themselves*. Science is very competitive.

You paint with a broad brush, my friend. I can't even begin to tell you the amount of replication I have done. But that's all behind-the-scenes work that's never really spoken about unless it brings out something new or disagrees with the original. It's simply the ground work necessary for any new experimentation. But I guarantee you it's there - and it's constant.

Please, don't take me wrong, I'm not attempting to claim there is no pride or ego involved. But the vast majority of the people producing the bulk of the science are not driven by those things. They're simply smart, curious people who love what they're doing. And, maybe not surprisingly, there's even a segment who are simply 9-to-5'ers - people for whom science is simply a day job.


BTW, I would like to thank everyone for this thread. I just spent my free time the last several days reading through all 30 pages. Very interesting!! I really want to poke at Florence's Plato buttons some more - see what's really behind that.

Troy