What Is Philosophy?

[DBT]

No code, just shorthand for the scientific method.

There is no scientific method.

Why do you think that?

 

[DBT]

There is no scientific method.

There is on web pages for elementary schoolers.

Really? Do tell.

 

[DBT]

The scientific method​

At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

The scientific method is used in all sciences—including chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. The scientists in these fields ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence.

Wow, it's elementary school!!!

Khan Academy

www.khanacademy.org

 

[Politesse]

Indeed. Formulations like that are meant as teaching tools, to help kids understand scientific methodologies. You'll notice if you read a few such flow charts, though, that they divide the "method" up into different stages, use different terminology, make some different assumptions... they'll be broadly similar, because they are of course attempts to describe the same sort of thing: the theories and methodologies that unite the sciences. But there is no manual that all scientists follow, no rigid set of steps one could consider "the method". Indeed, research designs vary considerably between scientific disciplines and topics, and must. Part of what one learns at the collegiate level is how to move beyond secondary school's "Science" and into the particular methodological constraints of a given specific field of study. Your grade school chart might help you design a science fair project, but it will be nearly useless in helping you create an accurate stratigraphic map of Wyoming, assess the likely economic impact of a proposed law, isolate the nocebo effect within a set of drug trial data, or resolve a debate between biologists about a proposed taxonomic split. Not because there's anything as such wrong with " the scientific method" as taught in the lower grades, but because that method is an intentional oversimplification and abstraction of a way of thinking that encapsulates a great many theories and methods. These will always be broadly similar, even between fields. But they will never be exactly the same, even between projects. That is why every single research paper you will ever read begins with a section titled "methods" (note the plural) explaining all of the resarch protocols, strategies, and assumptions made by that particular project, and which therefore potentially bias the resulting set of data that project has produced.

 

[DBT]

Why 'a way of thinking' rather than a way of doing scientific research? Can the doing, the way science is conducted, be separate from the 'way of thinking?'

 

[WAB]

'Wisdom' may be a sticky point?

If it were easily won, it would not be such a tempting target.

What is the price of Experience? Do men buy it for a song?
Or wisdom for a dance in the street? No, it is bought with the price
Of all that a man hath, his house, his wife, his children
Wisdom is sold in the desolate market where none come to buy
And in the wither'd field where the farmer ploughs for bread in vain

from The Four Zoas, by William Blake

Just an aside. Let's return to the interesting discussion.

Fuckin Blake. You fuckin rock, Poli.

 

[steve_bank]

And here I was thinking the philosophy forum was dead and buried.

A structured rendering of 'the method' goes back at least to to Descartes.

Descartes, Rene: Scientific Method | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

As usually stated it is a generally true overview, but is ridiculously simplistic. The more difficult problems do not follow neat sequential steps.

1. Form hypothesis.
2. test hypothesis.
3. Accept hypothesis, done.
4. Reject hypothesis, done.
4. Reformulate hypothesis, go to 2.

People naturally use the method without any training.

Descartes also said 'Apply yourself to problems that can be solved and leave the rest to the astrologers'. Which I took to mean hard physical sciences and math versus pseudo silence and mysticism. Astrology was a source of income for mathematicians.

Maybe I should have asked 'What is not philosophy?'.

 

[Politesse]

Why 'a way of thinking' rather than a way of doing scientific research? Can the doing, the way science is conducted, be separate from the 'way of thinking?'

No. One cannot conduct scientific research without thinking, and it is the manner of thinking that defines observation, research, analysis, and interpretation as scientific in character.

 

[DBT]

Why 'a way of thinking' rather than a way of doing scientific research? Can the doing, the way science is conducted, be separate from the 'way of thinking?'

No. One cannot conduct scientific research without thinking, and it is the manner of thinking that defines observation, research, analysis, and interpretation as scientific in character.

Manner of thinking and manner of doing.

 

[Politesse]

I do not understand how one could do anything without thinking, and reasonably call that science.

 

[DBT]

I do not understand how one could do anything without thinking, and reasonably call that science.

True, but there's also a lot of thinking and doing that is neither science or philosophy. Some of it not even rational. Just look at politics or religion. ...theology, studying the nature of God no less.

 

[WAB]

'Wisdom' may be a sticky point?

If it were easily won, it would not be such a tempting target.

What is the price of Experience? Do men buy it for a song?
Or wisdom for a dance in the street? No, it is bought with the price
Of all that a man hath, his house, his wife, his children
Wisdom is sold in the desolate market where none come to buy
And in the wither'd field where the farmer ploughs for bread in vain

from The Four Zoas, by William Blake

Just an aside. Let's return to the interesting discussion.

Fuckin Blake. You fuckin rock, Poli.

Wait, I think it was Tharmas who quoted Blake. Oh now I'm confused. Okay who was it who quoted from the Four Zoas? You know it's one thing to quote from Blake, but it's entirely another thing to quote from The Four freakin Zoas!

 

[lostone]

I do not understand how one could do anything without thinking, and reasonably call that science.

True, but there's also a lot of thinking and doing that is neither science or philosophy. Some of it not even rational. Just look at politics or religion. ...theology, studying the nature of God no less.

Metaphysics is considered to be philosophy as well, dubious though that might seem. I have been severely lectured by several theists for my lack of respect for metaphysics.

 

[WAB]

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy.

 

[Politesse]

I do not understand how one could do anything without thinking, and reasonably call that science.

True, but there's also a lot of thinking and doing that is neither science or philosophy. Some of it not even rational. Just look at politics or religion. ...theology, studying the nature of God no less.

You could do with a brief course on Aristotelian logic, my friend! Yes, it is true, but trivially so, that not all thinking is science.

 

[Politesse]

'Wisdom' may be a sticky point?

If it were easily won, it would not be such a tempting target.

What is the price of Experience? Do men buy it for a song?
Or wisdom for a dance in the street? No, it is bought with the price
Of all that a man hath, his house, his wife, his children
Wisdom is sold in the desolate market where none come to buy
And in the wither'd field where the farmer ploughs for bread in vain

from The Four Zoas, by William Blake

Just an aside. Let's return to the interesting discussion.

Fuckin Blake. You fuckin rock, Poli.

Wait, I think it was Tharmas who quoted Blake. Oh now I'm confused. Okay who was it who quoted from the Four Zoas? You know it's one thing to quote from Blake, but it's entirely another thing to quote from The Four freakin Zoas!

That was Tharmas. I'm more of a Francis Bacon guy, when it comes to the philosophy of learning.

 

[DBT]

I do not understand how one could do anything without thinking, and reasonably call that science.

True, but there's also a lot of thinking and doing that is neither science or philosophy. Some of it not even rational. Just look at politics or religion. ...theology, studying the nature of God no less.

You could do with a brief course on Aristotelian logic, my friend! Yes, it is true, but trivially so, that not all thinking is science.

Trivially? How trivially?

 

[Politesse]

I do not understand how one could do anything without thinking, and reasonably call that science.

True, but there's also a lot of thinking and doing that is neither science or philosophy. Some of it not even rational. Just look at politics or religion. ...theology, studying the nature of God no less.

You could do with a brief course on Aristotelian logic, my friend! Yes, it is true, but trivially so, that not all thinking is science.

Trivially? How trivially?

Because observing that a is a type of b does not imply that all b are a.

 

[Tharmas]

I recently read The Great Paradox of Science, by Mano Singham (nuclear physicist, retired). Singham argues that descriptions of science and the scientific method all fail for one reason or another, including Popper’s falsifiability. He claims that:

Scientists are always seeking what works and thus tend to be philosophical and methodological opportunists, quite willing to abandon one approach and shift to an alternative if they think that it will produce better results.

But:

…there do exist necessary conditions that any scientific theory and law must satisfy, and that is they must be both naturalistic and testable.

I found the book to be quite comprehensive in its examination, and quite original in its conclusions. He argues that:

..the way scientific paradigms evolve is analogous to the process of biological evolution … there is no reason to believe that the evolution of scientific theories is heading towards a unique truth.

 

[pood]

The scientific method​

At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

The scientific method is used in all sciences—including chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. The scientists in these fields ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence.

Wow, it's elementary school!!!

Khan Academy

www.khanacademy.org

That’s nice. There is still no such thing as THE scientific method. Regardless of what the Khan academy, or whatever, says.