Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Scientific Method



I'd say that "science is as scientists do"; therefore quoting eminent
practitioners is very apropos. And whether or not he had patience with
philosophy of science (a fascinating subject I might add); has little to do
with whether or not my psuedo-quote is a reasonable description of science.
Do you like, agree, disagree with the discription?

Cheers
Joel Rauber



Nobel Laureate or not, Feynman had little patience with philosophy and
science issues, so I wouldn't quote him on issues of what
science is, as
opposed to what scientists do.

cheers

On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Joel Rauber wrote:

Leigh wrote:
I find the silly
"scientific method" that is taught in the schools to be of
little value. Why does one need a hypothesis? The student
often expects that Nature's opinion is of secondary
importance because she doesn't assign the grade.


Let me add another Right On! Why is it silly; because
those rigid steps
listed in many middle school texts aren't the way the
scientists I know
proceed.

I recall a quote, and if anybody remembers this please
correct it and
give
the citation; I think it was from Feynman who described the
scientific
method as follows:

"Trying to figure out how nature works: no holds barred".

I think this is about as good a definition as any and more
accurately
reflects how the practitioners actually proceed.

Does anybody recall the exact quote? And who it is from?

Joel Rauber
Joel_Rauber@sdstate.edu