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: [Phys-l] Is the "Scientific Method" the Same as "Positivism"?

"But positivism is less familiar."

Yes, Thru out my career I think this is the second time others have mentioned it. The first being discussion of the two pages Halliday * devotes to the subject. My Philosophy schoolmates thought it not a very good exposition.

* pp. 4 ff. David Halliday, Introductory Nuclear Physics (2nd Ed. 1955)

bc, who, probably in ignorance, equates logical positivism as the scientific method.

p.s. in an addendum in an Oppenheimer book, he makes a statement that reeks of (logical) positivism. ("Science and the Common Understanding", perhaps?)

Ludwik Kowalski wrote:

On Sep 27, 2006, at 12:51 AM, Richard Hake wrote:

ABSTRACT: I agree with Dutta & Bork that research on learning is
weak, at least in comparison to, say, traditional research in
hard-core physics. But I think: (a) this relative weakness derives
more from the complexity of human learning and education than from
misguided reliance on the "scientific method," as seems to be implied
by Dutta, and (b) Dutta's identification of the "scientific method"
with "positivism" is somewhat problematic. . . . .

Most of us are familiar with the scientific method of validation in physical sciences. But positivism is less familiar. A brief description of positivism can be found in:

Ludwik Kowalski
Let the perfect not be the enemy of the good.
Forum for Physics Educators