more on this theme
|
more from this thinker
Single Idea 6804
[filed under theme 14. Science / B. Scientific Theories / 1. Scientific Theory
]
Full Idea
I find little concurrence as to what scientific method might actually be - the reason being, I conclude, that there is no such thing.
Gist of Idea
There is no agreement on scientific method - because there is no such thing
Source
Alexander Bird (Philosophy of Science [1998], Ch.8)
Book Ref
Bird,Alexander: 'Philosophy of Science' [UCL Press 2000], p.259
A Reaction
I take the essence of science to be two things: first, becoming very fussy about empirical evidence; second, setting up controlled conditions to get at the evidence that seems to be needed. I agree that there seems to be no distinctive way of thinking.
Related Idea
Idea 20270
There is no one scientific method; we must try many approaches, and many emotions [Nietzsche]
The
61 ideas
from 'Philosophy of Science'
6805
|
Relativity ousted Newtonian mechanics despite a loss of simplicity
[Bird]
|
6807
|
In Newton mass is conserved, but in Einstein it can convert into energy
[Bird]
|
6738
|
Any conclusion can be drawn from an induction, if we use grue-like predicates
[Bird]
|
6739
|
Several months of observing beech trees supports the deciduous and evergreen hypotheses
[Bird]
|
6746
|
There may be many laws, each with only a few instances
[Bird]
|
6740
|
'All uranium lumps are small' is a law, but 'all gold lumps are small' is not
[Bird]
|
6741
|
There can be remarkable uniformities in nature that are purely coincidental
[Bird]
|
6742
|
A law might have no instances, if it was about things that only exist momentarily
[Bird]
|
6743
|
If laws are just instances, the law should either have gaps, or join the instances arbitrarily
[Bird]
|
6744
|
Where is the regularity in a law predicting nuclear decay?
[Bird]
|
6747
|
Laws cannot explain instances if they are regularities, as something can't explain itself
[Bird]
|
6748
|
Similar appearance of siblings is a regularity, but shared parents is what links them
[Bird]
|
6749
|
We can only infer a true regularity if something binds the instances together
[Bird]
|
6745
|
A regularity is only a law if it is part of a complete system which is simple and strong
[Bird]
|
6753
|
Laws are more fundamental in science than causes, and laws will explain causes
[Bird]
|
6762
|
Newton's laws cannot be confirmed individually, but only in combinations
[Bird]
|
6763
|
Parapsychology is mere speculation, because it offers no mechanisms for its working
[Bird]
|
6754
|
We talk both of 'people' explaining things, and of 'facts' explaining things
[Bird]
|
6757
|
Explanation predicts after the event; prediction explains before the event
[Bird]
|
6752
|
The objective component of explanations is the things that must exist for the explanation
[Bird]
|
6750
|
Explanations are causal, nomic, psychological, psychoanalytic, Darwinian or functional
[Bird]
|
6761
|
Contrastive explanations say why one thing happened but not another
[Bird]
|
6758
|
'Covering law' explanations only work if no other explanations are to be found
[Bird]
|
6759
|
Livers always accompany hearts, but they don't explain hearts
[Bird]
|
6756
|
Probabilistic-statistical explanations don't entail the explanandum, but makes it more likely
[Bird]
|
6760
|
An operation might reduce the probability of death, yet explain a death
[Bird]
|
6751
|
Maybe explanation is so subjective that it cannot be a part of science
[Bird]
|
6767
|
Rubies and sapphires are both corundum, with traces of metals varying their colours
[Bird]
|
6773
|
If F is a universal appearing in a natural law, then Fs form a natural kind
[Bird]
|
6768
|
Tin is not one natural kind, but appears to be 21, depending on isotope
[Bird]
|
6771
|
Natural kinds may overlap, or be sub-kinds of one another
[Bird]
|
6770
|
Membership of a purely random collection cannot be used as an explanation
[Bird]
|
6776
|
Natural kinds are those that we use in induction
[Bird]
|
6769
|
In the Kripke-Putnam view only nuclear physicists can know natural kinds
[Bird]
|
6774
|
Darwinism suggests that we should have a native ability to detect natural kinds
[Bird]
|
6766
|
Jadeite and nephrite are superficially identical, but have different composition
[Bird]
|
6764
|
Nominal essence of a natural kind is the features that make it fit its name
[Bird]
|
6772
|
Existence requires laws, as inertia or gravity are needed for mass or matter
[Bird]
|
6775
|
Induction is inference to the best explanation, where the explanation is a law
[Bird]
|
6778
|
Instrumentalists regard theories as tools for prediction, with truth being irrelevant
[Bird]
|
6779
|
Instrumentalists say distinctions between observation and theory vanish with ostensive definition
[Bird]
|
6780
|
Anti-realism is more plausible about laws than about entities and theories
[Bird]
|
6786
|
As science investigates more phenomena, the theories it needs decreases
[Bird]
|
6777
|
Realists say their theories involve truth and the existence of their phenomena
[Bird]
|
6785
|
Inference to the Best Explanation is done with facts, so it has to be realist
[Bird]
|
6788
|
Maybe bad explanations are the true ones, in this messy world
[Bird]
|
6787
|
Which explanation is 'best' is bound to be subjective, and no guide to truth
[Bird]
|
6790
|
Anything justifying inferences from observed to unobserved must itself do that
[Bird]
|
6791
|
If Hume is right about induction, there is no scientific knowledge
[Bird]
|
6792
|
If theories need observation, and observations need theories, how do we start?
[Bird]
|
6789
|
If flame colour is characteristic of a metal, that is an empirical claim needing justification
[Bird]
|
6796
|
Subjective probability measures personal beliefs; objective probability measures the chance of an event happening
[Bird]
|
6797
|
Objective probability of tails measures the bias of the coin, not our beliefs about it
[Bird]
|
6798
|
Bayesianism claims to find rationality and truth in induction, and show how science works
[Bird]
|
6799
|
We normally learn natural kinds from laws, but Goodman shows laws require prior natural kinds
[Bird]
|
6800
|
Many philosophers rate justification as a more important concept than knowledge
[Bird]
|
6804
|
There is no agreement on scientific method - because there is no such thing
[Bird]
|
6808
|
Reference to scientific terms is by explanatory role, not by descriptions
[Bird]
|
6802
|
With strange enough predicates, anything could be made out to be a regularity
[Bird]
|
6801
|
Accidental regularities are not laws, and an apparent regularity may not be actual
[Bird]
|
6803
|
If we only infer laws from regularities among observations, we can't infer unobservable entities.
[Bird]
|