3 ms·
I don't see this as a problem. Perhaps I define some concepts differently. As I see it, the scientific method is a good way to test a model against reality. It
by dj-wonk 11y ago
I don't see this as a problem. Perhaps I define some concepts differently.
As I see it, the scientific method is a good way to test a model against reality. It is less suited to be a "generative" process for making models. (There are other ways to test models too: internal consistency, interpretability, and so on.)
Iteration, intuition, creativity, variation, intelligence, luck, guesswork, and more are what create theories.
I'm not saying one could not using more "technical" or "rigorous" ways to construct models -- there are, of course, such methods. I'm just saying that "science" (in the Chalmers sense) is about mostly about testability of a model against evidence.
- astazangasta 11y ago>Iteration, intuition, creativity, variation, intelligence, luck, guesswork, and more are what create theories. These are all very positive. How about: racism, misogyny, bias, jealousy, and stubbornness. These, also, can feed into the creation of theories, and do. And, again, the point is that this process is only as good as the evidence; when the evidence is lacking, we're left with only the investigator's expertise to justify the model. That's not science.
- dj-wonk 11y agoExcellent point. Yes, the sum total of human experience filters into model-making. People often construct theories that correspond with their preconceived biases. I would like to think that (a) "opening the lid" on how these models work and (b) testing them does a decent job of revealing and removing inaccurate or not-useful aspects. What do you think are some good ways to minimize the negative influences on models?