4 ms·
I wrote a book about it. :) See elsewhere in the comments. The framework is a little more than a theory. The basic unit is some kind of trial (experiment, obse
by madhadron 8y ago
I wrote a book about it. :) See elsewhere in the comments.
The framework is a little more than a theory. The basic unit is some kind of trial (experiment, observation), which is an attempt to adequately approximate an idealized trial. Whether that approximation is adequate is a matter of reasonable practice in a given time and setting. Trials produce values of some kind of primitive notion: a velocity, a drawing of a typical dandelion. Then you construct a formal system (a theory) that recapitulates the values of primitive notions that emerge from trials.
History and musicology certainly fit this.
- 08-15 8y agoSo do astrology and bioinformatics. Let's look at (a particular application of) bioinformatics. I sequence the DNA of a bunch of humans and a neanderthal. I apply some statistics and proclaim that humans and neanderthals admixed. Later, I sequence more humans and another neanderthal. Applying the same statistics, things look a bit messy now. So I proclaim that there were two admixture events, but I also change the estimated amount of admixture and pretend that this is still consistent with the first claim. Years later, another genome, another admixture event, more hand waving excuses for the numbers that don't seem to fit the big picture. Is that science? Some kind of trial is there. It is appropriate given time and setting. Some kind of value (a p-value) is produced. Even the theory is there, even though calling it "formal" is a stretch. So this is science? I don't think so.
- madhadron 8y agoYes, there's more to it, otherwise I would have written a blog post and not a book.