4 ms·
And there's the deeper trouble with method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend#Nature_of_scientific_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabe
by alecco 16y ago
And there's the deeper trouble with method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend#Nature_of_scientific_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend#Nature_of_scien...
- ThomPete 16y agoKuhn, Feyrabend and Lakatos all worth reading. Even tough they might be a tad to postmodern for some people. None the less they are all valuable thinkers.
- rbarooah 16y agoWhat do you mean by 'postmodern'? Is this a real criticism of what they are saying?
- gilesc 16y agoOversimplifying things a bit, these writers are saying that scientific objectivity is impossible. This line of argument tends to reduce the credibility of science in the eyes of the public, with negative consequences for research funding. This is a bad thing because, even if not "objective", science has singlehandedly transformed life for the better in the past century by reducing disease, poverty, manual labor, etc, and should continue to be funded.
- ThomPete 16y agoI don't think any would claim otherwise. But you don't need objective for that all you need is useful.
- derleth 16y agoExcept if some people think science is not objective, they conclude that religion is just as valid, and that, therefore, Creationism (er, Creation 'Science') needs to be taught in schools alongside the 'fact' that gays and liberals are evil, diseased beings. After all, if it's all subjective, everything is equally valid!
- ThomPete 16y agoScience isn't objective as such. It's testable. That is the defining factor between religion and science.