5 ms·
> formal rigor or scientific analysis This may be a bit philosophical, but couldn't "formal methods" and the "scientific method" also be considered a best prac
by boberoni 6y ago
> formal rigor or scientific analysis
This may be a bit philosophical, but couldn't "formal methods" and the "scientific method" also be considered a best practice? (and thus susceptible to becoming a cult?)
Throughout the history of science, there has been many methods for doing science that have since been revolutionized or abandoned (e.g. cosmology, non-Euclidean geometry, eugenics, quantum mechanics). Thomas Kuhn is a notable writer on such paradigm shifts in the history of science. [1]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
- Geminidog 6y agoYeah, and I openly admit I'm part of the cult. My bias does not allow me to think of a better way of verifying reality by assuming observation, probability and logic is recursively true. Is there anyone here that doesn't share my bias and if you don't, why?
- megameter 6y agoPostmodernism explored this in some capacity in the 20th century, because there are links between science, rationalism, and our ability to think rationally in practice: if we do irrational science and don't notice, the results are false but accepted as true - a phenomenon which has indeed occurred countless times, despite mechanisms intended to add rigor to the process. All that has to happen is for an emotional attachment to a concept to settle in, and our sense of causality goes out the window. A lot of our material progress comes simply from selecting different benchmarks and methods of observation.