4 ms·

> Unlike scientific knowledge, Dostoevsky doesn't propose a model with a degree of accuracy and best practices on how to apply the model. Isn't a case study is

by ordu 4y ago

> Unlike scientific knowledge, Dostoevsky doesn't propose a model with a degree of accuracy and best practices on how to apply the model. Isn't a case study is a part of science? Please correct me if I'm wrong. One can study one particular case in depth and call themself a scientist. Dostoevsky is not a scientist because he made up his stories instead of gathering data on real cases, not because his stories cannot be replicated. Experimental science is good, but it applicable only after a researcher came up with a hypothesis and hypothesis can be formulated if there is some theory. It is very restrictive, just like the author of the blog post writes. But where theories and hypotheses come from? From preliminary research, in particular from case studies. These case studies are also scientific knowledge, aren't they?

somenameforme 4y ago
I would say that the most fundamental core of science is based upon exactly two things: - Novel predictions: Predictions of things (the more the better) that would not be expected to happen normally (and the more unlikely the better), but would happen only (or as close to "only" as possible) if your hypothesis is correct. The sun rising again tomorrow is not a prediction, but the sun not rising tomorrow most certainly would be! - Falsifiability: A hypothesis needs to be able to be falsified, by which it can be safely assumed to be wrong. This is most often simply a failure of the novel predictions to emerge, but the more failure conditions for your hypothesis - the "stronger" it becomes. --- The path to get there and anything beyond that is largely inconsequential. For instance, much of Einstein's work for instance was largely driven by simply 'thinking it up.' When publishing his most fundamental works, he had absolutely no access to any unique resources, knowledge, or ability to carry out significant studies. He was working in a patent office as a low level inspector! Maybe if you squint hard enough, you might claim what he did was a scientific case study. On the other hand, there are also the more common contemporary "case studies" of the sort of where you run a quick survey on Amazon Turk and then make grand, largely unfalsifiable, claims based solely on that with 0 meaningful predictive value. I would not call that science.
- ordu 4y ago
  > Maybe if you squint hard enough, you might claim what he did was a scientific case study. If Einstein gathered facts about reality then it might be a case study. If he didn't then it was not a case study by the definition of a case study.
pas 4y ago
> Dostoevsky doesn't propose a model ... but doesn't he? Isn't his model is that given this and this circumstances people will do this and this (eg. commit crimes and reflect/regret)?

by ordu 4y ago

somenameforme 4y ago

I would say that the most fundamental core of science is based upon exactly two things: - Novel predictions: Predictions of things (the more the better) that would not be expected to happen normally (and the more unlikely the better), but would happen only (or as close to "only" as possible) if your hypothesis is correct. The sun rising again tomorrow is not a prediction, but the sun not rising tomorrow most certainly would be! - Falsifiability: A hypothesis needs to be able to be falsified, by which it can be safely assumed to be wrong. This is most often simply a failure of the novel predictions to emerge, but the more failure conditions for your hypothesis - the "stronger" it becomes. --- The path to get there and anything beyond that is largely inconsequential. For instance, much of Einstein's work for instance was largely driven by simply 'thinking it up.' When publishing his most fundamental works, he had absolutely no access to any unique resources, knowledge, or ability to carry out significant studies. He was working in a patent office as a low level inspector! Maybe if you squint hard enough, you might claim what he did was a scientific case study. On the other hand, there are also the more common contemporary "case studies" of the sort of where you run a quick survey on Amazon Turk and then make grand, largely unfalsifiable, claims based solely on that with 0 meaningful predictive value. I would not call that science.

ordu 4y ago
> Maybe if you squint hard enough, you might claim what he did was a scientific case study. If Einstein gathered facts about reality then it might be a case study. If he didn't then it was not a case study by the definition of a case study.

pas 4y ago

> Dostoevsky doesn't propose a model ... but doesn't he? Isn't his model is that given this and this circumstances people will do this and this (eg. commit crimes and reflect/regret)?