4 ms·

The article is somewhat confused. The Scientific Method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) itself

The article is somewhat confused. The Scientific Method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) itself is an empirical process with caveats. We need to use our own intelligence in judging and deciding what and how to interpret some data/hypothesis. It is "trial-and-error" but with established principles/laws/heuristics added in to guide our "trials". Thus for example; the answer to the question "Are Late-Stage Bugs More Expensive?" is a "Yes generally" since at later stage in development we have more of design/implementation done where we now have a larger number of interacting components and thus increased Complexity. So the probability that the bug lies in the interaction/intersection of various components is higher which may require us to rework (both design and implementation) a large part of the system. This is the reason we accept separation-of-concerns, modularization and frequent feedback loops between design/implementation/testing as "standard" Software Engineering Practices. Lee Smolin in his essay There is No Scientific Method (https://bigthink.com/articles/there-is-no-scientific-method/ https://bigthink.com/articles/there-is-no-scientific-method/) states the following which i think is very applicable to "Software Engineering" since it is more of a Human Process than Hard Science; Science works because Scientists form communities and traditions based not on a common set of methods, but a common set of ethical principles. And there are two ethical principles that I think underlie the success of science... The first one is that we agree to tell the truth and we agree to be governed by rational argument from public evidence. So when there is a disagreement it can be resolved by referring to a rational deduction from public evidence. We agree to be so swayed. Whether we originally came to that point of view or not to that point of view, whether that was our idea or somebody else’s idea, whether it’s our research program or a rival research program, we agree to let evidence decide. Now one sees this happening all the time in science. This is the strength of science. The second principle is that when the evidence does not decide, when the evidence is not sufficient to decide from rational argument, whether one point of view is right or another point of view is right, we agree to encourage competition and diversification amongst the professionals in the community. Here I have to emphasize I’m not saying that anything goes. I’m not saying that any quack, anybody without an education is equal in interest or is equal in importance to somebody with his Ph.D. and his scientific training at a university... I’m talking about the ethics within a community of people who have accreditation and are working within the community. Within the community it’s necessary for science to progress as fast as possible, not to prematurely form paradigms, not to prematurely make up our mind that one research program is right to the exclusion of others. It’s important to encourage competition, to encourage diversification, to encourage disagreement in the effort to get us to that consensus which is governed by the first principle.

Kamq 1y ago
Oh come on. They're obviously using the word "science" in this context as a shorthand for the institutions and processes we've set up to do research. Mostly because that's too many words for a title and nobody has come up with a catchy name that's not politically coded. It's also pretty normal usage of the word out in the wild.
- rramadass 1y ago
  What Smolin is trying to point out are the meta principles which underlie the feedback loop of the Scientific Method itself. Once the principles are adhered to, the loop becomes commonsense. This is because all of "doing Science" are human activities where we discover knowledge through three means viz. 1) Authority(Textual/Oral) 2) Reasoning 3) Experience. All three have to be considered to come to a definite conclusion. The submitted article ignores this trifecta and seems to conflate "Empiricism" solely with external validation.

Kamq 1y ago

Oh come on. They're obviously using the word "science" in this context as a shorthand for the institutions and processes we've set up to do research. Mostly because that's too many words for a title and nobody has come up with a catchy name that's not politically coded. It's also pretty normal usage of the word out in the wild.

rramadass 1y ago
What Smolin is trying to point out are the meta principles which underlie the feedback loop of the Scientific Method itself. Once the principles are adhered to, the loop becomes commonsense. This is because all of "doing Science" are human activities where we discover knowledge through three means viz. 1) Authority(Textual/Oral) 2) Reasoning 3) Experience. All three have to be considered to come to a definite conclusion. The submitted article ignores this trifecta and seems to conflate "Empiricism" solely with external validation.