Calling deriving a hypothesis science is like calling walking to your car driving.
The problem with this is hypothesis is science.
The scientific method, for those playing at home is as follows:
1)Define a question2)Gather information and resources (observe)
3)Form an explanatory hypothesis
4)Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
5)Analyze the data
6)Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7)Publish results
8)Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
Now Darkwing Duck claims that step 3 is not "really science". He seems to be claiming it is impossible to get from step 2 to step 4 and beyond without "genius", or some creative spark.
If one step of the scientific method isn't science, then why don't we say that step 5 isn't science. Analyzing the data is unscientific! Hurrah! Now I can go to work for the Cato institute!
|
I'd like to point out that it's only when their ideas are held up by the rigors of the scientific method that they're considered geniuses. Otherwise we call them cranks.Only, of course, if they are in scientific fields. Also, did Freud use the scientific method?
Depends. Is "doing a metric assload of cocaine" the scientific method? Not many people in the psychiatric or psychological field take Freud seriously any more.
Depends. Is "doing a metric assload of cocaine" the scientific method?
Why are you asking questions to which you, as the resident expert, already know the answer?
Not many people in the psychiatric or psychological field take Freud seriously any more.
Really? I know that most of his conclusions and specific theories haven't held up well, but I thought people a) still considered him a genius; and b) his main point, that people are motivated by irrational, subconscious impulses was still completely valid. Which is a no-brainer now, but I don't think it was pre-Freud.
But, I haven't taken psychology since high school, so what do I know?
And how are you today, Citizen Duck? (I have to find a better name for you.)
his main point, that people are motivated by irrational, subconscious impulses was still completely valid. Which is a no-brainer now, but I don't think it was pre-Freud.
I stopped taking psychology seriously when I took a 3rd year psychology course and discovered how pathetic it is*. But, I think Jean-Paul is correct on this point.
*one of the questions on the final was 'people feel like they don't have enough time to get everything they need to get done, done. This is the result of?' the answer was 'the modern world'. I ended up getting an A before the final was counted in. I would have blown off the final, but I was bored.
I feel the same way about sociology. A professor teaching a University class mangled Elman R. Services' typology of social organization (I mean, mangled it -badly-) and, also, argued that Mother Jones is a legitimate research publication.
I realize that these are anecdotes and that I shouldn't judge entire disciplines by the actions of a few people who are supposed to be experts in it, but still.
Sounds like a bad university or examining body to me, my current degree study is BSc Psychology, and out first year introductory module, unmarked for self accessment only tests easiest questions are more complex than that. It sounds to me like you just had a bad course. Anyway, back to assignment writing for me.
Well, anyway, I was doing some reading on my favorite commie sites, and I found an article that you might like. Others may find it interesting as well.
I haven't actually finished it yet (only read the first part) and am excited to see how it ends!
All I did in college was take courses about books and history. And then I dropped out, like, three times.
School sucks!
That seems to be a very small and narrow point to take from the article, but, you're welcome!
The fact that people think that they are immune to hive mind (for whatever reason they want to pull out of their collective asses including their belief that they aren't a religion) is, also, kinda like reading that the sky is blue.
Response is on the is atheism a religion thread.
Science gains value through genius. Until then, its just a bunch of guys testing color changes in test tubes. Its mediocre and probably not worth the expense of doing.
Science without genius is like trying to use lottery tickets for a retirement plan.
I'm NOT disparaging the efforts of good scientists.
The only person you could possibly be fooling is yourself.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
0
I'm NOT disparaging the efforts of good scientists. I'm only asserting that there are non-scientific ways of thinking that have value.
Really? Because this...
Science gains value through genius. Until then, its just a bunch of guys testing color changes in test tubes. Its mediocre and probably not worth the expense of doing.
...sounds a bit like disparaging science. :)
If you're not capable of having this discussion without making ad hominems, that's on you.Science gains value through genius. Until then, its just a bunch of guys testing color changes in test tubes. Its mediocre and probably not worth the expense of doing.
Science without genius is like trying to use lottery tickets for a retirement plan.The only person you could possibly be fooling is yourself.
I'm NOT disparaging the efforts of good scientists.
You should learn the meanings of the words you're using before you start complaining about the capabilities of others.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I said I'm not disparaging good scientists. If they aren't good scientists, then investing money in them is like playing the lottery.0
I'm NOT disparaging the efforts of good scientists. I'm only asserting that there are non-scientific ways of thinking that have value.
Really? Because this...
Science gains value through genius. Until then, its just a bunch of guys testing color changes in test tubes. Its mediocre and probably not worth the expense of doing....sounds a bit like disparaging science. :)
Then it sounds to me like you're saying only geniuses are good scientists.
As cranewings and have pointed out, that's "Phooey and twaddle!" It's perfectly possible to do very useful, very worthwhile work in most scientific fields without being a genius.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, from the top.
Lets start by discarding the terminology your using, it is unhelpful. You are not describing genius, but rather when you point to the article, you are pointing to a number techniques of thought, which are useful for creative thinking. By terming these things as 'genius' you are ascribing value to such thought processes that is unwarranted, unjustified and unhelpful. For instance, the sort of hyperactive pattern finding that allows a person the multiple answers to 'half of 13', is the same process that means that individuals such as you tube user Chris Constantine(aka GORILLA199), a famous conspiracy nut and schizophrenic, see's every circle he finds in architecture to be a sign of the devil.
We are also not talking about a single characteristic of human thought called genius, but rather eight separate strategies. The article provides no evidence that occurrence of these strategies in a humans problem solving style are in anyway linked, it is possible that an individual might be wonderful at looking at a problem from multiple different angles, but be utterly fixated on such a problem, and not see the lead which presents itself if only he'd take a step back and look at a related subject.
Now, next on the agenda is you are showing again in this thread the same inability to differentiate between an idea and a component part of an idea. You seem unable to grasp there are different classes of idea.
Just as you could not differentiate between a belief(singular), a belief system, and a religion, you seem to be unable to grasping that claims that 'a lot of thinking about problems - that sort of thinking has got absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method' is a laughable proposition.
Why? Because A, your not comparing like for like , and B, 'a lot of thinking about problems' is description of the first three step in the scientific method, as described up thread by Meatrace. So why isn't comparing 'a lot of thinking about problems' and comparing the scientific method a Like for like comparison. Because of the level of complexity, just as atheism can be a component of a belief system such as humanism, so 'a lot of thinking about problems', can be component of a system of enquiry, such as the scientific method.
So lets compare the scientific method to another system of Enquiry, which also includes 'a lot of thinking about problems', say 'divine revelation.' The scientific method, has given us reliable and repeatable method of treating hundreds of diseases and injuries, while 'divine revelation' gave us evil spirits cause disease, and no working treatments. There is a clear difference in the quality of information derived from each method of enquiry, despite both including 'a lot of thinking about problems'
More to come after I have finished by assignment.
Everybody loves a false dichotomy!
Well, everybody with blue eyes does, everyone with blue eyes does not.
Everybody loves a false dichotomy!
Well, everybody with blue eyes does, everyone with blue eyes does not.
I reject your premise by accepting it.
Right, now that that is out of the way...
The point I was asserting is that many non-scientific ways of thinking have value. For some posters on these boards, that's a heretical statement. This article describes one of these valuable non-scientific ways of thinking.
Really? Which posters? It certainly isn’t me. employ non-scientific modes of thought to many things in my life, such as my appreciation of music. However, I do not set out to answer questions like ‘why do Callosobruchus maculatus have penile spikes and toxic semen, in the same way that i set out to understand why I like glorybox by portishead. Why? Because the scientific method is so much better at answering questions about the nature of reality than any other method of thought, and all other approach so prone to giving useless or inaccurate answers to such questions that really there is little reasonable choice.
I am perfectly capable of seeking answers to such a question through say revelation(divine or otherwise), thanks to more than a passing interest in religious ritual of all types, it would simple enough to set off on a vision quest, trigger lucid dreaming or pray for an answer, but why bother when I know form history of human development, that not only is any answer I derive from such an attempt almost certain to be wrong (the probabilities of falsehood I suspect laying in the region of the astronomical), but actually relatively likely to be actively dangerous or damagingly misleading.
Using the right mode of thought for the job, is not the same as considering other modes of thought to be worthless.
The point I was asserting is that many non-scientific ways of thinking have value. For some posters on these boards, that's a heretical statement. This article describes one of these valuable non-scientific ways of thinking.Its not non scientific.
Science doesn't care if you get your ideas from a rational conclusion of observed events or a fortune cookie. All it cares about is that the ideas you come up with are TESTABLE and that they can be shown to match reality through experiment.
Without that selective process Einsteins ideas are just as valid as Emporer Nortons. The idea of the crazy person that gets discounted and they're eventually proven right is a common one, but people keep forgetting about all the crazy people who are wrong.
You claim the process described in this article is not non-scientific (ie. that it is scientific). This is NOT the same thing as saying that the products of this process of thinking can have the scientific process applied to them.
If this is not clear to you, consider that the fact that clothes can be taken out of a washing machine and put in a dryer does not make the washing machine a dryer, nor does it make what the washing machine does fully part of the drying process.
As this article presents it, science and genius are two different methods.
As I, and others, have already pointed out, what you are referring to as ‘Genius’ is not unscientific, it is an essential element of the scientific method.
To try and explain this to you, I will hijack your analogy.
You see saying that forming a hypothesis is an appliance is an accurate comparisons, in this case the washing machine. However science is not like the dryer. Science is more like the process of laundering the clothes, in that it is a system built out of many component processes, of which putting clothes through a washing machine is but one step.
Example: step 1 (laundering). Sort clothing by colour and special requirements, then move to step 2.
Example: step 1 (science) Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
Example: step 2(laundering) wash cloths, then move to step 2.
Example: step 2(science) Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
Example: step 3 (laundering) If cloths a clean, dry them, if not rewash.
Example: step 3 (science) Deduce predictions from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
Example: step 4 (Laundering) Once dry, iron and store cloths.
Example: step 4 (science) . Test: Look for evidence (observations) that conflict with these predictions in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.[9]
Now some of the steps are also found in other manners of thought or clothing related process, such as say step two in both. In this case, step 2, can be applied to other processes, such as divine revelation, or in the case of clothing, dyeing the cloths.
If I were to compare/contrast apples and oranges, I'd say "apples vs. oranges". That doesn't mean that there is some secret conspiracy of Grannie Smiths organizing carnage on citrus.
thats what you're doing. Look at the vs in your title.
Save that you are not comparing and contrasting, you do not discuss the differences and similarities, and that using the term Vs. is an inherently antagonistic choice. You shouldn’t be using it in a comparing and contrasting exercise.
Genius gains value through science. Until then its indistinguishable from insanity.Science gains value through genius. Until then, its just a bunch of guys testing color changes in test tubes. Its mediocre and probably not worth the expense of doing.
Sorry, but you're very, very wrong here. The scientific method is a thought, that is constructively destructive. It forces the rejection of ideas that are wrong. You could remove all but the tiniest of slither of creative thought from all humanity, and just following the scientific process would lead to the same outcomes.
Please tell me what you think I'm so obvious about.
Duck, you're slipping. You used to be much less obvious.
He is referring to the fact that many forums think you’re actively engaged in trolling these threads, and he considers that in this thread you are even more obvious than normal.
Genius is just a matter of being able to make connections no one else sees.Science without genius is like trying to use lottery tickets for a retirement plan.
No one can dispute that using lottery tickets in this way requires a lot of work. No one can dispute that it even pays off on occasion.
But I hope no one is seriously trying to use lottery tickets for a retirement plan.
That's what I mean by saying that science without genius may not even be worth it.
As for whether anyone has argued that non-scientific ways of thinking don't have value, one poster, for example, has argued that philosophy (which he has defined as science without experiment) has no value. Anything that is even less like science is, in his mind, of even less value. As genius is described in the article I linked to, its all conceptual. Experiment comes later, after genius has created the hypothesis.
Actually, playing the lottery is a far better analogy for creative thought without the scientific.
In fact, it is worse, because without the scientific method, you are effectively playing blind.
Let me explain.
Reality for the purpose of this example is a version of the euromillions lottery, in which the same numbers always come up, i.e. there are lots of possible answers, but one that is always right.
The creative thinker, not using the scientific method, is effectively choosing their numbers at random, but because they are not testing the results of the their choices they do not know if they have hit the right numbers, or even if they have won. This means that the odds against the jackpot are always 1 in 116,531,800.
While the non-creative thinker, who uses the scientific method, can narrow the field. Simply by randomly choosing numbers, but retaining numbers that match up with the weekly result, and not re-using the numbers which don’t turn up, such a non-creative thinker could in a matter of weeks consistantly and repeatable win the jackpot every week.
DD I dunno where you come up with this supposed dichotomy of thought and science. A person's genius has nothing to do with the study or application of science. A person might use their genius for the pursuit of things scientific, or may focus it toward music or art.
These things can embrace from time to time, but they are completely unrelated.Furthermore, I've not seen anyone use science in place of religion here.
Use of the term heretical is trollbait at the least, and intellectually dishonest at the worst. Some folks have merely stated that they like things to be measurable and tested instead of accepting things at face value or on faith.The value genius applies to science lies in the quality of hypothesis used as a starting point.
Genius leads to higher quality hypothesis with which science can work.
Creative thinking may provide better quality hypothesis, but the strength of science it doesn’t need to start with a good hypothesis, feed in a hypothesis, get a possibly or a Not likely, alter hypothesis, repeat. You can start with the moon is made with cheese, and end with men walking on the moon, with enough Iterations.
oh, and we are now moving into areas of science where creative thinking is proving less and less able to provide use with good hypothesis, because the ideas we are dealing with cannot be intuited by humans because we evolved in middle world.
Oh "Great Man" theory...yeah...debunked a long time ago but always brought up.
Let me guess, you read a lot of Ayn Rand and think Biosphere was an unfair portrayal.
I do not believe that genius is something that is only available to some people.
I believe that we are all capable of genius in at least some area of our lives. So, no, I don't believe in great man theory.
This is a perfect example of why genius is the wrong term to be using here.
I said I'm not disparaging good scientists. If they aren't good scientists, then investing money in them is like playing the lottery.0
I'm NOT disparaging the efforts of good scientists. I'm only asserting that there are non-scientific ways of thinking that have value.
Really? Because this...
Science gains value through genius. Until then, its just a bunch of guys testing color changes in test tubes. Its mediocre and probably not worth the expense of doing....sounds a bit like disparaging science. :)
I’ve already attempted to explain why the lottery idea is rubbish, but there is a bigger issue here.
Even ‘mediocre’ scientists are better at finding answers to almost any technical or scientific question we as a society care to ask than a hundred lay people. The last hundred and fifty-ish years have seen massive increase in the professionalisation of science. Most of those scientists are work a-day-science-geeks, who are by no means exceptional. These average, nothing special professional scientist have produced a far greater rate of scientific advance that outstrips any other period in history.
So please, stop talking stuff and non-sense.