The Scientific Method (Page 14)

BlueShirt1: Put another way, circa 1905, given all the facts available to Einstein, do you think *I* would have come up with the special theory of relativity?

(No need to answer lol)


But if science is simply adherence to a set of methodical rules, as many would have us believe, why shouldn't I have come up with it?

BlueShirt1: Interestingly, TIU, in your own thread on "What is a God?" we examined the fairly compelling evidence that concepts are not encoded in a necessary-and-sufficient-conditions definitional form.

Do you see parallels here? I have little doubt the same holds for our concept SCIENCE, even though we routinely see attempts to encapsulate the essence of science in a definition (as you did with your quotation).

For example, show a group of people two pictures:

One of a dude collecting bugs;

The other of a slightly mad-looking dude with unkempt hair in a white labcoat mixing dangerous-looking chemicals together



My money's on the subjects identifying the latter as doing science more quickly. They'd probably take a bit longer with that poor beetle collector, assuming he's even granted scientist status at all.

TheismIsUntenable: There is quotation about how luck is preparation meets opportunity. Is creativity in a similar vein?

"Put another way, circa 1905, given all the facts available to Einstein, do you think *I* would have come up with the special theory of relativity?"

In a game of chess, there is perfect information for both parties. In a great game of chess, you get a draw as is often seen at the highest level of play. Yet this isn't always the case. You need to know which move to execute to use those facts to your advantage.

"There is, of course, no logical [cf. "methodical" - me] way leading to the establishment of a theory but only groping constructive attempts controlled by careful consideration of factual knowledge."

Einstein might also agree with: "There is, of course, no logical way leading Michelangelo to the painting of the Sistine Chapel." Maybe it's true, but it's difficult for me to understand an alogical or illogical process resulting in this.

BlueShirt1: Re final paragraph.

I'd just say it takes an enormous amount of talent. Clearly it does not involve slavishly adhering to a step-by-step "method" . . . or else any fool with basic training could've done it.

Same applies to the construction of a good scientific theory.


What happened in the early 20th century is that all the big honchos (logical positivists, Karl Popper, etc.) pretty much gave up on a logic or method of DISCOVERY of scientific theories. This, they deemed, was a matter for psychologists or historians; of no interest to the methodologist.

They did continue to insist, however, that there is a logic/method to the JUSTIFICATION of scientific theories.

Subsequently, that idea ran into some fairly significant problems of its own.

Silver__Fox: Where'd he go?

TheismIsUntenable: Banned?

Silver__Fox: Mods must have read one of his blogs lol

theHating: Come back 🥺

AretoNyx: I am curious why youtube hid newer elements playlist from my library. ☀Science: chemistry: Newest elements before 2016 and the early 2000s: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_e0DBcigH_-duCfl1V_8SnSqEuESGHWZ

Cancel culture on science does happen at times because religious views at times. Though why would this get the boot off my main library?

Angry Beaver: Google like to censor everything because they are all for the government narrative, probably getting inducements.

theHating: Old school bump

Angry Beaver: Lady Bump