| Ulf Wiger 2007-03-06, 7:04 pm |
| >>>>> "JT" == J Thomas <J> writes:
JT> On Mar 6, 7:27 am, Ulf Wiger <etxu...@cbe.ericsson.se> wrote:[color=darkred]
JT> That would be *my* point.
JT> Markus makes a clear distinction between astrology and
JT> physics. But they're both theories! And yet there's supposed to
JT> be a fundamental difference between them.
JT> In theory, science is supposed to be self-correcting. Theories
JT> that turn out to be incompatible with experience will eventually
JT> get discarded. And in theory, astrology should be incompatible
JT> with the data but obviously it hasn't been discarded yet.
For a very long time, astrology was a well-respected science,
resting on what seemed to be very solid postulates.
While I have no interest in defending astrology as such, I
imagine that there is no fundamental difference between it,
except perhaps that it doesn't (to my knowledge) apply what
is known as the scientific process. The scientific process
is in itself a fairly specific culture, grown mainly in the
Western world.
I think it's reasonable to distinguish scientific theory as
theory which is tested according to the scientific process.
This has proven to be amazingly effective, but after having
read "The Passion of the Western Mind" by Richard Tarnas,
I've come to regard the scientific process as a fairly
non-universal and somewhat fragile phenomenon.
JT> Similarly, if you're
JT> making swords then you change your methods as you have the
JT> leisure and the resources to test them. I'm sure that even after
JT> smiths found that goats worked as well as people to quench
JT> steel, their more affluent customers preferred humans for that
JT> special cachet. And even after they found out how to use a
JT> barrel of dirty water for the same thing, no doubt some
JT> customers preferred live animals. But after you find an easier
JT> way you stop telling people there's only one way.
I see this pattern all over the place still. I think it is even
reasonably common in the scientific community, but at least
there is a wonderful process in place to keep it from getting
out of hand.
But even great scientists make good use of intuition and
determination in the face of adversity. The difference between
a "bad" scientist holding on to a faulty theory despite
heavy criticism, and a good one holding on to a good (but
unpopular) one is sometimes difficult to spot.
I mentioned David Hume before. His Treatise of Humanity
"fell dead from the presses" in its time. It was only
later that it came to be hailed as one of the most important
philosophical works of all time.
BR,
Ulf W
--
Ulf Wiger, Senior Specialist,
/ / / Architecture & Design of Carrier-Class Software
/ / / Team Leader, Software Characteristics
/ / / Ericsson AB, IMS Gateways
|