Re: [asa] POLL: How do you define 'Science'?

Thanks.
That was quite helpful.

At 03:30 PM 5/29/2008, you wrote:
>Hi Collin,
>
>My perception on such things is that one probably shouldn't try to
>impose one model of theory structure across the board for the simple
>reason that individual scientists are often motivated by quite
>different concerns. And it doesn't seem to me that one can easily
>plonk all such concerns into a single box.
>
>To give a very basic example, which I introduce with the caveat that
>it involves DELIBERATE distortions introduced primarily to win
>arguments in pubs(!); back in my engineering student days we used to
>engage in a friendly (?) rivalry with applied science students about
>who was doing the "real" science. To we engineers it was obvious
>that applied science was all about vacuous abstraction based on
>poorly conducted experiments in which one ignores any results not
>agreeing with the vaguely defined theory that one had already
>dreamed up on the basis of a complete lack of understanding of the
>phenomena which one had in the first place. Contrast this with the
>unsullied purity of engineering - in which theoretical error is
>immediately apparent by virtue of the fact that the bridge falls down.
>
>Such student witticisms were based on the simple observation that
>there are different agendas within different disciplines. And whilst
>it's too simplistic to say that ALL applied scientists are
>interested in theory construction, and ALL engineers are interested
>in pragmatic application, it does seem that this is generally close
>enough to the truth to lend some credence to the caricature of the
>disciplines mentioned in the paragraph above. After all, caricatures
>only work if they have at least some relation to the actual state of affairs.
>
>For this reason, my response to your poll is to suggest that at
>various times and in various places and to various extents science
>displays all (or none!) of the various aspects listed. Often this
>is a result of the fact that research programs tend to move through
>stages - none of which are really as clearly defined as textbooks
>suggest - and one's primary focus at various stages tends to shift.
>But sometimes its because an entire discipline has different
>interests and one largely concerns oneself ONLY with data collection
>or pragmatic application or whatever else. The science vs
>engineering caricature introduced above works precisely because it
>was understood that the process of theory construction ("science")
>vs. that of theory application ("engineering") are related but
>distinct processes which employ different goals and methods.
>
>At the end of the day, I think that one would want to be careful not
>to construct a philosophy of science based upon a particular
>discipline as somehow paradigmatic of all sciences. And my worry
>with some philosophers of science is that they do exactly this. The
>unfortunate consequence is that in order to maintain a philosophy of
>science which might very well describe the practices of a particular
>group of scientists very well, one might end up either having to
>distort what other groups of scientists are doing, or to dismiss
>them as not really engaged in science at all, or perhaps even to
>assert that whilst they are engaged in science they have somehow
>deceived themselves as to what it is they are really attempting to do.
>
>In closing, it occurs to me that it would be interesting if one
>could conduct a poll such as yours whilst also obtaining some
>indication of the respondents particular discipline. It would be
>interesting to see how an understanding of the the methods and aims
>of science vary depending upon whether one is engaged in science "in
>the real world, and in what particular capacity, or whether one is a
>"theorist" attempting to describe science from the "outside" and is
>this with reference to any particular scientific discipline. The
>results of such a poll might, I think, prove interesting -
>particularly if one was to discern between experienced practitioners
>and novices in the various fields.
>
>Blessings,
>Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
>Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology
>
>Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
>>
>>I'm wondering if the theory structures that I read in Suppe,
>>Newton-Smith, etc.,
>>are followed seriously, or if there is more in the mind of the
>>scientist than just the testing.
>>That's why I asked about pragmatism and the other possible goals.
>>Because he real world where people work is often different from the
>>orthodoxy of the theorists.--
>
>To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

Sincerely,

Collin Brendemuehl
http://www.brendemuehl.net

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose"
                                                 -- Jim Elliott

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 29 16:23:09 2008