Reg Prescott

I've no idea. What I would say on the matter, though, is this: From personal experience (in places like this), and from the reading I've done, realism appears to be the default position among scientists. After all, it is the common-sense position, I think you'd agree. Ask a geologist whether or not he thinks tectonic plates are real. Ask a chemist whether or not she thinks molecules are real. And so on, and so forth. I'm pretty sure you'd get a whole lotta "yes"s and precious few "no"s (and no, I don't have statistics; I'm guessing). In other words, if I'm right, we would be told, "Our theories describe, or at least attempt to describe, reality". Now, the glaring exception to this common-sense realist position lies in the realm of quantum physics, where things do get very murky indeed, hence the oft-expressed reticence to make ontological commitments ("Shut up and calculate"). I'm getting the impression that several of our contributors here work in the realm of QM, hence the prevalence of antirealist or non-realist sentiment, and so we may be getting a skewed representation of the overall status of scientists' attitude to scientific claims to knowledge. Hey! Here's a good idea, why don't we just ask them? I'm genuinely curious: Do our members here take a more realist or antirealist approach to their work?

A reference for my opinion? Yes, me.

"Rubbish, there are plenty of useful statements that can be made about something non existent." I said nothing about "useful". Here's what I said again that you responded to: "Nothing true can be said of a non-existent entity, except perhaps that it doesn't exist." I've numbered your five examples for convenience. The predicates true and false apply only to "assertives", i.e., statements, or as I noted earlier, propositions, to be more precise. For example: "Tokyo is the capital of Canada" is a statement, thus "truth-evaluable" (as they say), and in this particular case we would assign it a value of "false". The predicates true/false do not apply to other speech acts, such as commissives (e.g. "I promise to love you forever") and directives (questions, commands, etc. E.g "Please open the door", "How old are you?"). We say they are not truth-evaluable. They may have conditions of satisfaction (in John Searle's jargon) -- they can be satisfied or not -- but the predicates true/false do not apply. Of the five "statements" you listed, only the first is a statement, thus truth-evaluable. Your (2) - (5) are questions (thus directives), not statements. The question of truth/falsity, therefore, does not arise. So we only need to consider (1). Now, given that "it" doesn't exist, then nothing true can be said of it. This is entirely uncontroversial. What's disputed is whether the (conditional) statement should be assigned a value of false, or neither true nor false. As I noted earlier, depends who you ask. Russell, for example, endorses the former; Strawson, for example, endorses the latter. If the existence of the entity is in doubt (quarks, say, or choose your own example), then we would simply withhold judgement on whether to assign a value of true or false to any statement regarding that entity. We're in the dark, so to speak, at least for the time being. Is a concept part of reality? I'd say so. This does indeed get tricky. Statements about unicorns, if taken literally, and granting they do not exist, are uniformly assigned a value of false. This much is uncontroversial For fiction, on the other hand... well, again, depends who you ask. "Sherlock Holmes lives at 221a Baker Street", for example. Some would say true within the context of the fiction; false (or neither true nor false) otherwise. (Did I get his address right?) Quite so. I know of no one who would deny this. I certainly don't. As are you, swansont. However, you did claim that science does not tell us about reality ("But if you mean they tell you what reality is, then no. Science doesn't do that.") as if this were a universal position held by all scientists with the implication, "ask any scientist and they'll tell you the same thing". Clearly this is not the case. Many scientists -- I'd guess the majority -- do believe science can tell us about reality. This gets tricky too. Different people have different notions about what counts as observable/unobservable. Personally, I'd regard quarks, say, as unobservable (you may disagree). Yet science has measured... er, you're the physicist... spin, mass, etc? See my response to swansont above regarding fiction (Sherlock Holmes).

Well, this is precisely what the scientific realist denies. The scientific realist -- like Weinberg, say, and the later Einstein -- holds that science can yield knowledge (i.e. we can know), at least in some cases, of unobservable reality.

No, on one fairly standard understanding of truth (the correspondence theory), a statement, or proposition to be more precise, is true if the statement corresponds with what is the case in reality. The statement "the cat is on the mat" is true if and only if said moggy is indeed on the mat, and false otherwise. The statement "Unicorns are sexy", granting me that unicorns do not exist, is false. And if we accept that there does not exist an attractive force that acts instantaneously over any distance, then likewise, nothing true can be said of Newtonian gravity. Statements can be true or false. Reality... well, just is. (The correspondence theory of truth is not the only one, needless to say. Ah, these things are never simple, eh?) Weinberg, unlike yourself (as far as I can discern), is a scientific realist -- one of the staunchest. That is to say, roughly, he holds something like the following: the aim of science is to produce true theories, that is, to produce theories that accurately describe reality (both observable and unobservable) Your own position, swansont, as far as I can tell (apologies if I've misread you) inclines towards that of the antirealist, i.e., science aims to produce theories that are empirically adequate; theories that get observable reality right. As for what goes on behind the scenes... well, depends what kind of antirealist you are. Some say nothing. Some say "don't ask". Some say "shut up and calculate", etc, etc. Newton's ontology includes absolute space, absolute time, and gravity, the latter of which he explicitly states to be real in the Principia (I believe), though he self-confessedly failed in his attempts to specify its precise nature. (I could track down quotes, but it would take a little time). Now, if you so choose, you can merely use his equations for their instrumental value, as many do, ignoring questions of the theory's truth. That would put you in the antirealist or non-realist camp. From the Principia, General Scholium...

I'm afraid you keep failing to see the distinction I'm making. This is standard grist-for-the-mill in the scientific realism vs antirealism debate. (and antirealism does not equate to anti-science, I hasten to add) It is not in dispute that "GR gives the same results as Newtonian albeit far more accurately". We can say, therefore, that GR enjoys a higher degree of empirical adequacy than Newtonian physics. Truth is another matter. For a theory/hypothesis to be true, it must not only be empirically adequate (i.e, gets observable reality right), but the ontology of the theory must be veridical too (i.e. it gets the behind-the-scenes stuff right too). "... would need to explain why if Newtonian was incorrect, that we use it to obtain correct results." Because true predictions can be derived from false, as well as true, theories. Try navigating around the world using Plotemaic cosmology. You'll be just fine, I guarantee. Is Ptolemaic cosmology a true theory? You tell me.

As I said above: "There's no dispute that GR is instrumentally more accurate (i.e. yields more accurate predictions) than Newtonian physics". (that's what you're saying above, mainly) The problems begin with that dang T-word. If Einstein's ontology is correct, then Newton's is false. Even supposing Einstein has got everything right (which I doubt given the ephemeral nature of scientific theories), then what we have is "Newton's theory is false; Einstein's theory is true" -- hardly what would normally be described as an approach to truth, or getting closer to truth. Ah, another one of these blanket statements... Many scientists share your opinion on this, swansont; many others do not. (Did you see the Weinberg quote I posted, for example?)

I commented above (some of my replies were merged). Here's what I said again: Looks like an interesting paper you've posted there, beecee. I'll take a look closely when I have more time. Just from a quick scan, though, you do see that the writer's characterization of The Scientific Method is in conflict with just about every other Tom, Dick, and Harry who has written on the topic. Again we're confronted with the question: Which one of them, if any, nailed it?

@ beecee Ah, that was easy, eh? Well, if you've ever taken a course in the philosophy of language (God forbid!) you'll know that the first sixty years are spent examining the statement "The present king of France is bald". Now, there is disagreement over whether the statement should be assigned a value of false (Russell, etc), or whether it is neither true nor false (Strawson, etc). What is not in dispute, however, is that the statement cannot possibly be true. Nothing true can be said of a non-existent entity, except perhaps that it doesn't exist. Now, beecee, do you believe there exists an attractive force that acts instantaneously over any distance (i.e. Newtonian gravity)? Do you believe space and time are absolute, as per Newtonian physics? If the answer is no, do you believe anything true can be said of Newtonian gravity? (cf. "The present king of France is bald")

We do? Whoops, me and my big mouth. (Let's save this one for another time -- it's been a long hard day, eh?) But just as a tantalizing teaser: There's no dispute that GR is instrumentally more accurate (i.e. yields more accurate predictions) than Newtonian physics, but closer to truth? It's a position I wouldn't like to have to defend myself. Now, when you mention truth, we have to bring in the ontology -- the architecture and furniture -- of the theories in question. And it's far from obvious how a 4-d spacetime manifold is "closer to truth" than absolute space and absolute time. Or how gravity construed as the curvature of spacetime is "closer to truth" than gravity construed as an attractive force that acts instantaneously over any distance. The ontologies are logically incompatible (or so it seems to me). If Einstein's ontology is right; Newton's is wrong. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Might be fun to debate this another time... Looks like an interesting paper you've posted there, beecee. I'll take a look closely when I have more time. Just from a quick scan, though, you do see that the writer's characterization of The Scientific Method is in conflict with just about every other Tom, Dick, and Harry who has written on the topic. Again we're confronted with the question: Which one of them, if any, nailed it? Not guilty. Wasn't me.

"All this [i.e. Kuhn's ideas] is wormwood to scientists like myself, who think the task of science is to bring us closer and closer to objective truth." -- Steven Weinberg (from "Facing Up", essay 17, "The Non-Revolution of Thomas Kuhn")

Ah, I did try to warn about the perils of making blanket statements about science. But some people just neeeeeeeeeeeeeever listen, lol. Are there scientists who hold that the goal of science is, as you suggest above, merely the construction of "empirically adequate" models (and never mind truth)? Lots of 'em. Are there scientists who, contrary to your asseverations above, hold that the goal of science is truth? Lots of them too. Quite sure I didn't. Point us to where I made that claim, please. You're doing an awful good job of concealing the fact that you do not believe there is a single method of science, dude.

"There is no single scientific method. That's a straw man used by anti-science hacks in order to denigrate science and try and have their own pseudoscience or ideology-masquerading-as-science placed on equal footing." - swansont Oh, I quite agree that there is no single scientific method (you might wanna tell Beecee the news, though). However, as for "a straw man used by anti-science hacks in order to denigrate science", you mean like Isaac Newton? Oh, and quite a few others besides... (please don't make me compose a list)

That's not why we're here, dude. The topic is The Scientific Method. Try to stay focused. (Personally, my own interest in YEC is negligible, if that's any solace to you) Now when do you intend to address these questions on scientific method that you've been evading? Want the list again?

Well, supposing what you say is true, what does this (i.e. being critical of you) have to do with "getting science right"? Want a link to the Wiki page on the irrelevance fallacy?

Here's a sample of my questions to you that have either ignored, evaded, or passed the buck to someone else: 1. Do you have a method for generating hypotheses? 2. Do you have a method for generating scientific questions? 3. What are the criteria for determining what does, and what does not, constitute scientific evidence? 4. Will you please explain how falsification works in science? Now, while you're busy working on that, I'll work on any questions of yours that I've evaded. Are there any? I could add a few more to the list if you like. And each one of them has a different tale to tell. Which one, in your opinion, got it right? (Dunno why that's in block letters above. I can't change it. Sorry!)

Well, I can't see it (i.e. your criteria for determining what does, and what does not constitute scientific evidence) Be a good sport and direct me to where you did it. Better still, copy and paste below. It'll only take a few seconds. Thanks! Not sure whether this is directed at me or not. Is it? I don't believe I've attacked science or scientists. All I'm doing is try to get science right. Isn't that what we all want?

Er, at the risk of sounding obtuse again, why are you here? I thought the plan was that you would argue for (i.e., defend) the existence of The Scientific Method while I would argue against?

No idea where you got that from, dude. What I am doing is asking you to provide us with a set of criteria (a method!) that each and every one of us can apply in order to determine what counts as scientific evidence for/against such-and-such a claim -- whether that claim be of the Creationist variety, general relativity variety, or any other variety. Do that now, please.

@ Beecee Sorry, being a newbie here, I'm not very adept with the quote function. Bear with me. Oh, and I promise not to make any more jokes. I almost forgot myself. Frightfully sorry. The last thing this world needs is more laughter, eh? Now to your latest responses... "Yes, they [Creationists] can claim what they like, but obviously and naturally, they lack any empirical evidence supporting their mythical claims and of course plenty of empirical evidence falsifying the same myths." Now, the most obvious problem here is, I'm guessing these Creationist swine would claim to have evidence for their beliefs, as you do for your own. So do we: (1) Allow you to determine -- by fiat -- what does, and what does not, constitute evidence for or against any particular claim, or (2) Come up with a set of criteria that we all agree upon so that we may all determine for ourselves whether or not such-and-such constitutes evidence for such-and-such a theory/hypothesis. Do you have such criteria? If so, spill the beans, please. "You need to be serious if you want to debate your claim. eg: a star maybe in a position different from its known position when viewed in the day time and behind the Sun. Or why did Mercury not appear exactly where it should be under Newtonian gravity." Ok, you've provided us with two examples of proper scientific questions that might be asked. What you have not done is provide us with a method for generating proper scientific questions. Our topic is here is methodology, remember? Do you have such a method? "Are you interested in discussing why your claim is not as you say, or would you rather indulge in pedant? Or as another remarked in another thread, are you just attempting to be argumentive?" Argumentative? A peculiar accusation indeed to hurl at one's interlocutor in a debate forum. We came here to argue for and against the existence of The Scientific Method, right? You're arguing for; me against. I believe your claim is hopelessly wrong and I'm arguing against it as we speak. "Observation, as per the Eddington observation to test Einstein's hypothesis during an eclipse." Nice example. But you're supposed to be defending the method of science, including the testing of scientific theories/hypotheses. You still have not explicated a general method of testing; merely pointed to one random example. "Not at all....simply again dismissing those mythical claims due to falsification by real science." Would you please explain how falsification works? What is the method for falsifying hypotheses? (Don't giggle -- this is trickier than you might imagine). Is falsificationism the Method of science as Karl Popper insisted? " Ahh, again, some false pretentious suggestion to maybe hide an agenda perhaps?" Leave my hidden agenda out of this, whatever that happens to be. And stop sticking your tongue out at me, too. This is a serious debate. To be quite frank, Beecee, there may be less difference between us than you think. You posted the following quote -- implying that you endorse it -- from Thomas Henry Huxley... Einstein says something very similar... In my view, both Huxley and Einstein are exactly right. But our topic is The Scientific Method, remember? How can "common sense" -- on pain of contorting the concept beyond recognition -- possibly be described as a method? Consider: "Go make a pizza" "Er, how do I do it?" "Just use your common sense", and "Go generate scientific knowledge" "Er, how do I do it?" "Just use your common sense"

Let's begin here then. "Single,? invariant? so called? If real, ? You seem to want to apply strict unnecessary guidelines to what is generally accepted." Yes, single and invariant. If there were three methods, say (which of course there aren't), then we should be speaking of The Scientific Methods, not "method". Same goes for "invariant". More poignantly, if there is not one, but three, or ten, or a thousand, methods of science, in a constant state of flux, that you bizarrely insist on collectively calling "The Scientific Method", then the three functions I adverted to in my opening paragraph (i.e., unification, demarcation, explanation) can no longer be served. How, for example, would we appeal to a protean smorgasbord of methods to explain the success of science, or to demarcate bona fide science from astrology or Intelligent Design, say? The Creationists might quite plausibly claim "We're using a method of science too; just not the same one as 19th century paleontologists used". Then what: rule them out of court by imperial fiat? "[1] ask a question" : You mean like "How do you get a philosopher off your porch?" The answer is "pay for the pizza", but I trust the problem is clear. You'd have to be a little more specific. "[2] Research" : Um, how exactly? Same problem as above: hopelessly vague. You might as well be advising us, "Just generate knowledge, dammit!" "[3] Formulate an hypothesis" : Well, first and foremost, it really gets my goat when people say "an" hypothesis. Why can't you say "a" hypothesis? Grrr! Right, lots to say about this one. First, review my point (6) in the OP. In what sense can "formulate a hypothesis" possibly be considered methodical? Do you have a method for doing this? If so, please share. Is the formulation of a hypothesis not what would be more aptly described as a creative, rather than a methodical, process? Isn't the imperative "formulate a hypothesis" akin to "have an idea"? No doubt scientists have ideas/formulate hypotheses, but then so does everyone else; I suspect dogs and cats do it too (I used to tease my cat by placing his foodbowl in unlikely places and watch him formulate and test various hypotheses as to its whereabouts). For this reason, both the Logical Positivists and Karl Popper drew a distinction between the so-called context of discovery and context of justification. How scientists come by their hypotheses -- inspiration, eureka moments, riding on beams of light, dreams of snakes eating their own tails, etc -- was considered a matter for psychologists and historians to discern, but of no interest to the methodologist who looks for method or rationality only in the subsequent justification of said hypotheses. Meanwhile, our old pal Isaac Newton, would throw a fit; he had this to say on the place of hypotheses in science: Under Newton's inductivist characterization of the scientific method, propositions are to be extracted inductively from data; one does not bring a hypothesis to the data. Tsk tsk! This is a theme we're likely to encounter again, Beecee: if someone else characterizes TSM differently from yourself (and there is no shortage of candidates), are we to take it that your own version of TSM is the correct one and all the rest are wrong? "[4] Test said hypothesis": Er, how? If we're going to talk of method, you'll have to be a little more specific, I think. But we have now entered the hallowed "context of justification" *drumroll*. This is where things get exciting. That's enough to get us started. But stepping back to look at the larger picture, it seems to me -- even supposing (which I don't) that you've nailed it -- you're making science a bit too easy. What I mean is, it's not at all difficult to imagine those Creationist hoodlums, say, setting up their own publishing network and acting in accordance with your 6-step program. Thus, based on the criteria you've offered us, you'd be forced to concede that the aforementioned hoodlums are perpetrating good science. And I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want that now, would you?

The scientific method (hereafter TSM) has been traditionally defined as a single, timeless, invariant set of rules governing empirical inquiry, at least since the time of the so-called Scientific Revolution of around 400 years ago. If real, TSM would be precious indeed: it would serve to unify all the prima facie disconnected scientific disciplines (after all, it's far from obvious that anything links the activities of subatomic physicists with economists, say), it would act as the demarcation criterion to distinguish bona fide science from pseudoscience or non-science in general, and it could be appealed to in order to explain the undeniable success of the scientific enterprise. My own view is that TSM, as characterized above, does not exist. Whenever I express this view in internet chatrooms or elsewhere, the reaction from more scientifically oriented participants tends to be hostile, sometimes to an almost hysterical degree. One gets the impression these partisan footsoldiers, who by and large are not well read on the issue, feel they are confronted with a religious crackpot, Kentucky hillbilly, or else the victim of some other unidentified pathology. Then all hell breaks loose. My purpose here, then, will be to articulate the reasons why a growing number of people like myself deny the existence of the scientific method as traditionally understood. (1) First, we need to be clear about what is, and what is not, being claimed. My claim is not that science is entirely unmethodical; that scientists do not employ various methods of one kind or another. The claim, rather, is that there is no single overarching method of science; there is no unique method employed by all genuine scientists in all times, all places, and all disciplines. Of course chemists use litmus paper to detect the presence of acid, while geologists use dating techniques to determine the age of rocks, say. That said, surely no one would venture the opinion that carbon dating (for example) just is the scientific method. (2) Before setting out, we must pay careful attention to our application of the concept "method". We must agree that the concept properly applies to certain processes, quintessentially a cookbook recipe for instance (just follow the steps and voila!), and must be withheld from others which depend more on luck or creativity than rigid adherence to a set of rules; a lottery scoop or the writing of a novel, say. If the overzealous defender of science insists on applying the concept "method" no matter what, then the whole notion of a substantive "scientific method" is trivialized and we might as well stop right now and head down the pub instead for a few bevvies. (3) The reason why belief in TSM is so widespread, and unquestioningly accepted, by the populace at large I suggest is not due to any in-depth investigation conducted into the matter by John Q, but rather simply because the idea is inculcated ad nauseum on Discovery Channel showcases, introductory science textbooks, and by high school science teachers. TSM, until quite recently at least, has just been one of these background assumptions most of us simply take for granted. We've been told it is so by the right kind of people, therefore it must be so. At this point I'd suggest, unpalatable though it may seem at first blush, that for an understanding of TSM, probably the last people you'd want to consult -- with a few exceptions -- are scientists themselves. The issue of scientific methodology is what we might call a metascientific question; that is to say, a question about science as opposed to a question amenable to the techniques of science itself. I suspect this may be a hard pill for some to swallow, so let me recruit a little assistance from a man whose opinion you might be more willing to lend credence to than my own: "If you want to find out anything from the theoretical physicists about the methods they use, I advise you to stick closely to one principle: Don't listen to their words, fix your attention on their deeds." - Albert Einstein Scientists, by and large, get on with doing science: metascientific issues lie outwith their own areas of expertise. There are people, however, who devote careers to studying what it is that scientists do, including the methods they employ; these people are philosophers and historians of science, and it is to them we must turn. (4) Lack of consensus: Ask ten people about TSM and they'll probably all swear to its reality; it's unlikely that any two of them will agree on what it is though, if indeed they are able to provide a specification at all. Outstanding thinkers who have written on TSM include Descartes for whom deduction is the essence of scientific reasoning; Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and John Stuart Mill who advocate induction; William Whewell is widely credited with introducing hypothetico-deductivism as the putative method of science (note here that any talk of speculative hypotheses was anathema to inductivists such as Newton). Moving into the 20th century, Karl Popper famously espoused falsificationism as the method of science. Later, subsequent upon the so-called "historical turn" in the philosophy of science, scholars began to take a close look at what real world scientists actually do -- as opposed to the ivory tower logical idealizations of previous generations -- and in many cases came to a rather stark conclusion: there is no unique method of science. Thomas Kuhn speaks of science in terms of a series of paradigm shifts; Paul Feyerabend, somewhat scandalously, concluded from his studies of historical episodes that the only inviolable methodological precept to be found is "anything goes"! Now, lack of consensus does not necessarily imply that TSM is chimerical; it may simply be that we have not yet been able to pinpoint it. I would suggest, though, that at the very least, it ought to give pause to even the most implacable apologists of TSM. (5) The porridge test: Specifications of The Scientific Method invariably turn out to be either too hot or too cold. If the criteria specified are overly restrictive -- that experimentation, say, be a necessary component -- then it turns out that much of what we intuitively regard as good science ends up being excluded. Many scientists (Copernicus, Darwin, etc), and many areas of science (paleontology, astrophysics, etc) conduct few or no experiments; gardeners meanwhile do lots! On the other hand, overly permissive criteria -- formulate and test hypotheses, say -- leads to the unpalatable conclusion that pretty much the whole world is doing science. Who among us has never formed and tested a hypothesis? Ever misplaced your car keys? (6) A final thought for the time being, before I bore the pants off everyone. Given that "hypotheses" always seem to get a mention when the issue of TSM is broached, is the formation of a hypothesis the kind of thing you'd regard as methodical? Is there a step-by-step algorithm for constructing hypotheses? Is this not what would be more aptly described as a creative process? And surely the concepts of creativity and method are diametrically opposed to one another: the more of one, the less of the other. August Kekulé famously claimed that the ring-structure of the benzene molecule came to him in a dream of a snake eating its own tail -- hardly what might be called a methodical discovery! My denial of TSM is almost invariably met with a reaction of outrage. It does seem to me, however, if there is any impertinence at all, it arises from those who would have us believe that our finest scientific minds are little more than unthinking automata slavishly adhering to the steps of an inflexible pizza recipe. Genuises need not apply; any fool can do it! Well, if geniuses need not apply, why do we need the likes of Newton and Einstein? Comments, criticisms, corrections are all welcome. Thanks! I leave you with the thoughts of two Nobel Prize-winning scientists who have looked into the philosophical and methodological issues in science: "Scientific method is something talked about by people standing on the outside and wondering how the scientist manages to do it.... What appears to [the working scientist] as the essence of the situation is that he is not consciously following any prescribed course of action, but feels complete freedom to utilize any method or device whatever which in the particular situation before him seems likely to yield the correct answer. In his attack on his specific problem he suffers no inhibitions of precedent or authority, but is completely free to adopt any course that his ingenuity is capable of suggesting to him. No one standing on the outside can predict what the individual scientist will do or what method he will follow. In short, science is what scientists do, and there are as many scientific methods as there are individual scientists." Percy W. Bridgman -- "On Scientific Method" "I know enough about science to know that there is no such thing as a clear and universal "scientific method". All attempts to formulate one since the time of Francis Bacon have failed to capture the way that science and scientists actually work." -- Steven Weinberg (from "Facing Up", essay 4, "Confronting O'Brien")

@ beecee Not to belabor the point, but you continue to simply presuppose, rather than argue for, the existence of this putative Method (The Scientific Method, or hereafter, TSM) of science. It's a bit like participating in a debate about the existence of God, with one's interlocutor constantly repeating "God loves you". The existence of God/TSM is the very issue under examination; not that which is to be assumed. You've emphasized the importance of evidence, and the eschewal of myths or unjustified beliefs. Thus far, however, as far as I can see, the amount of evidence you have adduced to support the existence of TSM totals precisely zilch. You have not even told us what -- your version of -- TSM is. (and puh-LEASE do not direct me to Wikipedia -- no doubt you'll find a page on God too) Now, to save time, let's get back to the quotes I posted earlier.... "Scientific method is something talked about by people standing on the outside and wondering how the scientist manages to do it.... What appears to [the working scientist] as the essence of the situation is that he is not consciously following any prescribed course of action, but feels complete freedom to utilize any method or device whatever which in the particular situation before him seems likely to yield the correct answer. In his attack on his specific problem he suffers no inhibitions of precedent or authority, but is completely free to adopt any course that his ingenuity is capable of suggesting to him. No one standing on the outside can predict what the individual scientist will do or what method he will follow. In short, science is what scientists do, and there are as many scientific methods as there are individual scientists." Percy W. Bridgman -- "On Scientific Method" "I know enough about science to know that there is no such thing as a clear and universal "scientific method". All attempts to formulate one since the time of Francis Bacon have failed to capture the way that science and scientists actually work." -- Steven Weinberg (from "Facing Up", essay 4, "Confronting O'Brien") If, as you claim, TSM is real, why would two (and I can quote others) highly respected, Nobel-prize winning scientists say such foolish things? What's their problem? What do you know that they don't?

Re : Brainwashing in early childhood: Here's what happened: Strange asserted that "Some people have a greater tendency to belief in religious/spiritual ideas than others". I was at once wondering how he could possibly know that one individual has a greater tendency towards religious/spiritual ideas than another, say Strange vs myself, and curious as to my own tendency. Thus, I offered for illustration the example that, though I'd rate myself zero on the religiosity scale now, if God paid me a visit in the night I'd be a ten this morning (it didn't happen by the way). Does that mean my tendency for religiosity is high? Low? Higher than his? Lower than his? Who the hell knows until it manifests? -- thereupon what we have is a manifestation of religiosity; not a tendency. And the claim that one individual has a greater tendency towards religiosity than another reduces to utter triviality: "Look, he's worshiping God! He must have (or have had) a high tendency for religion!" A bit like saying of some newly-discovered, previously unknown material, "Look, it's broken! It must have been fragile!" (And how do you know it's fragile? Well, it's broken, isn't it?) Turns out we were at cross purposes. Apparently what Strange had in mind was groups of individuals, not individuals. Science or no science, genetic determinism/predisposition or not, were I to have a close encounter with Bigfoot, say, while strolling through the forests of Oregon -- perhaps a wrestling match with Mr Sasquatch himself -- I'd be an instant convert. I daresay you would be too. Might it be a hallucination or an uncommonly large dude in a gorilla costume? Certainly, though the "my senses are not deceiving me" hypothesis would reign supreme until some pretty strong evidence to the contrary was adduced (e.g. "we spiked your Cornflakes with LSD"). The larger point I'm trying to impress here is that any genetic predispositions that incline or disincline me (or you) towards certain patterns of belief -- supposing there even are such things -- would be overwhelmed by sensory input in tandem with my/your own cognitive processes. Intentionality 1 Genes 0, you might say. Re: What else would I expect on a science forum? Civility, tolerance... never mind. Just a silly thought. Re myths, fairy tales, and The Scientific Method (TSM): I was not so much "arguing against the scientific method" as claiming that there is no such thing. Science, like religion, is not short of a few myths of her own. The myth of TSM provides us with a splendid example. Despite scant evidence for, and voluminous evidence against, the existence of a universal, timeless, invariant Method of science, people like yourself continue to uncritically and obediently not only buy into the myth, but perpetuate it with unholy fervor while, at the same time, fulminating against those poor brainwashed religious suckers who ought to know better than believe fairy tales. People who live in glass houses... Re "on the fence" : I didn't realize realize it was an "Us-Them" showdown. What are my choice of colors? Blue for Rangers or green for Celtic? But seriously, you guys, just like the religious mob, can be a wee bit tribalistic at times. The impression I was getting when I entered the thread was a fairly typical supercilious dismissal of anything religious combined with an overzealous reverence for anything bearing the epithet scientific. If you know your history of science -- and not just those "Whig" histories so alarmingly prevalent -- you'll be aware that a great many, perhaps most, perhaps the vast majority, of scientific theories (thus "explanations" -- your word) ever proposed and regarded as true are no longer thus regarded. Might be salutary to bear that in mind. Oh, and guess what? Not all religious folks are brainwashed dummies with a tendency (that word again) towards terrorism. I'll be on the fence if you need me. Cheers!

Er, how exactly do you know this again? Personally, I'd rate my own degree of religiosity as zero right now. But hey, if God comes to pay me a visit in the middle of the night, I'll be a ten tomorrow. Speaking of which, it's kinda late here. Nighty-night!