Will, I will just add this sample set of equations where science.x = hard science and science.y = psychiatry (and probably other soft sciences):
science.x + theory = work for outcome
science.x + practice = consistency
science.y + theory = work for outcome
science.y + practice = work for outcome
Assume that in 'science.y + practice', practice is the prescription of medication. How often will a psychiatrist prescribe a medication only to have an unexpected (or possibly bad) outcome and then have to try something else... and then maybe something else until something "works"? This process is repeated with each new patient. In 'science.y + theory' some building blocks are created, but there is no certainty how each patient will react to new medications (this does not include the chemistry behind pharmaceuticals ('hard') and the biochemistry of the interaction ('soft').
Now let's look at 'science.x + practice'. Once 'science.x + theory' is performed and an outcome assessed, 'science.x + practice' can be repeated with limited change or failure. Bridges have been built more or less the same for millenia (beginning with simple aqueducts in Roman times I believe) and they always work pretty much the same. You don't make a bridge the same way just to have one spontaneously disintegrate. It doesn't happen. That's the 'hard' vs. 'soft' argument AND the anti-psych argument rolled into one.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sapiens
What is "greater education"? What kind of education do you think is required to get each degree? How can "greater education", regardless of what it means, be a measurement of scientific virtue?
Again, I'm wondering what people think the scientific method or scientific thinking is.
|
The scientific method, I believe, is well defined as:
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
As for scientific thinking, I'll go back to an earlier post. I believe it is forward theoretical thinking, combined with acceptance of existing knowledge where it makes logical sense in its application, combined finally with an apt amount of understanding that you don't understand everything.