What parts are left out then if you reduce science to the scientific method? The culture around it? Or is there no scientific method as such?
Conversation
Replying to
As in "there are many methods and there is no coherence to them", "no single method could hope to capture all empirically accessible knowledge", and/or in another way? (Is there a longform piece about it? Especially the latter version feels technical to show)
1
1
Replying to
sidenote, I'm pretty sure there's ethnographies of scientists doing their thing, a friend of mine did pretty much that when she studied an academic supercomputer's administration and crew (iirc it was that)
1
1
1
Replying to
Yes, I’ve read some of that literature, and it is fascinating. One good guy in the field is Charles Goodwin; I was reading his stuff just before my mom’s situation went critical
1
1
1
Replying to
ahh thanks for the reference! (reason I'm asking all this is that I'm researching/ideacrafting on the magical method as opposed to/complementing the scientific method, and so far it's been magic-heavy)
1
1
Replying to
Ah… do you know Frances Yates’ stuff? Very cool on the intertwined history of magic and science in the early modern period, with contemporary implications
2
2
2
Replying to
hm nope so far I've been approaching it by reading occultists, but looking at how people used to reconcile the two should be fruitful
1
Replying to
It wasn’t really “reconcile”; rather, they just weren’t separate until Francis Bacon, and mostly not for quite a while after him.
2