So how do scientists gain knowledge, if not by using the scientific method?pic.twitter.com/KaSVdLklhh
Show this thread
-
I always thought that "the scientific method", like a lot of philosophical ideas, boils down to "y'know, thinking, doing, learning, the way you would if you actually gave a shit". It's sort of vacuous, but you need to give it a name to distinguish it from blind stupidity.
I'm quite happy to adopt "y'know, thinking, doing, learning, the way you would if you actually gave a shit" as a formal definition of "The Scientific Method" 
-
-
Actually caring about the phenomenon is the key, I think. https://meaningness.com/metablog/upgrade-your-cargo-cult …pic.twitter.com/nFvACnAVv7
-
yep, you can't get away from that.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Interesting comparison: in mathematics, what makes something a proof? I think the answer is, that it convinces other mathematicians of something. Likewise, science is about convincing other scientists (and others) that nature behaves in a particular way.
-
There’s a lot of truth to this; but science is genuinely different from (e.g.) theology, where “convincing other theologists” is the whole of it. No one has been able to find a hard-line test for what makes science different, but the differences are vital and worth investigating.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I’m also quite happy to buy t shirts with “y’know, thinking, doing, learning, the way you would if you actually gave a shit” on them
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
(Also see John Cleese's insights higher in the thread.)https://twitter.com/mndl_nyc/status/1106940834837159937 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.