There's already a name for this type of "science"... pseudoscience. I don't think we need a new one.
The discussion of Bohm here seems horribly misguided. Mainstream views of quantum mechanics, IMO, are much more "holistic" than Bohm's crappy, broken version. Although this type of holism doesn't really have much to do with the rest of the "holistic science" agenda such as the Global Consciousness Project they mention and holistic medicine.
Well, most of what we normally call science isn't very strict about methodology anyway. So when some people get things consistently right through their own obscure, intuitive methods, why is that non-science? I guess I'm deconstructing the concept of "science".
I'm hoping this holistic stuff may say something about levels of description. From my impression so far, however, it is nothing more than a load of crap.
Yesterday I met a post-modernist fan of Edgar Morin, and I'm really trying to give her the benefit of the doubt.
She showed a generally critical attitude towards reductionistic models of causation ("linear" = "reductionistic" = "bad"). I've never seen an example of this being a valid criticism, except what Dennett calls "greedy reductionism".
Well, most of what we normally call science isn't very strict about methodology anyway
Isn't very strict compared to what? There's a pretty big gap in quality of methodology between scientists and the typical independent "researcher" doing wild experiments out of their spare garage. One is subjected to peer review and the other isn't. Granted, the science journals could stand to be a bit more exclusive sometimes, but I think for the most part they are strict enough... certainly a lot stricter than anything outside of science. So when some people get things consistently right through their own obscure, intuitive methods, why is that non-science?
It's science as long as they used the scientific method, which is really just a fancy way of saying "they were honest about their approach". As long as they tested their theory under properly controlled circumstances and recorded the results accurately with no bias as to what they wanted the outcome to be, and it passed the tests, then I'd say it's science. But I'm curious, what people are you thinking of that have gotten things "consistantly right"? Very rarely does that happen outside of academia, as far as I'm aware. From my impression so far, however, it is nothing more than a load of crap.
I think my biggest problem with the page is that they mix all sorts of things together that really don't belong together and have no business being listed on the same page. They mention the Complexity Insititute founded by Murray Gell-Mann, which is completely legitimate normal science, but then they also mention the Global Consciousness Project and various other things which are clearly in the crackpot category. There is a definite sense in which I believe the world is holistic, namely... that we will never have a perfect understanding of any one thing until we have the whole theory of everything; but I believe reductionism is always the best way to gain this understanding. And I would vehemently disagree with anyone who claims that the whole can ever be more than the sum of its parts, which seems to be what at least some of the page is implying.
Complexity theory and choas theory are fine. They haven't really added much to our understanding of the world compared to more fundamental research, but they do represent interesting phenomena that deserve to be studied. However, there is no reason to call them "an alternative to mainstream science" as they are mainstream science, performed exactly how any other mainstream science is performed. Nor is there reason to try to connect them with all the other crap they try to connect them with. Yesterday I met a post-modernist fan of Edgar Morin, and I'm really trying to give her the benefit of the doubt.
I have no problem with post-modernism, except in the rare cases where they start to lash out at science. I don't know anything about Morin, but my girlfriend is a fan of many French philosophers so I suspect he'd probably fit in with the rest she likes. I can definitely understand giving the benefit of the doubt--sometimes it's useful to temporarily adopt a worldview to understand it, even if you think it's ultimately wrong. :)
I'm not really sure what should and shouldn't be called "science". Machine Learning seems to be the closest analog to science with a formal definition. I lean towards calling "science" any (meta-)method that will tend to give us the right answers.
Peer review is definitely a good thing, and having one's conclusions subject to scrutiny (inferences verifiable, and experiments repeateable by independent outsiders) makes them a lot more convincing. But this is not a sine qua non: some genuine scientists may be very hard to understand. See the case of Onsager.
It's science as long as they used the scientific method, which is really just a fancy way of saying "they were honest about their approach".
I disagree. For one, it seems perfectly plausible for one to make honest inferences, through means that are consciously inaccessible. Also, for the purposes of discovery, any kind of method would seem to constrain too much. The context of justification seems like a better place to have strict methodologies.
As long as they tested their theory under properly controlled circumstances and recorded the results accurately with no bias as to what they wanted the outcome to be, and it passed the tests, then I'd say it's science.
In many areas, biases are impossible to avoid, especially in the stages of hypothesis formation.
But I'm curious, what people are you thinking of that have gotten things "consistantly right"? Very rarely does that happen outside of academia, as far as I'm aware.
Well, it's hard to say, since not much seems to be documented. But you could, for instance, look at wine tasters: they can reliably guess what it is they are tasting, without being able to explain to you how they do it. Since this is an explanation-free domain, peer review here would be restricted to agreement.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
krja![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 07:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 10:13 pm (UTC)The discussion of Bohm here seems horribly misguided. Mainstream views of quantum mechanics, IMO, are much more "holistic" than Bohm's crappy, broken version. Although this type of holism doesn't really have much to do with the rest of the "holistic science" agenda such as the Global Consciousness Project they mention and holistic medicine.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-27 10:30 pm (UTC)I'm hoping this holistic stuff may say something about levels of description. From my impression so far, however, it is nothing more than a load of crap.
Yesterday I met a post-modernist fan of Edgar Morin, and I'm really trying to give her the benefit of the doubt.
She showed a generally critical attitude towards reductionistic models of causation ("linear" = "reductionistic" = "bad"). I've never seen an example of this being a valid criticism, except what Dennett calls "greedy reductionism".
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-28 02:06 am (UTC)Well, most of what we normally call science isn't very strict about methodology anyway
Isn't very strict compared to what? There's a pretty big gap in quality of methodology between scientists and the typical independent "researcher" doing wild experiments out of their spare garage. One is subjected to peer review and the other isn't. Granted, the science journals could stand to be a bit more exclusive sometimes, but I think for the most part they are strict enough... certainly a lot stricter than anything outside of science.
So when some people get things consistently right through their own obscure, intuitive methods, why is that non-science?
It's science as long as they used the scientific method, which is really just a fancy way of saying "they were honest about their approach". As long as they tested their theory under properly controlled circumstances and recorded the results accurately with no bias as to what they wanted the outcome to be, and it passed the tests, then I'd say it's science. But I'm curious, what people are you thinking of that have gotten things "consistantly right"? Very rarely does that happen outside of academia, as far as I'm aware.
From my impression so far, however, it is nothing more than a load of crap.
I think my biggest problem with the page is that they mix all sorts of things together that really don't belong together and have no business being listed on the same page. They mention the Complexity Insititute founded by Murray Gell-Mann, which is completely legitimate normal science, but then they also mention the Global Consciousness Project and various other things which are clearly in the crackpot category. There is a definite sense in which I believe the world is holistic, namely... that we will never have a perfect understanding of any one thing until we have the whole theory of everything; but I believe reductionism is always the best way to gain this understanding. And I would vehemently disagree with anyone who claims that the whole can ever be more than the sum of its parts, which seems to be what at least some of the page is implying.
Complexity theory and choas theory are fine. They haven't really added much to our understanding of the world compared to more fundamental research, but they do represent interesting phenomena that deserve to be studied. However, there is no reason to call them "an alternative to mainstream science" as they are mainstream science, performed exactly how any other mainstream science is performed. Nor is there reason to try to connect them with all the other crap they try to connect them with.
Yesterday I met a post-modernist fan of Edgar Morin, and I'm really trying to give her the benefit of the doubt.
I have no problem with post-modernism, except in the rare cases where they start to lash out at science. I don't know anything about Morin, but my girlfriend is a fan of many French philosophers so I suspect he'd probably fit in with the rest she likes. I can definitely understand giving the benefit of the doubt--sometimes it's useful to temporarily adopt a worldview to understand it, even if you think it's ultimately wrong. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-28 04:45 pm (UTC)Peer review is definitely a good thing, and having one's conclusions subject to scrutiny (inferences verifiable, and experiments repeateable by independent outsiders) makes them a lot more convincing. But this is not a sine qua non: some genuine scientists may be very hard to understand. See the case of Onsager.
I disagree. For one, it seems perfectly plausible for one to make honest inferences, through means that are consciously inaccessible. Also, for the purposes of discovery, any kind of method would seem to constrain too much. The context of justification seems like a better place to have strict methodologies.
In many areas, biases are impossible to avoid, especially in the stages of hypothesis formation.
Well, it's hard to say, since not much seems to be documented. But you could, for instance, look at wine tasters: they can reliably guess what it is they are tasting, without being able to explain to you how they do it. Since this is an explanation-free domain, peer review here would be restricted to agreement.