Научный метод: нормы или техники

Научный метод: нормы или техники

by Евгений Волков -
Number of replies: 0

https://www.facebook.com/groups/criticalrationalism/permalink/10155887990754904/

If we take seriously the idea that scientific method consists of a collection of techniques, then we are ultimately driven to the conclusion that there must be far more than two methodologies, one for the physical sciences and one for the social sciences. In this respect, methodological dualism is ridiculous. If, however, we see scientific method an extension of morality to the criticism of theory, as Popper did, then we have to admit that what's good for the goose is good for the gander: the criticism of any theory, whether a theory about society or not, can and probably should be governed by the same set of rules. In that case, methodological monism, as proposed by Popper, is preferable to any sort of pluralism. The older view, according to which methodology consists of a collection of techniques, is actually a holdover from the heyday of logical positivism, a time during which positivists tried to reduce morality itself to a set of techniques for obtaining desired results. It was this constant, cheesy attempt to debunk anything and everything that most typified positivism in the early twentieth century, and it was opposition to this trend that most typified Popper's philosophy throughout his career. The often repeated idea that Popper himself was a positivist is utterly mistaken: he dealt so often with their problems not because he agreed with them but because he disagreed with them, and especially wanted to refute their views.

Нравится
Нравится
Супер
Ха-ха
Ух ты!
Сочувствую
Возмутительно
Комментарий
Комментарии
Craig J. Bolton
Craig J. Bolton So, scientists don't really need the "techniques" (by which I presume you mean the minimal standards that must be demonstrated before one's results are taken seriously)?
Удалить
Kenneth Allen Hopf
Kenneth Allen Hopf The DO need techniques. Obviously, that's a big part of my point here: they need a lot more than two of them. I say that explicitly right at the outset. Further, I said nothing about taking results of scientific investigation seriously. I am rather talking about taking methodological pluralism seriously.
Удалить
Craig J. Bolton
Craig J. Bolton Well then, I think you need to rewrite. The above does not convey any support for methodological pluralism. It reads like a polemic for methodological monism. 

"If we take seriously the idea that scientific method consists of a collection of technique
s, then we are ultimately driven to the conclusion that there must be far more than two methodologies, one for the physical sciences and one for the social sciences. In this respect, methodological dualism is ridiculous. 

.......

"In that case, methodological monism, as proposed by Popper, is preferable to any sort of pluralism. "
Удалить
Евгений Волков
Напишите ответ...
Jan Christian Rübsam
Jan Christian Rübsam There is only one scientific method that is applicable for every scientific question.
Удалить
Kenneth Allen Hopf
Kenneth Allen Hopf Yes; and that point is much easier to see when you don't accept the old idea that scientific methods are techniques. They are more correctly seen as norms, which is actually the term used by Popper in LSD. It is this confusion, between techniques and norms, that pluralists often depend upon when criticizing Popper. Eliminate that confusion and, nine times out of ten, the criticism collapses.
Удалить
Paul Barton
Paul Barton Seems to be two different points here. First, I scientific method and here I refer to the falsification criteria of Popper as the method. Second, there are the many techniques by which data is collected and analyses in order to test falsifiable scientific theories. These should not be conflated.
Удалить
Kenneth Allen Hopf
Kenneth Allen Hopf You're on the right track, I think. I think there's much more to the norms recommended by than falsification. But yes: the methods in Popper's view are norms, not techniques. They're a lot like Robert's Rules of Order. Ian Jarvie has gone some way towards articulating these norms.

On the other hand, the techniques used by science are legion. It's basically anything that works. There is no royal road to the truth. Physicists have techniques. Chemists have techniques. Economists have techniques. etc. etc. etc. potentially infinite. See .. On the Sources of Knowledge and of Ignorance. 

Yes: these two should not be conflated.
Удалить
Евгений Волков
Напишите ответ...
 
Joseph Ofobuike
Joseph Ofobuike I think there's a way of synthesizing the pluralist view and poppers monistic view.

In fact, poppers monistic view seems to reduce scientific method to just criticism, but that is not so. Criticism for popper is not a method but rather the aim of all 
scientific knowledge.

Scientific knowledge can be arrived at through different approaches (plurality) but all these approaches should gear towards criticizing (monistic) our Conjectures and not confirming them.

813 words