mburns's Journal: Scientific Method as Styles of Argument

From priestly declamations and fascist propaganda on the far right, to deconstruction and liberal psychoanalysis on the adventurous left, there is a range of argument. And, there is not even a single range to order arguments along. Concerns over property rights vs the public commons can be factored out from defense of authority vs personal liberty. A debater may be concerned more with the physical effects of arguing - consent, ego, money, power, or annoyance, rather than the attainment of truth. Fiction or the proclamation of prophetic reform may be the intended point.

It is true that not much of this is science; there is too much deviation from obvious criteria. And, the orthodox proclamation to be heard from theorists of science is that science is not part of any component of this range or any range of argument. Rather, science is said to be activity in compliance with the "scientific method". Implicitly, science is further limited to the filtered members of the academic community who publish to peer-reviewed journals. This implicit part of the method is not openly described by these theorists, nor by the (even less self reflective) practioners of science. So, I say that the usual explanation of science is actually very partial coverage (Part 1) of the empirical method (Type 1). Yes, the usual description is much too narrow. I read the story of a University dean who asserted that physics is not a science since it does not use control groups.

It is much better to say that science is a collection of many types of argument, namely all of those types which are motivated by truth seeking, critical of conventions which are not accurate and economical, devoted to logical integrity, and susceptible to correction by empiricism or reason as the subject matter allows.

I prefer not to incarnate science as only to be done at qualifying academies, much better to speak of it as the kinds of cogent argumentation which can be done anywhere.

So, mathematics makes the grade as a science in spite of its total aversion to empiricism. And, liberal psychoanalysis almost qualifies (I like to think) due to its unusual brand of empiricism.

(And, it is very hard to do science in a deconstructive mode. The inability to acknowledge real categories drains away incentive to adhere to logical standards.)

--
Michael J. Burns http://home.mindspring.com/~mburns9/

Re: Scientific Method as Styles of Argument

[anti-auctor]

I have been waiting until I could give a response that would be fairly comprehensive without over-expostulating. After a lot of options, I think it is quite simple:

You are right. There is no "single range to order arguments along." Science for me is such an utterly beautiful conception in itself - that we are even able to do science! - that I find it difficult, and perhaps cruel, to unnecessarily restrict it.

Is the word 'literature' itself literature? I don't believe so unless it is embedded categorically