« Analytical Egalitarianism II | Main | The Village of the Damned (1960) »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Gabriel M.

Thank you for your interesting reply! The selection of links also looks promising.

It will take me some time to read all of them, so it's going to be a little while before I can answer. I think this discussion is worth keeping alive.

For now I will just object to the first distinction you introduce, "Science: "measurement"; or science: "the systematic study of a given subject"".

I would instead say "Science: the formulation, testing and refinement of hypotheses" but that's not an argument, merely a difference of perspective.

My dissatisfaction here is with the way to decide or know when your study is successful. And I think that there's no better way than to repeatedly slam your ideas against the data in a structured way (statistics; quant. methods).

A priori methods have, far too often, been self-serving in regards with this aspect. The lack of formal logic isn't helping either.

So, yeah, that's basically my point... it's fine that you say "understanding" but as far as confirming those ideas... there's a problem.

The comments to this entry are closed.

The Filter^ PROJECTS