Comments on: Learning the periodic table of elements

By: Peter Patton

Peter Patton — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:33:35 +0000

I agree. That is why I added ‘texts along the lines of.’ Kuhn’s book is also a great example of explicitly stating it does know what Science is, and has no problem pointing it out. With that out of the way, he gets into the nitty-gritty of what happens during the scientific process. But again, Kuhn is neither perfect, nor even the last word, but pretty indispensable.

By: daddy dave

daddy dave — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:37:50 +0000

pp that book “What is this thing called science” is a really great book, and is a reasonably light, breezy, yet comprehensive coverage of pretty much the entire topic of ‘philosophy of science.’
.
The one thing I don’t like about it is that it’s too flippant; it summarily dismisses philosopher after philsopher with almost one-line slogans. Anyone reading that book would think that Feyerabend was the last man standing, while all others (e.g., Popper) were vanquished by their own errors of thinking.

By: Mild Colonial Boy, Esq

Mild Colonial Boy, Esq — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:12:31 +0000

If they want to learn the elements they should listen to Tom Lehrer.

By: Peter Patton

Peter Patton — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 07:12:20 +0000

In any undergrad course on the history and philosophy of science, a text along the lines of Chalmers’ What Is This Called Science will be used. But what these courses tend to do is at least begin with a recognition that ‘Science’ today is real – its conclusions, methods, knowledge, and practitioners.

So, rather than get caught up in tedious semantic games for 1 or 2 semesters, what these courses do is drill down into this very real, very observable, non-controversial thing we call ‘science.’ In that context, these courses are very much at home with such contemporary issues as ‘peer review’ in climate change journals. They do not need to bother arguing the case that 12,000 year old French women frolicking in the fields of Provence, or Chinese women traipsing among the tree bark and dandelion of inner Mongolia gathering floral versions of Viagra are also actual real scientists.

By: asf

asf — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 07:05:38 +0000

I’d basically subscribe to the John Derbyshire school of thinking on education – I want to live among people who can read, write, give correct change and name the capital of their state. Beyond that, I think education is a luxury that people should pay for themselves. Most of what people learn beyond 5th grade is anyway forgotten.

I remember being taught about the periodic table sometime during highschool, but it hasn’t stuck with me much beyond the base elements. Likewise I remember doing a bit of Aboriginal studies every year from primary school to grade 10 and none of it has stuck with me (and I’m part aboriginal so there goes any theory of cultural disposition). If there was anything lacking it was the face that I wasn’t taught much post-European settlement Australian history.

By: daddy dave

daddy dave — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:56:49 +0000

Chinese medicine is scientific in that some of its techniques appear to work reliably.
.
That doesn’t make it science. If it did, then doing pretty much anything that works is science.
I’m not sure why you’re so keen to stick a little tag that says “Science” as a sort of quality label, like the heart foundation tick of approval. To do so, you’ve diluted what the word means to the point that pretty much anything is science, rendering the word almost meaningless and certainly useless.
But this is just a semantic game on your part, since it differs from “scientific investigation in the Western tradition” in important ways. I don’t want to have to go hunting around for another word to describe what we currently call “science” so please stop abusing it.

By: Michael Fisk

Michael Fisk — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:44:41 +0000

DD – trial and error is me trying to work a DVD player. It’s not science.

By: Michael Fisk

Michael Fisk — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:43:26 +0000

The acquisition of reliable knowledge by observation, hypothesis and testing of such by experiment.

Chinese medicine has no “hypothesis” and it is not particularly reliable because it is built upon a hazy theoretical foundation that is not (currently) open to examination. They can’t demonstrate to you what “Qi” is, how it runs along your “meridians”, and how this affects your health. There is no “theory” that you can actually test and observe. Their methods only work on a modest number of mostly pain-related conditions. And nobody knows why. It’s a combination of good fortune – it’s worked on me – and a bit of pseudo-religion. Not science.

By: Peter Patton

Peter Patton — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:42:24 +0000

Adrien

The school subject is not called Rudimentary Science

By: Adrien

Adrien — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 05:29:50 +0000

I guess it depends on your definition of science. Since it’s a fuzzy concept
.
The acquisition of reliable knowledge by observation, hypothesis and testing of such by experiment. The trial and error that leads the development of agriculture or let’s a tribal woman in France c.10000 BCE know that these root is good for sick kids is a rudimentary form of the above.
.
Chinese medicine is scientific in that some of its techniques appear to work reliably. Hence the hypothesis that it is real medicine and not a sorcerer’s conjob has stood up to a certain experimental rigour.
.
Unlike crystal pyramids which always work and I know exactly why.