Big Bang?

[jbor at bigpond.com]

On 11/10/2005, at 11:15 PM, Cyrus wrote:

>> http://dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm (seems 
>> like a reasonable overview, linked from the wikipedia entry on "the 
>> scientific method")
>
>
> Dharma Haven? Tibetan Medicine? Shambhala? And this guy has the nerve 
> to write on science? Do you expect me to take this stuff seriously?

You asked if there were other perspectives on science and "the 
scientific method". Clearly, there are. Whether or not you take them 
seriously doesn't factor into it.

best


On 09/10/2005, at 9:07 PM, Cyrus wrote:
>
>>> Does "Science", or your version of it, [...]
>>
>>
>> MY version of it? What does that mean? Are there more than one? If it 
>> follows the scientific method it's science, isn't it? Is there more 
>> to it?
>
> Sure -- paradigm shifts, new scientific disciplines and methodologies, 
> qualitative as well as quantitative approaches, the philosophy of 
> science, ethics etc etc. There's a lot more to "Science" and its 
> methodology nowadays than Beaker the Muppet.
>
> http://dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm (seems 
> like a reasonable overview, linked from the wikipedia entry on "the 
> scientific method")
>
> Pynchon's depictions of scientists (and scientists at work) are pretty 
> negative on the whole -- Ben Franklin in M&D is another example. The 
> new book will be interesting in this context.