How much do scientist know about science as such?

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Greetings,

Irkun, because the various proofs don't really make sense on their own - proving that line AB is parallel to line CD, etc.

When you see it in the context of plane geometry - cartography, etc - it helps.

Kindest regards,

James

Yes they do, what are you talking about?

 

[Giliell]

@James
Here you need a degree, too, officially. But a lot of people have to teach "foreign" subjects in which they have no degree.
But I think it to be the great shortcomming of the educational system anyway: They teach a lot of facts instead of teaching kids how to learn and how to gain knowledge. They should experiment, discuss, find out, learn how to use the internet correctly and a library. But those things cost time, money and are hard to test, so they get taught facts :roll:

Back to my original problem: Do they really need to know the scientitfic method in order to do their jobs propperly: obviously not.
But isn't it a shame that they don't?
I repeat my example: isn't this like the cook who can cook a steak but has never seen a cow?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

There have been complaints about the quality of education going down recently in Ireland due to their now "teaching to the test", instead of mastery of the subject.

Another complaint from faculty staff is that students lack critical thinking skills - perhaps it's this that needs to be taught, rather than a full knowledge/usage of the scientific method.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Ad Initium]

Greetings,

Irkun, because the various proofs don't really make sense on their own - proving that line AB is parallel to line CD, etc.

When you see it in the context of plane geometry - cartography, etc - it helps.

Kindest regards,

James

But ... respectfully ....

Measuring lines compared to Geometry .... is not like Science compared to Scientific Method.

Unless I am understanding your point wrong here.

Scientific Method is not a worked out theory like Geometry. The art of Method is that it is dynamic and tries to evolve and better presented posed theories. It is recursive onto itself, it's testing methods. Geometry is not recursive ... it is a fixed set of determined rules that was collected through study and practise.

Scientific Method is recursive, keeps looking back on itself, keeps testing itself, untill the theory that needs to be proven, is generally confirmed. Method knows it is not perfect. Because what feeds method are the theories that are presented to it. Method will adapt if need be.

The Method is a safeguard against mistakes. To prevent stupid theories getting into the general population and poluting science to the point science will loose it's believability for the people that hold science in high regard.

I have this avatar on my left, proclaiming the Big Bang ... yet I know it is a theory. I will be openminded to any other theories as long as they make sence with proof. Why? Because that is what Method does.

Doubt adds to science. Doubt makes science strong. Method is what causes that to happen.

A great example are some of Newton theories. To quote: "It works" ... but in other sciences they do not. We still use Newton's laws because they are very effective in our evryday lives, but we are investigating the truth behind it all still.

 

[obsidianavenger]

in my experience, scientists tend to disdain philosophy a lot of the time. for example, PZ Meyers has recently been on a rant against weak atheists, what he calls "dictionary atheists" on his blog because they claim only to lack belief in god, not that god doesn't exist. he doesn't seem to undersand the fact that the statement "god doesn't exist" isn't really defensible from a philosophical standpoint (depending on how you define god of course)... the most you can do is to prove that its extremely likely that theres no god. sam harris also seems to ignore philosophy, as when he says "morality reduces to neuroscience". the logical and theoretical underpinnings of science are more philosophical than scientific, and so they tend to get downplayed. it seems like a lot of scientists are almost logical positivists... they just want to have their core assumptions and go on their merry way with the experimentation. they don't take into account the side issues about justifying their position epistemologically.