| ||Scientific Methods||Jigsaw & Filter|
|17th century Scientific Revolution
||Societies, journals - community formed|
|Greece, China, etc
|Textbooks reliable, new research fallibl (90% right vs. 90% wrong)
||filtering takes time|
|revolutions in science: oxygen vs. phlogiston; particle-waves;
making previously "impossible" molecules
||method reliable and yet leads to perpetual self-correction??
||new connections in jigsaw: it isn't the sky, it's water! or, those
pieces don't really fit together!|
|testing ideas: cold fusion; N-rays
||scientists are able to be objective even when it harms their career;
can think of crucial tests of pet ideas
||keep one another honest; love to prove others wrong|
|experimentalists & theorists; idea people and kibitzers;
geologists and physicists re extinctions
||??every scientist uses the same scientific method??
||human diversity: side-piece specialists; color vs. shape; systematic vs.
inspirational; speculating vs. playing around|
|expertise, greatness: very, very few scientists have more than
one breakthrough to their credit
||those who are most expert at using The method will do most of the great work
||every discovery results from a unique combination of inspiration, persistence, luck|
|where do ideas come from?
|How can you detect pseudo-science? Why is astrology pseudo-science?
Or ufology? Why was acupuncture pseudo-science a few decades ago but not now
Or ball lightning? Giant squid?
||Pseudo-scientists don't use The Method? Or misuse it?
What about Harold Edgerton at Loch Ness? Sonar, strobe photography,
statistical analysis, trial and error... What basis not to publish
an article if the methods seem sound??
||need a large and diverse enough community to keep one another on the
right track; pseudo-scientists are hermits. There are degrees of isolation:
Soviet genetics; N-rays; Wilhelm Reich|
||More rubbish to filter|
||Need time to filter the rubbish out|