Edit - Philosophy Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Rev

1

While there are examples that neglect of the scientific method yielded valid findings, the overwhelming majority if scientific progress has been acomplished because of adherences to scientifc standards..Also finding which have been found by unorthodox methods usually were low hanging fruits. Can you name one finding in the modern science (last 50 years) that has been found due to unorthodox methods?
– CuriousIndeed
Commented Jan 13, 2022 at 15:42
1

"that there is no a priori reason that throwing a coin in order to derive natural laws or decide actions is on the average worse that what is done using scientific methods (where applicable)." you can also write a novel by randomly generating words until the novel makes sense (inifite monkey theorem) however it will take like forever compared to a target oriented approach
– CuriousIndeed
Commented Jan 13, 2022 at 15:46
There are various examples of breakthroughs or intuitions that have been found by unorthodox methods even by chance. But have been reformulated in standard scientific terms. A sampling of the history will provide examples. But you fail to account for the hegemony of a certain approach in the last 400 years. So any comparison is unfair. In any case it does not diminish Feyerabend's thesis.
– Nikos M.
Commented Jan 13, 2022 at 15:49
Can you name one finding in the modern science (last 50 years) that has been found due to unorthodox methods? When sb. does personal experimentation it has to be replicated due to various methodological problems with personal experimentation..selection bias is one. non-existant sample size is another. etc etc..it's not as if results from personal experimentation are equally valid as double blinded randomized control trials..yes you can find truth through personal experimentation, however until validated it should be regarded with skepticism...also there is no "hegemony of science"..
– CuriousIndeed
Commented Jan 13, 2022 at 15:54
1

@NikosM. -- The scientific method has been developed to deal with this world, not with an arbitrary abstract collection of all logical possibilities. The scientific method assumes predictability, and predictability involves the assumption that phenomena behave without multiple radical discontinuities in their behavior, and that most phenomena are timewise stable, and not chaotic. These assumptions appear to be true of our universe. Assuming they will continue to be true -- is fine by pragmatism. Not for logicians. We are talking how to do science. So a pragmatic approach is justified.
– Dcleve
Commented Jan 13, 2022 at 22:51

| Show 10 more comments

Correct minor typos or mistakes
Clarify meaning without changing it
Add related resources or links
Always respect the author’s intent
Don’t use edits to reply to the author

create code fences with backticks ` or tildes ~
```
like so
```
add language identifier to highlight code
```python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
```
put returns between paragraphs
for linebreak add 2 spaces at end
_italic_ or **bold**
quote by placing > at start of line
to make links (use https whenever possible)
<https://example.com>
[example](https://example.com)
<a href="https://example.com">example</a>

formatting help »
answering help »