Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!ll-xn!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!myers
From: myers@tybalt.caltech.edu (Bob Myers)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Do philosophers need defending?
Message-ID: <3392@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Date: Wed, 29-Jul-87 22:00:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: cit-vax.3392
Posted: Wed Jul 29 22:00:16 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Aug-87 01:07:28 EDT
References: <3219@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> <825@klipper.cs.vu.nl> <3227@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> <831@klipper.cs.vu.nl>
Sender: news@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu
Reply-To: myers@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (Bob Myers)
Distribution: world
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 40
Keywords: methodology creativity
Summary: Is science creative?

In article <831@klipper.cs.vu.nl> biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) writes:
>
>In an "ideal" world, where methodology for every science is complete,
>scientific work is just applying the rules of the methodology for that
>realm of science: which experiments to perform, which hypotheses to
>consider, all is prescribed by the rules. I called this "when philosophy
>is ready" (as far as methodology is considered, that is...). So,
>ultimately, scientific work is not creative (I hope I now have found the
>word..). Of course at the moment it is, since philosophers aren't ready
>yet constructing methodologies, and aren't even sure some "final" methodology
>is possible at all (it may very well not be).

Hmmm. I don't like this line of argument. I think you're trying to make an
artificial division between science and philosophy here. In particular, if
no "final" methodology is possible, why should one try to make such
distinctions here?  It sounds like you're arguing that a scientist is
creative only in so far as he is a philosopher, developing the methodology
of that science. Even granting this (which I do not), doesn't that mean
that this sort of philosophy is really a part of science? I just don't
see the point of categorizing "this" as science and "that" as philosophy.

Also, I fail to see how the methodology could tell one which hypotheses
to consider. It seems to me that developing hypotheses is very close
to the heart of scientific creativity.

But maybe I'm missing something here. I don't quite understand what you
mean by methodology, I think.

>Then what is your definition of methodology? To me, if a methodology cannot
>be stated, it is none. Indeed, most (I suspect all) sciences only have
>partial methodologies, but in as far as they exist they can be stated
>precisely.

I think it would help if you tried stating a methodology for one of the
sciences. Then I would have a better idea what you are referring to.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Myers                                         myers@tybalt.caltech.edu
					...seismo!tybalt.caltech.edu!myers