Talk:Protoscience: Difference between revisions
imported>Sandy Harris (delete this article?) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (→Not sure -- there is, I suspect, a better term: new section) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
If it stays, the examples need to change. The current three are Newton, Darwin and Ormus. Apart from the rather obvious objection that Ormus emphatically does not belong in such august company, I see another. To me, it seems there is nothing "proto-" about Newton's physics or Darwin's work. Perhaps Newton and others' alchemical research was proto-chemistry, but that's not what is being talked of here. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 11:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | If it stays, the examples need to change. The current three are Newton, Darwin and Ormus. Apart from the rather obvious objection that Ormus emphatically does not belong in such august company, I see another. To me, it seems there is nothing "proto-" about Newton's physics or Darwin's work. Perhaps Newton and others' alchemical research was proto-chemistry, but that's not what is being talked of here. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 11:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Not sure -- there is, I suspect, a better term == | |||
I haven't read much of Kuhn so can't really comment on his observation. | |||
While I regret not being able to attribute it, I've always liked "Scientific progress doesn't happen when people yell 'Eureka'. Scientific progress happens when someone says 'that's odd...'". Think, for example, of Fleming observing that ''P. notatum'' inhibited staphylococci, but not grasping its significance. | |||
There seems to be an allusion that Ormus took some data and applied more tests, but, as opposed to Newton or Darwin, didn't really express a testable hypothesis. Further, the standard of proof is much higher now, especially in analytical chemistry, than in the early work on gravity or evolution. | |||
My inclination is that protoscience is not useful, but I don't feel strongly. --[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 13:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:44, 1 June 2010
I am posting modified versions of the WP article both here and in the Norwegian WP - because I, in my article Ormus matter, classify the field as a protoscience. It was strange to see that the thorough Pseudoscience discussion doesn't mention protoscience at all. I suppose it is mainly needed as a defense against the bloodthirsty WP hounds when they cry "Pseudoscience! Delete!". (As they cried while I in vain tried to plead protoscience status for my Ormus matter article there) Olav Næss 10:00, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
Should this be deleted?
Is this just more nonsense from an Ormus believer trying to rationalise, or is proto-science a valid term used in History & philosophy of science? If the former, should we delete it?
If it stays, the examples need to change. The current three are Newton, Darwin and Ormus. Apart from the rather obvious objection that Ormus emphatically does not belong in such august company, I see another. To me, it seems there is nothing "proto-" about Newton's physics or Darwin's work. Perhaps Newton and others' alchemical research was proto-chemistry, but that's not what is being talked of here. Sandy Harris 11:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure -- there is, I suspect, a better term
I haven't read much of Kuhn so can't really comment on his observation.
While I regret not being able to attribute it, I've always liked "Scientific progress doesn't happen when people yell 'Eureka'. Scientific progress happens when someone says 'that's odd...'". Think, for example, of Fleming observing that P. notatum inhibited staphylococci, but not grasping its significance.
There seems to be an allusion that Ormus took some data and applied more tests, but, as opposed to Newton or Darwin, didn't really express a testable hypothesis. Further, the standard of proof is much higher now, especially in analytical chemistry, than in the early work on gravity or evolution.
My inclination is that protoscience is not useful, but I don't feel strongly. --Howard C. Berkowitz 13:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)