Critical thinking and political matters.

@kennethamy,

So how many Shinto Shrines do you think Americans need in the US? How many AJA's practice Shinto?

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

I don't think Feyerbrand is saying that at all when he says "anything goes." He is saying there is no one methodology, not that emotion is the basis for all. There is a lot of science that is accidental and there was no "ideal" created before empirical evidence presented an idea.

1 Reply

@parados,

he treats it in the book

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

OK, how does he claim that emotion is the cause of accidental scientific discovery?

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

OK, how does he claim that emotion is the cause of accidental scientific discovery?

Even I know the answer to that one. You are so distracted by your emotions that you, for instance, throw an apple into the air, it lands on your head, and you discover......gravity!! Or maybe applesauce (depending on how hard the apple lands).

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

But all you are arguing is that all human acts are caused by emotion.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

But all you are arguing is that all human acts are caused by emotion.

Yes, so it seems. That seems to be one of those views it is impossible to falsify by any contrary event because no apparently contrary event is every allowed to be actually a contrary event. The view then turns out to be a trivial tautology. Somehow, psychologists adore advancing such views.

1 Reply

@parados,

lol true that, accidental. Accidental is hardly methodical

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

Actually, it can be methodical. Looking for one thing and accidentally finding something else.

The glue for post-it notes are one example.

2 Replies

@parados,

the method wasn't designed for the discovery, the method was designed for something else. how does accidentally discovering something apply to creating a hypothesis or argument and the motive for that hypothesis or argument? I'm looking in the couch cushions for car keys, and I find a dollar. ooooh cool a dollar. Ooooh cool a post it.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Actually, it can be methodical. Looking for one thing and accidentally finding something else.

The glue for post-it notes are one example.

Freud says somewhere that the way to try to remember is not to try to remember.

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

the method wasn't designed for the discovery, the method was designed for something else. how does accidentally discovering something apply to creating a hypothesis or argument and the motive for that hypothesis or argument? I'm looking in the couch cushions for car keys, and I find a dollar. ooooh cool a dollar. Ooooh cool a post it.

I'm looking in the couch cushions for car keys, and I find a dollar. ooooh cool a dollar. Ooooh cool a post it.

How is that an hypothesis, or an argument? In case that is what you are saying. The problem is that it is so hard to know what it is you are saying. Where did you ever learn to write that way? Don't you ever proof read what you have written (or is that the problem?).

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

Wrong, the method was designed for discovery. It's just they wanted to discover something else.

Quote:

Everyone knows what Post-it® notes are: They are those great little self-stick notepapers. Most people have Post-it® Notes. Most people use them. Most people love them. But Post-it® Notes were not a planned product.

No one got the idea and then stayed up nights to invent it. A man named Spencer Silver was working in the 3M research laboratories in 1970 trying to find a strong adhesive. Silver developed a new adhesive, but it was even weaker than what 3M already manufactured. It stuck to objects, but could easily be lifted off. It was super weak instead of super strong.

No one knew what to do with the stuff, but Silver didn't discard it. Then one Sunday four years later, another 3M scientist named Arthur Fry was singing in the church's choir. He used markers to keep his place in the hymnal, but they kept falling out of the book. Remembering Silver's adhesive, Fry used some to coat his markers. Success! With the weak adhesive, the markers stayed in place, yet lifted off without damaging the pages.

2 Replies

@parados,

.....and that is not the only 3M product to be discovered the same way. Not long after the post-it they were working on a coating for glasses so they wouldn't scratch etc. The problem was applying the coating to the glasses. Then, they realized that the coating could be used on photographs. It was a simple matter to produce the equipment to do this in photo labs. Thus, a product called photo-guard was born. They even came up with a way to coat negatives with it.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Feyerabend covers accidental discovery as well, he uses a fair bit of psychology and cognitive memory discussion. Claiming that aside from pure happenstance much of accidental discovery is the piecing together of previous successes and failures of the researcher and what s/he has learned from others subconsciously. Current cognitive models do recognize memory that is not at the pure conscious level as a significant factor in hypothesis creation. For a laymans treatment of this see Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking by Malcom Gladwell

0 Replies

@parados,

Yeah my method was designed to discover my keys, I just happened to discover a dollar

1 Reply

Thanks to a heads up by Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog there is this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIlCiX0LIqA which illustrates nicely the ad misericordiam fallacy.

1 Reply

@Ahab,

They still talk about ground zero, and those folks who spoke didn't all say "don't build." The last guy say, "they should think of what they're doing." They're all placing blame on Muslims who didn't have anything to do with the WTC, and thereby restricting where they can build on "feelings and emotions."

They didn't have anything to do with WTC, for chrissakes!

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

Yeah my method was designed to discover my keys, I just happened to discover a dollar

GoshisDead wrote:

lol true that, accidental. Accidental is hardly methodical

Certainly contradictory.

1 Reply

@parados,

not contradictory, the method was employed with motive for one thing the other just happened. The accidental thing had no method designed for it.

1 Reply

Critical thinking and political matters.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know