What is Scientific?
Dear intellects,
A Joe wrote:
psychological phenomena may prove to be the sort of thing for which the scientific method is just ill-suited.
The above sentence is — shall we be dramatic? — oxymoron.
There are lots of the dogmatic dullards types, who like to make everything as “scientific”. Therefore, you see these dull scientists and scholars who would define scientific by some dogmatic criterions.
Like, they would say, science is such and such that meet such and such criterions, such as being verifiable. Such and such, and such and such, such that science can not and is not supposed to answer certain such and such questions. Such and such, are the drools of these dullards.
Let me make a insight here: There is absolutely no truth or facts in this world. Every supposed truth, facts, or whatnot, are simply agreements of the majority. For example, 1+1==2, ain't that the truth? It depends on who you ask. There are artists and poets, who will give you grandiloquent and sure-fire answers. Then there are pundits, who will make smart asses of themselves. Even among the greatest mathematicians and logicians and philosophers, it will come to grave hair-pulling and eyeball-gouging debates about foundations, little details, paradoxes, schools of thoughts, and not to mention friend or foe. (as we can see in history.) And if you bribe a Oxford fella or Princeton fella, then he will prove one plus one will equal to three, and retire with your money. After all, we are human beings of flesh and blood. Ain't truths a product our brain that changes depending on which philosopher is talking?
What science truly is or is not, is not for people to define and qualify as by some dogmatic criterions. This goes for all questions in life; regardless whether it is a answerable or technical question.
For all practical and theoretical purposes, scientific is: USE YOUR BRAIN. When you use your brain on something, that's scientific.
What my insight illustrates is technically a philosophical view point that truths are human creations. For those of your average intellects, the practical moral being: do not fall for any dogma; simply use your brain, and judge for yourself.
Q: What is not scientific?
not using your brain.
Q: For examples?
Mysticism, occultism, OOP fads.
Q: But aren't there things not scientifically understood but useful, like acupuncture?
Yes.
Q: So?
Use your brain.
Q: So, i just use my brain, then whatever the conclusion will be my answer?
Yes!
Q: That's why even the greatest mathematicians couldn't agree on mathematical things. Is that right?
You got it!
Q: is Design Patterns good?
No.
Q: But i used my brain, and i think it is worth a try. What's going on?
Use your brain.
Q: Oh, so i should use my brain and JUDGE FOR MYSELF?
Yes.
Q: Do you have any final comment on Design Patterns?
When we have a world where for each software bug the engineer will be penalized for one month's salary, then we shall see if more math knowledge prevails, or the Design Patterns and XP type of utter crap survives.
Q: why should we believe you? oh, i guess it's “use your brain”?
From now on it's $5 per question.
Q: Should we also doubt about the “use your brain” dogma?