h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Pythagoras' Theorem *is* fact, in that it really does follow logically from the axioms of Euclidean Geometry. A theorem is different from a theory, like Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, which is "just a theory", and a falsified one at that.

[I'm not the main author, but ...]

Pattern-chaser said: "Science is based upon the myth that it is objective and objectively valid, and so are its methods and its products. This is nonsense, and it is the *dishonesty* that's the problem, nothing else."

I think that you make a very good point; however, I respectfully disagree that "Science is based upon the myth that it is objective and objectively valid." In my experience, for those that rise to the peaks of their fields and are developing at the cutting edges at least, quite the opposite is true. In my readings, I have found that such scientists are very aware that their own observational methods and inductions are inherently flawed from an objective standpoint. They may not state it quite the way you have, but the point is made and recognized; again, in my experience.

On the other hand, I know of many people who, for the sake of convenience, think of science almost as a religion by rigorously accepting a dogmatic approach to teaching it (maybe because that was how they learned it). The defense of this seems to be centered around the (false) idea that the SM is objectively valid. I, personally, despise that approach, and I don't think I'm in the minority. I hope not, anyway. To think of SM as a perfect system which is bjectively valid smacks of dogmatic faith! (least I be called hypocritical, part of my nickname is a jest, you see ).

Bottom line: It's one thing to use the SM to organize information about the Universe into useful practical knowledge; it's quite another to create a myth about the SM being totally objectively valid. I don't think the article goes so far as to suggest that SM is objectively valid, but if people draw that conclusion ... Ok, moving on.

"This entry should go just a little farther than it does to make the shortcomings of the scientific method clear."

I find this to be a perfectly reasonable fix. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense that some mention should be made clarifying that it is a fallacy to assume that the SM is objectively valid. It might be worth noting that this is not unique to the SM at all, and is related to the point made in the article about the fallibility of human observation (and, of course, in making predictions as well).

I actually plan on writing a separate entry all about exactly these sorts of problems with the SM (no, really, I keep saying this I know, but I really do!). I'll look forward to hearing your comments on that entry later on as well!

- JD

Pythagoras's Theorem is not something that is investigated using the Scientific Method. It is something else, a piece of Mathematics, which does not come into the scope of this entry at all.

Good post, JD!

<...those that rise to the peaks of their fields and are developing at the cutting edges at least ... are very aware that their own observational methods and inductions are inherently flawed from an objective standpoint.>

Accepted, but most of us do not have the in-depth understanding you describe. To avoid blind faith in science - a terribly Bad Thing IMO - we need to be constantly reminded that science is good, but not perfect, even (especially ) by its own standards.

My main interest in making posts like these is to uncover dishonesty. I'm not talking about blatant lies, more about the emperor's new clothes. There are things we've been familiar with for so long their lack of verity is quite invisible.

For example, scientists, psychologists and other commentators - particularly in their written work - often describe people as though they are rational, decent and reasonable creatures, who act as they do for sensible and understandable reasons. What tosh! We are *partly* reasonable (and so on) but we are also moody, petty and vindictive when it suits us. Sometimes we do things that no intelligent creature would do, then - when accused - we deny that we did it, because the embarassment of having to admit it would be too much!

We deceive ourselves and others much of the time. It would please me greatly if, by the end of my life (not too long: I'm 47 already ) I had discovered and documented some of the ways in which we deceive. Much of it is inadvertent and unintentional. I like to think that, once alerted to what we're doing, many of us might choose to do it less....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

A fine Entry.

HELL

Great entry NAITA. This one'll be going into the EG, no worries.

One thing, though - earlier on you mentioned an 'as yet unwritten final chapter' on the Case Against. Are you still intending to do this?

Yes, I should be able to get it done at the start of my christmas vacation. I've been procrastinating since I knew I would have more time to do it properly 'soon'.

Excellent!

hmm...

Hi all,

A Scout recommended this last week, but since then Sam's been away and we've had Christmas and all the trimmings, so I think it's fair if I allow this a little more time and let the Scout pick something else for the time being. Could you come back to us when this is ready?

Many thanks, and a slightly premature Happy New Year,

Jims

I spent the previous week and a half at my parents and felt it would be anti-social to sequester myself with the computer to write this new section. (Never mind that mom and dad fought over the computer to play mom's new computer game.)
I've added a little bit about scope at the end of the Starting Over section, and a large chunk about the Case Against at the end. Someone like Pattern-Chaser should have something to say about this new effort, hopefully not too much of it negative.

Yes, I have: well done! The changes have addressed my own doubts about this entry. OK, so I would've phrased it differently, but that's down to my personal priorities and prejudices, and not really surprising.

A thoroughly worthwhile entry. Recommended.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

woohoo

Congratulations

Phew, nice to get this one done and over with. Now for an entry where I have all the knowledge and no one can gainsay me: "What I've got under my bed."
And thank you for the toasts. Yay me!