From: tomca@microsoft.com (Tom B. Carey)
Subject: Re: Science and methodology (was: Homeopathy ... tradition?)
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Lines: 31

sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>
>ted@marvin.dgbt.doc.ca (Ted Grusec) writes:
>|> Gary: By "extra-scientific" I did not mean to imply that hypothesis
>|> generation was not, in most cases extremely closely tied to the
>|> state of knowledge within a scientific area.  I meant was that there
>|> was no "scientific logic" involved in the process.  It is inductive,
>|> not deductive.  
>
>I am further puzzled by the proposed distinction between "scientific
>logic" and "inductive logic".  At this point I don't have a clue
>what you mean by "extra-scientific" -- unless you mean that at *some*
>times someone seems to come up with an idea that we can't trace to
>prior theories, concepts, knowledge, etc.  This is a fairly common
>observation, but just for grins I'd like to see some genuine examples.

OK, just for grins:
- Kekule hypothesized a resonant structure for the aromatic benzene
ring after waking from a dream in which a snake was swallowing his tail.
- Archimedes formalized the principle of buoyancy while meditating in
his bath.

In neither case was there "no connection to prior theories, concepts, etc."
as you stipulated above. What there was was an intuitive leap beyond
the current way of thinking, to develop ideas which subsequently proved
to have predictive power (e.g., they stood the test of experimental
verification).

pardon my kibbutzing...

Tom
