re science and methodology was homeopathy tradition in article c je krl unx sas com sasghm theseus unx sas com gary merrill writes in article apr cs rochester edu fulk cs rochester edu mark fulk writes i don t think extra scientific is a very useful phrase in a discussion of the boundaries of science except as a proposed definiens extra rational is a better phrase in fact there are quite a number of well known cases of extra rational considerations driving science in a useful direction yeah but the problem with holding up the extra rational examples as exemplars or as refutations of well founded methodology is that you run smack up against such unuseful directions as lysenko such extra rational cases are curiosities not guides to methodology as has been noted before there is the distinction between motivation and method no experimental result should be accepted unless it is described in sufficient detail to be replicated and the replications do indeed reproduce the result no theoretical argument should be accepted unless it is presented in sufficient detail to be followed and reasonable knowlegeable people agree with the force of the logic but people try experiments and pursue arguments for all sorts of crazy reasons irrational motivations are not just curiousities they are a large part of the history of science there are a couple of negative points to make here a theory of qi could conceivably become accepted without direct verification of the existence of qi for example quarks are an accepted part of the standard model of physics with no direct verification what would be needed would be a theory based on qi that predicted medical reality better than the alternatives the central theoretical claim could lie forever beyond experiment as long as there was a sufficient body of experimental data that the qi theory predicted better than any other i wouldn t hold my breath waiting for the triumph of qi though i don t think that there is even a coherent theory based on it much less a theory that explains anything at all better than modern biology and it is hard to imagine a qi theory that would not predict some way of rather directly verifying the existence of qi science has not historically progressed in any sort of rational experiment data theory sequence most experiments are carried out and interpreted in pre existing theoretical frameworks the theoretical controversies of the day determine which experiments get done overall there is a huge messy affair of personal jealousies crazy motivations petty hatreds and the like that determines which experiments and which computations get done what keeps it going forward is the critical function of science results don t count unless they can be replicated the whole system is a sort of mechanism for generate and test the generate part can be totally irrational as long as the test part works properly pasteur could believe whatever he liked about chemical activity and crystals but even mitscherlich had to agree that racemic acid crystals were handed that when you separate them by handedness you get two chemicals that rotate polarized light in opposite directions and the right rotating version was indistinguishable from tartaric acid pasteur s irrational motivation had led to a replicable and important result this is where lysenko creationists etc fail they have usually not even produced coherent theories that predict much of anything when their theories do predict and are contradicted by experiment they do not concede the point and modify their theories rather they try to suppress the results lysenko or try to divert attention to other evidence they think supports their position creationists mark a fulk university of rochester computer science department fulk cs rochester edu
