OT Funeral readings

Since Kuhn's work, it has been well-established that science does not
necessarily involve the `scientific method', but since you asked, the
hypotheses of Carnot, Bernoulli, Navier and Newton are falsifiable and
testable.

 

You'd need to be, to go racing with Commandos.

 

Paging Ivan. Paging Ivan to maybe-non-existent phone..

First define 'real'..

Phil

 

The thing is, it may all be obvious, but someone has to state it, write it
up etc in the first place. For instance, ITIL is all obvious, common sense
stuff, but it had to be written down and codified so that everyone doesn't
have to reinvent the wheel.

 

But the obvious bit is the bit that matters: the `scientific method'
is not the way scientific advances happen---it is the way you tell the
story afterwards.

Fine: what about Carnot, Navier-Stokes, etc. is not `science'?

 

You are talking about something called `science' which is not the same
thing as the process which uses the `scientific method'. Taking you at
face value, much of what is currently being predicted in cosmology is
not science, because it has not been verified by the `community'.

Hairsplitting. What you are saying is that it is only science if it's
recent enough.

It is quite possible to do science without peer review. Peer review
helps, but it is not essential.

A hypothesis does not need a mathematical description to be science.

So it's only science if it's noticed?

He also made stuff up (c.f. the speed of sound). Newton could be a
dreadful bullshitter.

So you say, but idea -> codification -> testing of predictions *is*
science, whether or not it is reported.

 

It's useful for getting another job if you have it on your CV
("Implemented ITIL in xxx").

At some point we'll probably be forced to implement something along
those lines here.

Phil