“why wasn’t the scientific method invented in China?”
It’s my understanding from reading historians of science like Kuhn, that it’s popular opinion in that field that there’s isn’t one single scientific method that deserves to be called the scientific method . When clarifying terms it would make sense to be more precise.
First, it’s important to note that there hasn’t been just a single the scientific method which we can point to having been invented at a single time and space. There have been successively refined methods of generating scientific knowledge developed over time. Scientific methods were possessed by:
at least one person who wrote an Egyptian medical textbook, (c. 1600 BCE)
This is important because it means in answering the question I’m not looking for factors which caused something to happen at a very particular time and place, e.g. not what made Francis Bacon very special or the like. Instead, I’m looking for factors which held over Europe (and the Middle East) for over a thousand years.
Is there something which you think wasn’t precise enough in those sections?
Despite listing the Arabs as having had one of the instances of “scientific methods over time” you latter say in your conclusion:
″ Overall, I do conclude a firm conclusion that even I’m not sure of the details, there were almost certainly concrete systematic factors which caused Europe to develop modern science and the scientific method even when China and the Islamic world didn’t.”
It’s unclear towards what exactly you are pointing here when you say the scientific method .
On the other hand, I don’t think I would have written the comment if I had read the whole article at the time of writing it.
The different scientific methods from different thinkers were largely playing with the same elements. Still, they are united by all involving some degree of empiricism, some degree on reason, and are for the purpose of producing naturalistic explanations of physical reality.
I wrote the comment before I read the rest and the ability to delete commands was thrown out from the UI. It’s worth noting her that the old LW did allow the deletion of retracted commands if nobody answered them.
True, though in this case someone had made a reply, so it wouldn’t make much of a difference. Agree though that we should probably get around to building UI to delete leaf-comments.
The point is still defensible (as demonstrated in my reply @ruby) but not necessarily important enough to consume attention. Retraction doesn’t prevent a comment from taking up attention.
It’s my understanding from reading historians of science like Kuhn, that it’s popular opinion in that field that there’s isn’t one single scientific method that deserves to be called the scientific method . When clarifying terms it would make sense to be more precise.
Indeed, this is the subject of my Abridged History of the Scientific Method and So when was “science invented?” sections.
Is there something which you think wasn’t precise enough in those sections?
Despite listing the Arabs as having had one of the instances of “scientific methods over time” you latter say in your conclusion:
It’s unclear towards what exactly you are pointing here when you say the scientific method .
On the other hand, I don’t think I would have written the comment if I had read the whole article at the time of writing it.
That is indeed acknowledged in the post:
I wrote the comment before I read the rest and the ability to delete commands was thrown out from the UI. It’s worth noting her that the old LW did allow the deletion of retracted commands if nobody answered them.
True, though in this case someone had made a reply, so it wouldn’t make much of a difference. Agree though that we should probably get around to building UI to delete leaf-comments.
No, by the point I was first thinking about whether or not to let the comment stand, there was no reply.
Oh, interesting. But why didn’t you retract it then?
The point is still defensible (as demonstrated in my reply @ruby) but not necessarily important enough to consume attention. Retraction doesn’t prevent a comment from taking up attention.
Interesting. I will have to think about that as a use-case for deletion as something separate from “retracting but harder”.