Re: Bell Curve and IQ

21 Nov 1995 19:55:35 GMT

H. M. Hubey ( wrote:
: (HARRY R. ERWIN) writes:

: >didn't understand the scientific method. I'm beginning to learn how to
: >develop scientific hypotheses--"a statement of a possible generalization
: >or cause and effect relationship that is to be tested." The ideas are
: >important, but so is the explicit testability.

: I think this 'scientific method' business has to be packaged
: carefully. It's like formalization. I think of formalization
: as serialization. THe thinking process may take place in
: parallel (as a gestalt) and the whole `picture' may pop
: up at once (after lots of drudgery) but it has to be then
: put into formal (serial) form in order to be considered
: rigorous. It seems that the "scientific method" is also some
: kind of a formal idea, and not really the way it's really done.

That was close to my attitude (and that of many mathematicians--c.f.
Poincare') until things were 'explained' to me. Now I'm finding that
addressing explicit testability is actually quite interesting. Yes,
working scientists address it from the beginning, quite unlike most
mathematicians and computer scientists. It's not a formal exercise.

Harry Erwin
Home Page: (try a couple of times)
PhD student in comp neurosci: "Glitches happen" & "Meaning is emotional"