Source: http://www.luogocomune.net/
The scientific method provides an initial empirical observation, followed by experimental verification of the observed data. The first phase can make one or more theories about the observed data, while the latter allows, by the criteria of observability and repeatability, to confirm whether or not those theories. The great advantage of the scientific method is the possibility it offers to share experimental results in objective terms, surpassing the level of the general staff, and making it the undisputed truth for all.
The scientific method has its limitations, of course, who are in the same criterion of observability, as no one is able to exclude aspetti della realtà che possano sfuggire alla nostra percezione sensoriale.
Abbiamo quindi un criterio abbastanza rigoroso da garantire risultati affidabili, che limita però il suo raggio d’azione proprio a causa di quel rigore. Un atteggiamento onesto prevede quindi di affidarsi serenamente al metodo scientifico, pur di non escludere a priori variabili esterne ai dati osservati.
Gli stessi medici, alla fine di una consulta, spesso ti dicono: “Mi raccomando, non si stressi troppo, altrimenti ci mette il doppio a guarire”. Riconoscono cioè una componente psico-somatica, nella salute dell’individuo, senza poterla nè vedere, nè misurare, nè tantomeno replicare in laboratorio.
Until science takes into account any external aspects, which might escape the direct criterion of verification, making the company a unique and extraordinary service, ...
... and stands as one of the highest peaks ever achieved in human history.
But when science is closing in on itself, and rejects any a priori reality not directly verifiable, born scientism, which is its most favorably.
SCIENTISM :
sm (filos.) orientation of thought, which arose in France in the second half of the century. XIX, which states that the only sound basis of knowledge is formed from the principles and procedures of science, logical-mathematical or empirical.
(estens.) with a negative sense, the attitude of those who expect to apply the methods of science to any aspect of human reality.
This usually happens when man loses the desire to learn, and is content instead of the truth known to expand further. In other words, giving up a new "full cycle" of observation-verification-end, perhaps sensing that those conclusions are likely to disprove certainties already acquired.
Here come the sentences of "superstition", "quackery" or "witchcraft" itself, to everything that falls outside the scope of direct accountability.
The curious thing is that the scientist, in doing so, call the scientific method in his defense, without realizing that's what's require instead of exploring new territory.
In front of a village head tribal cures the sick by the laying on of hands, for example, science should try to understand what are the mechanisms that lead to healing, and then verify them with scientific criteria, and possibly integrate them into its standardized protocols. Instead, he refuses to recognize a priori certain healing abilities, with the excuse that "are not scientifically proven."
He says as if the burden of scientific proof it was up to some kind of extra-terrestrial entities, not the science itself.
"If the holy man of the village claims to cure the sick with his hands - the scientist says - bring us the evidence."
But the only evidence that the village may bring are the patients themselves, who have recovered. The village does not control the verification technology, and who controls it is using it, and eventually find the evidence, one way or another.
must therefore be seen as the science has taken hold of the means of collective research, not only to deny its use in cases that could lead to improvements to thousands of sick, but to use it even against these new ways of healing. (Let me be clear, we are talking about cases where the therapeutic properties of a remedy should be acclaimed by a number of persons sufficient to warrant the assumption that it is valid. No one here suggests to run after each tale of country).
There is a very simple test you can do to distinguish science from scientism immediately with a capital: every time you hear "There is no evidence that the functions that remedy against this disease," just ask: "And 'demonstrated by chance that does not work?"
If the answer is yes, it means that in that if science has behaved correctly and has done his duty to the end.
If the answer is no, it means that no testing was done, and that we are facing the most vulgar scientism, which is worse than any medieval superstition.
Massimo Mazzucco
0 comments:
Post a Comment