The Scientific Method In Conversations And Reading

the-scientific-method

From Seth Godin:

If you enter a conversation looking for something to test, measure and ultimately change, it’s likely you’ll find it. That change makes you more competitive, and you continue to cycle past your competitors. On the other hand, if you enter a conversation concerned about maintaining the status quo, it’s likely that this is exactly what you’re going to do.

Some people read business books looking for confirmation. I read them in search of disquiet. Confirmation is cheap, easy and ineffective. Restlessness and the scientific method, on the other hand, create a culture of testing and inquiry that can’t help but push you forward.

About these ads

3 Responses to The Scientific Method In Conversations And Reading

  1. Md Santo says:

    Yes, both are True, Right and Good as well. The Scientific Method (the Scientist) rely on “Learning by Doing” considered it is in Data-Information domain. But, the Creationist Method (the Believers) rely on “Doing by Learning” considered it is in beyond Data-Information domain or already in Knowledge-Wisdom domain.

    “Doing by Learning” identic with “action and performance” first, but the insight is later. The use of emergence phenomenon mechanism of complexity theory will describe it

    The Human Being domain is already reaching Knowledge-Wisdom domain where the rules of Creationism applied in a sudden emergence phenomenon. The Ape evolution still stuck in pre-Knowledge to Wisdom domain. They (the Apes) don’t have their Inner Universe developed a.k.a “unknowledgeable creation” but only “well informed” behaviour or being as smart animal

  2. […] to ‘converse’ so it’s interesting to think of how things can be improved, by structured interventions or otherwise. This is also related to dealing with the (more specific) issue of ‘the curse of […]

  3. Michael Seltzer says:

    It is interesting that the cartoon assumes that only the creationist has presuppostions and bias and the evolutionist or any other so-called scientist, does not have a presuppostion that skews and plagues his observation, research, hypothesis, experiments, conclusions and resulting predictions of the unseen and the non-repeatable experiments. Once something is faith-based or out of the realm of the scientic method of repeating it and proving something to be so, then you are left to the mercy of your ignorance, the persuasiveness of others, observations with presuppositions, faith (whether well substantiated by history–Christian faith–or not), and manipulators for self gain. Quotation:Long before I believed Theology to be true, I had already decided that the popular scientific picture at any rate was false. One absolutely central inconsistency ruins it… The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears. Unless we can be sure that reality in the remotest nebula or the remotest part obeys the thought-laws of the human scientist here and now in his laboratory–in other words, unless Reason is an absolute–all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world-picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based. The difficulty is to me a fatal one; and the fact that when you put it to many scientists, far from
    having an answer, they seem not even to understand what the difficulty is, assures me that I have not found a mare’s nest but detected a radical disease in their whole mode of thought from the very beginning. The man who has once understood the situation is compelled henceforth to regard the scientific cosmology as being, in principle, a myth–though no doubt a great many true particulars have been worked into it. C. S. Lewis (1898-1963),”Is Theology Poetry?”, in They Asked for a Paper, London: Geoffrey Bles, 1962, p.162 See the book at http://cqod.com/r/rs348

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: