pith. sign in

arxiv: 0812.4932 · v1 · submitted 2008-12-29 · ⚛️ physics.hist-ph

Comments Regarding "On the Nature of Science"

classification ⚛️ physics.hist-ph
keywords sciencescientificnaturalarbiterscommentsdistinctionselevatedexperiment
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

An attempt to redefine science in the 21st century (BK Jennings, On the Nature of Science, Physics in Canada, 63(7) 2007) has abandoned traditional notions of natural law and objective reality, blurred the distinctions between natural science and natural history, elevated Occam's razor from an epistemological preference to a scientific principle, and elevated peer-review and experimental care as equals with repeatable experiment as arbiters of scientific validity. Our comments review the long-established axioms of the scientific method, remind readers of the distinctions between science and history, disprove the generality of Occam's razor by counter example, and highlight the risks of accepting additional scientific arbiters as equal to repeatable experiment.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.