Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Tell me, what scientific methodology to you use to determine
> you are in love? that you are happy?
Think about what you mean by "I am happy" or "I am in love."
The true question here is if the correlation between what
you're feeling and what other people feel when they say they
are happy or in love is correct. You might think that you are
in love, for example, and later notice that a friend who also
claims to be in love appears to be in state far removed from
your own, given this you might question whether what you're
experiencing is love. Formalise this - that is, act on it
consciously and aim for precision - and it's science.
> that a painting is really good (or bad)?
Depends what you mean by "really."
> that a person is or is not to be trusted and how much?
You conjecture about their motivations and keep an eye out for
evidence to the contrary. Again, formalise this and it's
science. It's just a matter of rigour. Trust is a good
example because it's close to a "casual science" in which we
make conscious observations and even perform experiments.
Scientific methodology is really just the sort of thing we do
all the time with the "rigour knob" turned up high.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:12 MDT