Protoscience: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:17, 21 February 2022 editSteelpillow (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers38,162 edits →Modern protoscience: yet another citation which does not obviously support the main text← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:28, 21 February 2022 edit undoSteelpillow (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers38,162 edits →Modern protoscience: found an online copyNext edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:

	==Modern protoscience==		==Modern protoscience==
	Another meaning extends this idea into the present, with protoscience being an emerging field of study which is still not completely scientific, but later becomes a proper science.<ref name=Bunge>{{cite magazine \| last=Bunge \| first=Mario \| title=What is pseudoscience?\| year=1984 \| magazine=The Skeptical Inquirer \|volume=9 \| pages=36–46 }}</~~ref>{{clarify\|date=February~~ ~~2022\|reason=Please~~ ~~quote~~ ~~relevant~~ ~~passage/s~~ ~~from~~ ~~Bunge~~ to ~~support~~ ~~what~~ is ~~being~~ ~~said~~ ~~here}}~~ An example of it is the ], which started as a protoscience (a ] work which had not been tested), but later was ] verified and became fully scientific.{{cn\|date=February 2022\|reason=Who says Relativity started as a protoscience?}} Protoscience in this sense is distinguished from ] by a genuine willingness to be changed through new ], as opposed to having a theory that can be used to ] a predetermined belief (i.e., ]){{cn\|date=February 2022\|reason=Why waste time debunking pseudoscience here? Who identifies the distinction from protoscience?}}		Another meaning extends this idea into the present, with protoscience being an emerging field of study which is still not completely scientific, but later becomes a proper science.<ref name=Bunge>{{cite magazine \| last=Bunge \| first=Mario \| title=What is pseudoscience?\| year=1984 \| magazine=The Skeptical Inquirer \|volume=9 \| pages=36–46}} (. Bunge defines protosciences as "emerging sciences" which "advance and end up by becoming sciences". (p.44)</ref> An example of it is the ], which started as a protoscience (a ] work which had not been tested), but later was ] verified and became fully scientific.{{cn\|date=February 2022\|reason=Who says Relativity started as a protoscience?}} Protoscience in this sense is distinguished from ] by a genuine willingness to be changed through new ], as opposed to having a theory that can be used to ] a predetermined belief (i.e., ]){{cn\|date=February 2022\|reason=Why waste time debunking pseudoscience here? Who identifies the distinction from protoscience?}}

	] Jaap Brakel defines protoscience as "the study of '']'' criteria for the use of experimental technology in science."<ref>Brakel, Jaap, "", Philosophy of chemistry: between the manifest and the scientific image, Leuven Univ Pr, December 2000</ref> ] said that protosciences "generate ] conclusions but ... nevertheless resemble ] and ] rather than the established sciences in their developmental patterns. I think, for example, of fields like ] and ] before the mid-18th century, of the study of ] and ] before the mid-nineteenth, or of many of the ] today." While noting that they meet the demarcation criteria of ] from ], he questions whether the discussion in protoscience fields "result in clear-cut progress". Kuhn concluded that protosciences, "like the arts and philosophy, lack some element which, in the mature sciences, permits the more obvious forms of progress. It is not, however, anything that a methodological prescription can provide. ... I claim no therapy to assist the transformation of a proto-science to a science, nor do I suppose anything of this sort is to be had".<ref>{{cite book \|last=Kuhn \|first=Thomas \|editor1=Imre Lakatos \|editor2=Alan Musgrave \|chapter=Reflections on my critics \|title=Criticism and the growth of knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science \|year=1970 \|publisher=Cambridge University Press \|location=Cambridge \|isbn=0521096235 \|edition=Reprint \|pages= \|chapter-url-access=registration \|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/criticismgrowth00laka/page/244 }}</ref>		] Jaap Brakel defines protoscience as "the study of '']'' criteria for the use of experimental technology in science."<ref>Brakel, Jaap, "", Philosophy of chemistry: between the manifest and the scientific image, Leuven Univ Pr, December 2000</ref> ] said that protosciences "generate ] conclusions but ... nevertheless resemble ] and ] rather than the established sciences in their developmental patterns. I think, for example, of fields like ] and ] before the mid-18th century, of the study of ] and ] before the mid-nineteenth, or of many of the ] today." While noting that they meet the demarcation criteria of ] from ], he questions whether the discussion in protoscience fields "result in clear-cut progress". Kuhn concluded that protosciences, "like the arts and philosophy, lack some element which, in the mature sciences, permits the more obvious forms of progress. It is not, however, anything that a methodological prescription can provide. ... I claim no therapy to assist the transformation of a proto-science to a science, nor do I suppose anything of this sort is to be had".<ref>{{cite book \|last=Kuhn \|first=Thomas \|editor1=Imre Lakatos \|editor2=Alan Musgrave \|chapter=Reflections on my critics \|title=Criticism and the growth of knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science \|year=1970 \|publisher=Cambridge University Press \|location=Cambridge \|isbn=0521096235 \|edition=Reprint \|pages= \|chapter-url-access=registration \|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/criticismgrowth00laka/page/244 }}</ref>

Revision as of 12:28, 21 February 2022

Any pre-scientific or emerging practice of inquiry

In the philosophy of science, there are several definitions of protoscience. Its simplest meaning (most closely reflecting its roots of proto- + science) involves the earliest eras of the history of science, when the scientific method was still nascent. The term can also be applied to modern emerging fields of study.

Prescientific protoscience

The term prescientific means at root "relating to an era before science existed". For example, traditional medicine existed for thousands of years before medical science did, and thus many aspects of it can be described as prescientific. In a related sense, protoscientific topics (such as the alchemy of Newton's day) can be called prescientific, in which case the proto- and pre- labels can function more or less synonymously (the latter focusing more sharply on the idea that nothing but science is science).

Compared to fringe science, which is considered highly speculative or even strongly refuted, some protosciences go on to become accepted parts of mainstream science. The historical basis of much of modern chemistry is based on the discoveries of alchemy, a proto-chemistry using some of the modern techniques and processes of modern proven chemistry.

Modern protoscience

Another meaning extends this idea into the present, with protoscience being an emerging field of study which is still not completely scientific, but later becomes a proper science. An example of it is the general theory of relativity, which started as a protoscience (a theoretical work which had not been tested), but later was experimentally verified and became fully scientific. Protoscience in this sense is distinguished from pseudoscience by a genuine willingness to be changed through new evidence, as opposed to having a theory that can be used to rationalize a predetermined belief (i.e., confirmation bias)

Philosopher of chemistry Jaap Brakel defines protoscience as "the study of normative criteria for the use of experimental technology in science." Thomas Kuhn said that protosciences "generate testable conclusions but ... nevertheless resemble philosophy and the arts rather than the established sciences in their developmental patterns. I think, for example, of fields like chemistry and electricity before the mid-18th century, of the study of heredity and phylogeny before the mid-nineteenth, or of many of the social sciences today." While noting that they meet the demarcation criteria of falsifiability from Popper, he questions whether the discussion in protoscience fields "result in clear-cut progress". Kuhn concluded that protosciences, "like the arts and philosophy, lack some element which, in the mature sciences, permits the more obvious forms of progress. It is not, however, anything that a methodological prescription can provide. ... I claim no therapy to assist the transformation of a proto-science to a science, nor do I suppose anything of this sort is to be had".

References

Dutch, Steven I (January 1982). "Notes on the nature of fringe science". Journal of Geological Education. 30 (1): 6–13. Bibcode:1982JGeoE..30....6D. doi:10.5408/0022-1368-30.1.6.
Bunge, Mario (1984). "What is pseudoscience?". The Skeptical Inquirer. Vol. 9. pp. 36–46. (pdf copy. Bunge defines protosciences as "emerging sciences" which "advance and end up by becoming sciences". (p.44)
Brakel, Jaap, "protoscience and protochemistry", Philosophy of chemistry: between the manifest and the scientific image, Leuven Univ Pr, December 2000
Kuhn, Thomas (1970). "Reflections on my critics". In Imre Lakatos; Alan Musgrave (eds.). Criticism and the growth of knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science (Reprint ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 244–245. ISBN 0521096235.

External links

Questions to help distinguish a pseudoscience from a protoscience (a new science trying to establish its legitimacy). Adapted from "BCS Debates a Qi Gong Master", Rational Enquirer, Vol. 6, No. 4, April 94

Categories:

Revision as of 12:17, 21 February 2022 editSteelpillow (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers38,162 edits →Modern protoscience: yet another citation which does not obviously support the main text← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:28, 21 February 2022 edit undoSteelpillow (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers38,162 edits →Modern protoscience: found an online copyNext edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:

	==Modern protoscience==		==Modern protoscience==
	Another meaning extends this idea into the present, with protoscience being an emerging field of study which is still not completely scientific, but later becomes a proper science.<ref name=Bunge>{{cite magazine \| last=Bunge \| first=Mario \| title=What is pseudoscience?\| year=1984 \| magazine=The Skeptical Inquirer \|volume=9 \| pages=36–46 }}</~~ref>{{clarify\|date=February~~ ~~2022\|reason=Please~~ ~~quote~~ ~~relevant~~ ~~passage/s~~ ~~from~~ ~~Bunge~~ to ~~support~~ ~~what~~ is ~~being~~ ~~said~~ ~~here}}~~ An example of it is the ], which started as a protoscience (a ] work which had not been tested), but later was ] verified and became fully scientific.{{cn\|date=February 2022\|reason=Who says Relativity started as a protoscience?}} Protoscience in this sense is distinguished from ] by a genuine willingness to be changed through new ], as opposed to having a theory that can be used to ] a predetermined belief (i.e., ]){{cn\|date=February 2022\|reason=Why waste time debunking pseudoscience here? Who identifies the distinction from protoscience?}}		Another meaning extends this idea into the present, with protoscience being an emerging field of study which is still not completely scientific, but later becomes a proper science.<ref name=Bunge>{{cite magazine \| last=Bunge \| first=Mario \| title=What is pseudoscience?\| year=1984 \| magazine=The Skeptical Inquirer \|volume=9 \| pages=36–46}} (. Bunge defines protosciences as "emerging sciences" which "advance and end up by becoming sciences". (p.44)</ref> An example of it is the ], which started as a protoscience (a ] work which had not been tested), but later was ] verified and became fully scientific.{{cn\|date=February 2022\|reason=Who says Relativity started as a protoscience?}} Protoscience in this sense is distinguished from ] by a genuine willingness to be changed through new ], as opposed to having a theory that can be used to ] a predetermined belief (i.e., ]){{cn\|date=February 2022\|reason=Why waste time debunking pseudoscience here? Who identifies the distinction from protoscience?}}

	] Jaap Brakel defines protoscience as "the study of '']'' criteria for the use of experimental technology in science."<ref>Brakel, Jaap, "", Philosophy of chemistry: between the manifest and the scientific image, Leuven Univ Pr, December 2000</ref> ] said that protosciences "generate ] conclusions but ... nevertheless resemble ] and ] rather than the established sciences in their developmental patterns. I think, for example, of fields like ] and ] before the mid-18th century, of the study of ] and ] before the mid-nineteenth, or of many of the ] today." While noting that they meet the demarcation criteria of ] from ], he questions whether the discussion in protoscience fields "result in clear-cut progress". Kuhn concluded that protosciences, "like the arts and philosophy, lack some element which, in the mature sciences, permits the more obvious forms of progress. It is not, however, anything that a methodological prescription can provide. ... I claim no therapy to assist the transformation of a proto-science to a science, nor do I suppose anything of this sort is to be had".<ref>{{cite book \|last=Kuhn \|first=Thomas \|editor1=Imre Lakatos \|editor2=Alan Musgrave \|chapter=Reflections on my critics \|title=Criticism and the growth of knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science \|year=1970 \|publisher=Cambridge University Press \|location=Cambridge \|isbn=0521096235 \|edition=Reprint \|pages= \|chapter-url-access=registration \|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/criticismgrowth00laka/page/244 }}</ref>		] Jaap Brakel defines protoscience as "the study of '']'' criteria for the use of experimental technology in science."<ref>Brakel, Jaap, "", Philosophy of chemistry: between the manifest and the scientific image, Leuven Univ Pr, December 2000</ref> ] said that protosciences "generate ] conclusions but ... nevertheless resemble ] and ] rather than the established sciences in their developmental patterns. I think, for example, of fields like ] and ] before the mid-18th century, of the study of ] and ] before the mid-nineteenth, or of many of the ] today." While noting that they meet the demarcation criteria of ] from ], he questions whether the discussion in protoscience fields "result in clear-cut progress". Kuhn concluded that protosciences, "like the arts and philosophy, lack some element which, in the mature sciences, permits the more obvious forms of progress. It is not, however, anything that a methodological prescription can provide. ... I claim no therapy to assist the transformation of a proto-science to a science, nor do I suppose anything of this sort is to be had".<ref>{{cite book \|last=Kuhn \|first=Thomas \|editor1=Imre Lakatos \|editor2=Alan Musgrave \|chapter=Reflections on my critics \|title=Criticism and the growth of knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science \|year=1970 \|publisher=Cambridge University Press \|location=Cambridge \|isbn=0521096235 \|edition=Reprint \|pages= \|chapter-url-access=registration \|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/criticismgrowth00laka/page/244 }}</ref>

Misplaced Pages