Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
.. or they didn't have the opportunity to conduct a full set of tests … ie: they weren't permitted (by Ward) to conduct other than the thermal resistance tests, so they never knew what was in it (and still don't) …
Why are we assuming there is a flaw in the scientific process or the educational experience of AWE, NASA, Boeing, the US Government, in this instance?
…. the burden of proof is with Ward as long as he's retaining information.
|
They may not have had the opportunity...the article was never specific as to what they were or weren't allowed to do. But given the tests they did perform, all the parties were interested.
However, if there were full and extensive tests carried out and they were stumped, then what does that say....they didn't know as much as they would've liked to have thought. Something new had come up and now they had to figure out how it worked. The material had defied their present understanding of the science and now they had to invent a new understanding, based on extrapolating the present knowledge or maybe even inventing new knowledge to account for it. Something that happens every now and again in science
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
This is the logical fallacy 'Argumentum ad Ignorantium' ..
* Ward has been successful in inventing a material, because he does not possess 'extensive training', and he did not follow a scientific process;
* Ward does not possess 'extensive training', and he did not follow a scientific process, therefore the scientific process, (and education), is flawed.
Fallacious argument !
Two examples …
1) Glad Wrap was invented by a scientist by accident (whilst he was scientifically experimenting and trying to develop something completely unrelated).
2) Teflon was invented the same way ... by a chemist trying to make a new CFC refrigerant.
Cheers
|
They're your words, not mine, so your argument itself is flawed
. All I said was that Ward had stumbled upon this material quite by accident and that this happens quite a bit with inventors. I also said the scientists can be hampered by their training and experience because it can tie them into a paradigm of thought and action which mightn't point them in the directions that an amateur might take. You seem to think that because a person trained in science has some great advantage of having gone through all that learning and such that they have a monopoly over anyone else in coming up with great new ideas. You have no idea. Most of the great ideas of the last 500 years were not invented by what we would call trained scientists. Except for a few, most never held position in any higher institute of learning and most were going against the prevailing world wisdom of the times they lived in. Orthodoxy never sees itself as being orthodox, it always nearly thinks of itself as being progressive and cutting edge. In fact, it's not. Most inventors do not work within accepted bounds of conventional wisdom. Though most of the time, they go nowhere with their ideas, sometimes something comes up which really gets a kick along. Most aren't even trained much past high school. They get to where they are because they exhibit the same curiosity and wonder most scientists have but they're not bound by the conventions of science, and are more likely to do something that most scientists wouldn't necessarily think of doing. Not because the scientist isn't capable of thinking like that, but because of their training the scientists have defined limits as to what is permissible within the scientific method and their philosophy. And like all people, scientists are creatures of habit. They stick to what they know best. The inventors do what they do because they know no better. They may use the scientific method themselves without realising it, but they're not encumbered by any prevailing theory or idea as to how to go about doing anything or seeing anything as being possible or impossible. If it don't work, too bad. If it does, then great.
Your two examples have no consequence to the argument....just like an "amateur" inventor, all they'd done was stumbled upon something by mistake. Fortuitous occurrences that they were switched on enough to see had other possibilities. In many cases, the results of those experiments would've been tossed out into the garbage, and labelled as failures.