Ask Lemmygrad

806 readers

85 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Shaggy0291@lemmygrad.ml

GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml

SovereignState@lemmygrad.ml

QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml

yogthos@lemmygrad.ml

Would the scientific method describe the transformation theory-practice-theory? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 7 months ago by pinguinu@lemmygrad.ml to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml

2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Just read On Practice. While reading it I thought about the scientific method since that's generally how the process to synthesize theory in the context of science is set out. But here, you need a hypothesis, a piece of theory with which you try to predict the result of a series of conditions within reality. This theory must come from a certain understanding of reality acquired beforehand. Therefore, for someone to use the scientific method, that person must have some experience, however flawed, in relation to the subject. Would this be correct? Does the process in which you begin to interpret data with no theory coming before it (which would kinda be the birth of a science), have a name?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] invalidusernamelol@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

First Principles or Axioms would be the terms you're looking for

Started (at least in Western science) with Euclid's Elements:

It is possible to draw a straight line from any point to any other point.

It is possible to extend a line segment continuously in both directions.

It is possible to describe a circle with any center and any radius.

It is true that all right angles are equal to one another.

("Parallel postulate") It is true that, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, intersect on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles.

All of these are taken as the base assumptions for the rest of the logical proofs for euclidian geometry.

With physics, I'd say the thermodynamic laws are the axioms.

With political science, the axioms aren't as clearly defined. Marx and Engels are really the first to try and lock them down with the concepts of class struggle and Labor == Value ("all history is the history of class struggle" is one of Marx's big axioms). Marx also uses thermodynamic principles in the context of political economy with Labor standing in for energy.

[–] pinguinu@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 7 months ago

Well, I'm referring to a process rather than a piece of knowledge. Of course axioms can change but even if they change they are conceived thanks to prior theory. Axioms aren't necessarily the first concepts formulated either, they (those I have studied at least) are very removed from reality. Originally I was thinking about this since I've been in some situations at school where I didn't really have hypothesis or context but I had the task of making a report following "the scientific method" nevertheless, so it was awkward for me