I disagree - I think that although science ought to be practiced like that, it often isn't - people frequently go into experiments with a very clear idea of what they'd like out of them (indeed, to develop an experimental hypothesis is to make a fairly fundamental statement about the desired outcome).
Well, yes, but surely that's a different argument? This argument speaks to the nature of Science vs. Magic. Ultimately, good science either fits the observable, indepentently verifiable, or it does not. No matter if the scientists wants it to. The way Magic is presented is far more ephemeral, having more to do with the practitioner's intention, the will for something to be done than with fairly strict physical laws that might get in the way. In what I've read, Magic can often be created, while science remains little more than description.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-01 12:44 pm (UTC)Well, yes, but surely that's a different argument? This argument speaks to the nature of Science vs. Magic. Ultimately, good science either fits the observable, indepentently verifiable, or it does not. No matter if the scientists wants it to. The way Magic is presented is far more ephemeral, having more to do with the practitioner's intention, the will for something to be done than with fairly strict physical laws that might get in the way. In what I've read, Magic can often be created, while science remains little more than description.