Wez wrote:After some study of

#122044
Brian
Participant
Wez wrote:
After some study of the subject it would appear, to me, that there never has been a consensus on what actually constitutes the 'scientific method'. The book Against Method by Paul Feyerabend provides a fascinating insight into its development as a coherent  (or incoherent) philosophy.

Couple of issues and problems with Feyerabend's account on the evolution of science it seems  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method .  He argues from the standpoint that the present "scientific method" is not a universal whole and that different fields of science use and apply different methodology to their specific subject. This may well be the case, but not I suspect to the extent to which he descibes it.  And let's not forget that there is a consensus amongst all scientists in that they all agree even their method is subject to change when new evidence is produced which proves another methodology is more viable.Whereas, we take it as a given that a socialist society will introduce a different "scientific method" and the application of science will be under the democratic control of the associated producers.  Or like robbo puts it on another thread:  Democracy is about practical decisions that have a practical bearing on our lives in terms of the allocation of resources to certain desired objectives.  It is not about deciding the scientific truth of this or that theory. That is a complete waste of time and resources and its utterly pointless.If this is the case how do the majority ensure the decision making process is up to the task for agreeing what is practical and what isn't practical?  What will be the benchmarks, standards, regulations and rules which will define and allocate resources under the new "scientific method"?.