From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Science and methodology (was: Homeopathy ... tradition?)
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Distribution: inet
Nntp-Posting-Host: theseus.unx.sas.com
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Lines: 43


In article <1qk4qqINNgvs@im4u.cs.utexas.edu>, turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
|> -*-----
|> In article <1993Apr15.150550.15347@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> ccreegan@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Charles L. Creegan) writes:
|> > What about Kekule's infamous derivation of the idea of benzene rings
|> > from a daydream of snakes in the fire biting their tails?  Is this
|> > specific enough to count?  Certainly it turns up repeatedly in basic
|> > phil. of sci. texts as an example of the inventive component of
|> > hypothesizing. 
|> 
|> I think the question is: What is extra-scientific about this?  
|> 
|> It has been a long time since anyone has proposed restrictions on
|> where one comes up with ideas in order for them to be considered
|> legitimate hypotheses.  The point, in short, is this: hypotheses and
|> speculation in science may come from wild flights of fancy, 
|> daydreams, ancient traditions, modern quackery, or anywhere else.
|> 
|> Russell
|> 

Yes, but typically they *don't*.  Not every wild flight of fancy serves
(or can serve) in the appropriate relation to a hypothesis.  It is
somewhat interesting that when anyone is challanged to provide an
example of this sort the *only* one they come up with is the one about
Kekule.  Surely, there must be others.  But apparently this is regarded
as an *extreme* example of a "non-rational" process in science whereby
a successful hypothesis was proposed.  But how non-rational is it?

Of course we can't hope (currently at least) to explain how or why
Kekule had the daydream of snakes in the fire biting their tails.
Surely it wasn't the *only* daydream he had.  What was special about
*this* one?  Could it have had something to do with a perceived
*analogy* between the geometry of the snakes and problems concerning
geometry of molecules?  Is such analogical reasoning "extra-scientific"?
Or is it rather at the very heart of science (Perice's notion of abduction,
the use of models within and across disciplines)?  Upon close examination,
is there a non-rational mystical leap taking place, or is it perhaps
closer to a formal (though often incomplete) analogy or model?
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
