ncooty

The discussion of scientific discovery seemed to miss a critical consideration: a strengthened scientific method. Popper's (and Peirce's) contributions to the epistemology of science greatly improved the robustness of scientific findings. We should be thankful that scientific results increasingly stand the tests of time and that methods are better targeted. Moreover, the romanticization of "leaps" rather than steps seems unjustified and unrealistic. It seems to me than incremental progress is preferable--offering more exolanatory power--and less haphazardly reliant on flashes of insight. In fact, those supposed epiphanies (or, if one is a toddler, "aha moments") are likely merely illusory anyway. At best, purported leaps likely indicate a failure to make a connection to existing findings, and at worst, they may indicate an attempt to ignore, belittle, or steal others' contributions. Finally, the designation of a "leap" seems only to be made in hindsight. At the time they were made (or appeared to have been made), supposed "leaps" were part of a gaggle of other baseless pronouncements, most of which were less "leap" and more "lurch into a ditch". Calling the successful ones "leaps" is largely just selecting on the dependent variable... and most of those were really just steps marketed as leaps. I see little or no value in the proposed method, and quite a few shortcomings in its rationale.