Talk:Scientific enterprise

Untitled
I don't understand the point of this article. Most of it seems like a rehash of the article we already have on the scientific method, and the main science article itself. RK 12:16, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Enterprise is about risk, without which you cannot have reward; in science, the risks are not necessarily about money, but about knowledge; there is a dimension to science which is about braving the unknown; which was left unsaid in the current articles, which gives a scholastic or museum quality to the knowledge, rather than the understanding that the pursuit of knowledge can be dangerous to the researchers. Ancheta Wis 11:50, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) As a concrete example, an electric field is something that crackles, the power of which was extremely attractive to Benjamin Franklin; less knowledgeable researchers who were striving for reproducibility merely killed themselves with the ball lightning which came from messing with Mother Nature in an ignorant way. By the way, the shed that Franklin used in the rainstorm may have served as a Faraday cage, which would also have shielded him during the Kite experiment.


 * Another point is Big Science, which is also about enterprise and the potentially corrupting effect of big money on science. We have already seen how the entrepreneur of an effort that harnessed hundreds of Ph.D.'s obtained a Nobel prize for his enterprise, i.e. his confidence that the effort would lead to a breakthrough.Ancheta Wis 11:50, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Seems to me too that we need to move lots of stuff out of this article. I don't really see the use of including stuff like "One iteration of the scientific method," "Iteration and Recursion," "Process of scientific change, or progress" in this article. It's about scientific method, as pointed out by RK, and the text does not show any relevance with the scientific enterprise. Even the text in this discussion about electric fields and kites and cages doesn't have any clear relevance with the scientific enterprise, so I'm not sure what Ancheta's point in this discussion is. We should focus this article upon the scientific enterprise, not on scientific methods. (any relevance to the scientif method and the influence of scientific enterpreneuring should be included, but I can't find much on that in the current text) --Anthony Liekens 09:37, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I have no problem about any improvements that anyone wishes to make on this article. Please remove content, edit, etc. with my best wishes. Ancheta Wis 11:37, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)