FS: Would it not be be better to teach “the actual scientific method”, recognisable by scientists, not some metaphysical analysis of what it might possibly be?
Then, would it not be be better to define a curriculum which teaches scientifically valid analysis? Though one would imagine that to be a very short course indeed!
Me: No, because natural philosophy-wisdom, not “some metaphysical analysis” includes and encompasses science. In fact it makes for good science instead of scientism, and as the integration of an aspect or aspects of consciousness and the scientific method is the signature of scientific breakthrough it is precisely what settled science/orthodoxy needs.
FS: The theory you espouse, “it makes for good science instead of scientism”, is demonstrably wrong for economics. The exact opposite is true. Adam Fforde’s paper (“Economics as a science” RWER-81) describes what economists consider to be the scientific method and dismisses the alternative which scientists would see as the scientific method — economists apply the very opposite of what empirical evidence shows to be true — scientists apply the scientific method because it works.
I am not dismissing meta-level analyses as useless. But that they do not provide a useful method of teaching. The vast majority of people do not work from abstractions to the concrete. They work from the concrete to the abstract.
While object oriented computer programming may appear to be an example of applying abstraction to design, see the books on how to refactor code so as to recognise the abstractions which are present in existing code.
If I were to follow your reasoning, I would teach arithmetic manipulations by introducing the laws of association, commutation and distribution and expect these to help the learning process — similarly, mathematics from category theory?
I think not.
Me: Sorry, you’re not understanding me. I’m advocating using BOTH science and Wisdom. As for Wisdom not providing a useful method of teaching that may be true for those who start from a dogma and simply grasp that and obsessively spout it therefore dramatizing “faith in” something, but there are rigorous and effective spiritual “technologies” and traditions that help one begin from the actual starting line which is meeting and experiencing one’s own consciousness….from which abstraction can better and more effectively proceed. That way one does not become habituated to abstraction and “faith in” science only.
The biggest breakthrough economics ever had could probably be accomplished by 25-60 year old economists and pundits meeting themselves for the first time in the present.