Science and Method

What Hacker News says

1. rramadassSep 2026
   In case you haven't read it; see "Science and Method by Henri Poincare" - https://archive.org/details/sciencemethod00poinuoft

   Here is a summary - https://thetelos.org/science-and-method-science-et-methode-h...

   Here is a video discussion - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ-t8-igDZo

   The thesis is that Science is made for efficiency and hence does not include everything (which is infinite). It only looks for a hierarchy of interesting facts and focuses on simple foundational recurring phenomena from nature. It then uses the language of Mathematics to economize and impose order on the complexity to make it tractable.

   Finally, our subconscious prefers aesthetic attributes and hence we often find/create harmony/symmetry/beauty in our mathematical products.

   Show morethread
2. rramadassSep 2026
   This is just meaningless twaddle.

   Read the chapter on "Chance" in Poincare's "Science and Method" linked to here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49743377

   Randomness/Chance itself is amenable to laws by which we can estimate its bounds. In one sense everything is chance since the deterministic laws themselves operate within approximation bounds. When the approximation bound in the effect is similar in magnitude to that in the cause and both are very small, we call it "deterministic" whereas when the approximation bound in the effect is much larger than that in the cause for no discernible reason we say "chance" is operating.

   Show morethread
3. dyukquDec 2019
   Jane Austen was the first author to came to my mind as I saw this thread. I've read two of her books (Sense and Sensibility & Pride and Prejudice) ~2 years ago. What they made me realise was that people are not absolutely good or absolutely bad. Human character consists of so many gray areas (as americans or... I don't know... english-speaking world puts it), it's not like black/white.

   The second one is Science and Method by Henri Poincare. I'm not in a position to fully understand and appreciate this book, but I just want to share a few quotes[0] that stood out for me when I read it:

   "The subliminal ego is in no way inferior to the conscious ego; it is not purely automatic; it is capable of discernment; it has tact and lightness of touch; it can select, and it can divine. More than that, it can divine better than the conscious ego, since it succeeds where the latter fails. In a word, is not the subliminal ego superior to the conscious ego?"

   "Under this second aspect, all the combinations are formed as a result of the automatic action of the subliminal ego, but those only which are interesting find their way into the field of consciousness. This, too, is most mysterious. How can we explain the fact that, of the thousand products of our unconscious activity, some are invited to cross the threshold, while others remain outside? Is it mere chance that gives them this privilege? Evidently not."

   "All the difficulties, however, have not disappeared. The conscious ego is strictly limited, but as regards the subliminal ego, we do not know its limitations, and that is why we are not too loth to suppose that in a brief space of time it can form more different combinations than could be comprised in the whole life of a conscient being."

   [0]https://archive.org/stream/sciencemethod00poinuoft/scienceme...

   Show morethread
4. faragonJul 2018
   "Science and Method" (1908, "Science et méthode" -original title in French-) is Poincaré's book the blog post author is speaking about. In my opinion, Poincaré's book is very valuable, and useful for anyone dealing with non trivial problems, no matter if there is "unconscious though" or not.
   thread
5. rramadassMay 2026
   You jest but are right.

   There is nothing new in the article and has already been covered well by some of the greatest Scientists/Mathematicians. We must be careful that articles/papers like these are not used by the anti-scientific crowd to promote their talking points and agendas.

   Notably, Henri Poincare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9 and https://henripoincarepapers.univ-nantes.fr/en/) wrote three philosophy of science books; viz. 1) Science and Hypothesis 2) The Value of Science and 3) Science and Method.

   These were published together under the apt title, The Foundations of Science which is available here - https://www.gutenberg.org/files/39713/39713-h/39713-h.htm and here (ebook versions) - https://archive.org/details/foundationsscie01poingoog

   Details of the works;

   1) Science and Hypothesis (1902) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Hypothesis

   2) The Value of Science (1904) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Value_of_Science

   3) Science and Method (1908) - pdf at https://henripoincarepapers.univ-nantes.fr/chp/hp-pdf/hp1914... At the minimum read this completely.

   See also;

   a) History of Scientific Method - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method

   b) Scientific Method - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

   Show morethread
6. arjieNov 2025
   Haha, this works if you already know what a vector space is. But I think pedagogy needs to provide motivating examples. I'll quote one section of a text by Poincaré (translated by an LLM since most here do not speak French).

   > We are in a geometry class. The teacher dictates: “A circle is the locus of points in the plane that are at the same distance from an interior point called the center.” The good student writes this sentence in his notebook; the bad student draws little stick figures in it; but neither one has understood. So the teacher takes the chalk and draws a circle on the board. “Ah!” think the students, “why didn’t he say right away: a circle is a round shape — we would have understood.”

   > No doubt, it is the teacher who is right. The students’ definition would have been worthless, since it could not have served for any demonstration, and above all because it would not have given them the salutary habit of analyzing their conceptions. But they should be shown that they do not understand what they think they understand, and led to recognize the crudeness of their primitive notion, to desire on their own that it be refined and improved.

   The learning comes from making the mistake and being corrected, not from being taught the definition, I think.

   Anyway, it's from Science and Method, Book 2 https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Science_et_m%C3%A9thode/Livre...

   There's more to the section that talks about the subject. I just find this particular paragraph amusingly germane.

   Show morethread