🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <408@hubcap.UUCP> steve@hubcap.UUCP ("Steve" Stevenson) writes:
>I don't remember where I saw it [ Wickelgren's book, *How to Solve Problems*,
>I think],  but doesn't "methodology" have a component which says that an
>"outside" observer must be able to discern the "method."  I know that sounds
>circular, but the gist of it was that methodology can be transmitted between
>people and can be faithfully reapplied by someone other than the originator.

Interesting thought, but then I wonder if "methodology" is possible, in some
cases.  If we are to believe Kuhn's ideas, a person who is too far outside the
paradigm (and certainly someone who is insufficiently trained) will not be able
to understand the methods, unless the description of "the methodology"
contained a whole explication of the field of study and its paradigm.

A simple way of putting the above proposed definition is that a methodology is
an understandable *description* of a method.

What methodology *should* mean, I think is "the study of methods", though I'm
not sure what this would mean.

I think it's generally used as a fancy-sounding word for "method" or "methods",
as doctors, when they are being pompous, speak of "symptomatology" when they
mean "symptoms" or "pathology" when they mean illness".
-- 
"Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind."

Sarge Gerbode
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
950 Guinda St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!sarge