Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
The scientific method (and why I love it).
- Thread starter lucas vigor
- Start date
Scientific method is my bread and butter 
(final year, in theory, PhD student).
Can science be abused? Of course it can, as someone pointed out, humans are involved.
The one thing I don't agree, is the paycheck part. We muddle on in our dark rooms for hours beyond normal working hours, we then write up our findings, share them with people who contributed (and often have that piece of work torn apart) then submit it to a journal for peer review, often to have it ripped apart.
How do you judge research? In part by the journal it is presented in. Why do you know how good a journal is? Usually by experience within the field.
As someone has said, there have been bogus reports. The biggest one that I remember is the paper which tried to conclude that vaccination caused autism, a myth that still perpetuated today. However, I will say, that article itself was one of the few to have been removed from the journal it was printed in (the Lancet IIRC).
Also mentioned, was incorrect conclusions. That, in itself, is not a bad thing. If you produce results, which you repeat, then they are the result of your exact method. There will be errors, and sometimes these errors are unaccounted for (as we found with the neutrinos traveling faster than light, which was disproved and appears to be some, still unknown, error within the experiment).
If someone publishes something, with a conclusion that happens to be incorrect, another scientist reading that research will do follow up work and produce more results which will be used to either reinforce or to disagree with the previous conclusions, it happens all the time. It's actually a very good thing, as it means we can move forward and find/confirm things in a more accurate manner.
(final year, in theory, PhD student).Can science be abused? Of course it can, as someone pointed out, humans are involved.
The one thing I don't agree, is the paycheck part. We muddle on in our dark rooms for hours beyond normal working hours, we then write up our findings, share them with people who contributed (and often have that piece of work torn apart) then submit it to a journal for peer review, often to have it ripped apart.
How do you judge research? In part by the journal it is presented in. Why do you know how good a journal is? Usually by experience within the field.
As someone has said, there have been bogus reports. The biggest one that I remember is the paper which tried to conclude that vaccination caused autism, a myth that still perpetuated today. However, I will say, that article itself was one of the few to have been removed from the journal it was printed in (the Lancet IIRC).
Also mentioned, was incorrect conclusions. That, in itself, is not a bad thing. If you produce results, which you repeat, then they are the result of your exact method. There will be errors, and sometimes these errors are unaccounted for (as we found with the neutrinos traveling faster than light, which was disproved and appears to be some, still unknown, error within the experiment).
If someone publishes something, with a conclusion that happens to be incorrect, another scientist reading that research will do follow up work and produce more results which will be used to either reinforce or to disagree with the previous conclusions, it happens all the time. It's actually a very good thing, as it means we can move forward and find/confirm things in a more accurate manner.
I seem to remember some researcher gluing animal hair to a wooden fence to show that the animal actually lived in the region.
The other side used this ONE story to say that any scientist who was involved with environmentalism was lying or dishonest.
The other side used this ONE story to say that any scientist who was involved with environmentalism was lying or dishonest.
The only problem I can see with the scientific method is that it seems rooted only in the physical realm.
There was one where someone had claimed to be able to culture some form of stem cell, which wasn't previously possible.
The scientific community called him out on it, and eventually one of his RA's confirmed it had been a lot of BS.
There is a lot of BS science coming out of China at the moment. There are also a lot of Chinese groups who are simply copying research from a paper and re-publishing it, claiming it is their own.
But again, this is where it comes down to quality of journal. When you work in the sciences, you learn how to avoid the BS.
Actually, one thing I should point out in this thread, that REALLY gets under my skin. Is general media reporting on science and often completely missing the point, and so many people take it on face value!
The scientific community called him out on it, and eventually one of his RA's confirmed it had been a lot of BS.
There is a lot of BS science coming out of China at the moment. There are also a lot of Chinese groups who are simply copying research from a paper and re-publishing it, claiming it is their own.
But again, this is where it comes down to quality of journal. When you work in the sciences, you learn how to avoid the BS.
Actually, one thing I should point out in this thread, that REALLY gets under my skin. Is general media reporting on science and often completely missing the point, and so many people take it on face value!
How do you mean bud?
That experimental methodology is stuck by the fact it relies on things we can actually measure?
This "researcher", were they an actual scientist?
I've seen a lot of people use the term "researcher" when they have no scientific background whatsoever.
From my point of view, it seems that a lot of people handily accept scientific research that fits their worldview and reject as "biased", findings that condradict their beliefs. These claims of bias are rarely (if ever) supported by any demonstrable facts.
It's the "I don't like it, so it must not be true" attitude.
That might be a good way of putting it.
Certainly some things are unmeasurable, but we know to be real.
I don't remember the exact details of the story...just that it was a female scientist who was caught in this lie and then rightfully exposed....but what happened next was predictable...talk radio used this one case to demonize practically ALL scientists.
And yes, you happen to be right. If the science agrees with their own ideas, then it is good science...if it contradicts what they believe, then it is to be considered "Junk science".
I follow, however, I'd say that we simply can't fully appreciate the whys, yet.
It's the great thing about science, always moving forward, always something to still figure out
It's the great thing about science, always moving forward, always something to still figure out
Hoo boy, science is such a mess, I'm glad that we can count on politics, law, and theology, to tell the truth.
Amusingly, that article shows its own bias. The entire bibliography is from medical, or medical-related research -- areas that are particularly prone to issues such as small sample sizes, the ethical bounds of animal and human testing, and a dependence on statistical analysis. Medicine also suffers from a problem of immediacy, namely that sick people can't wait for answers to be established beyond any doubt.
The claims of that article aren't necessarily applicable to the so-called "hard" sciences. The article also overlooks the fact that there is a vast body of scientific knowledge that is reliable for all practical purposes, and that has been used for the benefit of mankind.
Disclaimer: I'm a scientist, as is my spouse. I make my living designing gear for scientists. Widespread bias and dishonesty among scientists don't mesh with my own experience as a scientist, or with my interaction with countless scientists. Most of us are just humbly trying to find things out. Science is hard, and the basis of the scientific method is honesty, which would tend to discourage lazy liars from going into science in the first place. At the same time, while there may be some occasional motives to fabricate results, there is often much more to be gained by being right about things.
Also keep in mind that not all journals are created equal. Some journals have a reputation of only publishing the best research - other less prestigious journals, not so much. One of the issues is the publish-or-perish culture in R1 institutes. A scholar may mine their data to try and squeeze one more paper out just so they can pad their CV. Oftentimes, that CV pad article, while not fradulent, is usually not as high of quality work.
But as stated earlier, the amound of scholars who publish falsified research are in a vast minority. However, I'd caution everyone to always read research coming out of a think tank with an extra critical eye.
Science is just one form of epistemology, and it cannot answer everything. Unfortunately, some people try to use scientific thinking to answer normative questions - I can think of one such author-philosopher with the initials A R who attempted to apply scientific principles onto an ethical framework (and failed miserably, IMHO).
If you're talking about things we can't measure in the social world, antipositivist and constructivist research in anthropology and sociology deals with a lot of this. Antipositivist research isn't necessarily "scientific" in the way we think of science - that is, nomothetic. However, it is a valuable way of looking at the world.
lucas vigor said:
I hope this isn't too political, but...I like to listen to all viewpoints, even if I don't necessarily agree with them. But I can't listen to talk radio for more than 20 minutes before my head explodes. It's not about political differences; it's about how talk radio seems to be full of pseudo-intellectuals who can't apply basic critical thinking skills to anything. I heard logical fallacy after logical fallacy after logical fallacy anytime I flip the dial to talk radio. I don't purport to be some genuis on Aristotelian logic, but the poor arguments I hear on there make me cringe.
...then again, talk radio is pretty much predicated on the confirmation bias, so I guess it really doesn't matter if those hosts and guests have well-reasoned arguments.
I don't really see the problem with this. If you want to measure non-physical phenomena, it may be necessary to work on a new research method. One has to use the tools in endeavors for which they are designed.
For tackling a new type of research, new methods may be needed. However, I think it's possible you will encounter problems with people who maintain that things which cannot be measured must not exist. I disagree with that, but some folks are really tunnel-visioned about their methodology.
+1
and scientists should know better! tangible evidence is not always available or necessary, IME.
I did not mean to make the scientific community sound any more full of liars and crackpots than anything else, but I have seen nothing to convince me they are any less, either. I understand it isn't the norm, just like it isn't the norm in other communities, institutions or society at large. (Of course I'm excluding those communities that exist for the purpose of crime, vice, etc.)
Every institution we have has proven to me that there is more unethical behavior going on than we ever realize. I just watched a show about the West Memphis 3. Our great legal system put to shame due to the either unethical, incompetent, criminal or fraudulent actions of a variety of respected "professioanls." While it isn't the norm in any of our institutions, it is critical that it be discovered when it does ocur, and that's why I am saying peer review is really important. More so than the scientific method.
I think there are a decent number of scientists who rush to publish and deliver misinformation in the process. Fortunately, the fields are so insanely competitive that anyone who does so is instantly called out. That's the reason I don't understand skeptics of mainstream science, not because of some altruism of labeling oneself a scientist, but because the career field doesn't leave any room for liars--as soon as someone comes up with a bogus claim, or even a bogus but subtle implication, there are hundreds of people ready to call their dishonesty out for the sake of advancing their own careers.
