dullsilver_mike said:
Well, not exactly. So much stuff gets published that it can't all be subjected to intensive critique. However, a lot of that stuff also has minimal impact.
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
Well, not exactly. So much stuff gets published that it can't all be subjected to intensive critique. However, a lot of that stuff also has minimal impact.
Pilgrim said:
I have a broad definition of 'measure,' but I have so far never been confronted with a reason to regret simply ignoring all things that are inaccessible to naturalistic inquiry.
It's a generalization. I'm just trying to have fun with the idea that a publishing scientist can obtain as much notoriety from debunking someone else's claim as making their own. There was a nice wave of general periodical articles this month on the top 5 debunked scientific studies of 2011. My point is that there's a near fail-safe built into all discourse in the field these days. Someone might be able to publish absolute crap, but not in any forum where anyone important will pay attention to it for more than a month.
That's part and parcel of the point I made. It's my job to disseminate what's made the cut and what hasn't. If something hasn't been peer-reviewed, that doesn't necessarily mean it's bunk, and certain peer reviews don't necessarily convey a true sense of comfort, but they are certainly better than nothing.
Consideration of the ultimate use of the data and its temporal impact is important. If the use is to consider further studies on the sex life of the tsetse fly, then a lack of peer review may not be a deal-breaker (assmuing that gov't funds aren't involved, of course - there's the rub), but if questionable data suggest that contaminant X is the next scourge on human life, then perhaps further investigation is reasonable prior to extensive peer review.
Depending on what you are looking at, tangible evidence is required. The theory rarely matches the experimental perfectly, there are always other factors which can be over looked.
True, but even within the smaller sub-fields of research, there tend to be a fair number of active scientists, often competing with each other.
There is a lot of information out there, but as you'll know, you end up being pretty tightly focused and reading all the literature that's popping up which is relevant to your specific field.
A lot of this feels like my personal philosophy. I've been a paramedic for a long time. And in general, I've found that people are simultaneously spectacularly dumb and amazingly inventive at finding ways to harm themselves.
So the generally most useful philosophy is to always assume the worst possible event, then work your way backwards from there.
It's how we treat all traumas. If there is any possibilty of spinal injury, they are getting the full immobilizer deal. C-collar, backboard and head blocks. That way they can't paralyze themselves and sue you for it.
The Dispatcher says you have an unresponsive person. Assume they are dead and plan for a full arrest resuscitation. When you get there, you are ready. Then it turns out he is only really drunk and you don't need the stuff you got out of the truck for a full resus. But you were ready for it.
Or maybe they say..."unidentified medical", my least favorite because it can be literally anything. Figure on something horrible, like Ebola or Marburg, that is horrifically contagious and with 95+% mortality. Your basic end-of-the-world plague. When it turns out to just be a stroke, you'll feel so relieved.
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
Oh, dont get me wrong. Im not knocking the scientific method, and I agree, its a matter of "yet".
Pilgrim's post, I think, expounds on the idea even further:
Well, I think it could be that the scientific method may apply once we've developed methods of better understanding the nonphysical.
It could be possible that we need new research methods to better understand these phenomena, and that the scientific method can be applied after the fact.
I agree with you, that not everything that exists can yet be measured.
This is about an article in the New York Times:
A story today of prolific fraud out of UConn. University researcher Dipak K. Das has been accused of falsifying research related to the health benefits of red wine. A three-year investigation has produced a 60,000-page report detailing 145 instances in which he fabricated data.
Das has been awarded loads of money over the years in federal grants for his “research,” most of which was published in obscure journals and was of laughably low quality. Two newly received grants alone were worth $890,000.
A story today of prolific fraud out of UConn. University researcher Dipak K. Das has been accused of falsifying research related to the health benefits of red wine. A three-year investigation has produced a 60,000-page report detailing 145 instances in which he fabricated data.
Das has been awarded loads of money over the years in federal grants for his “research,” most of which was published in obscure journals and was of laughably low quality. Two newly received grants alone were worth $890,000.
I would suspect something more at play than just the researcher being crooked there.
If he was only publishing in obscure, low quality journals, the majority of grant boards wouldn't touch him with a 10ft pole.
The university near my house already has loads of methods to choose from: Philosophy, history, theology, psychology, sociology, various departments of "studies," the Humanities, business administration, and physical education, to name a few. That's not enough? Do scientists even need to be involved?
On the other hand, scientists are human, and not immune to some foibles of regular people. Sometimes scientists want so much to believe their theories are correct that they may jump ahead and draw conclusions that are not supported by evidence. Pons and Fleischman of cold fusion fame are good examples of this. Some may even falsify experimental data.
That said, give me scientists every time over people like "crop circle reserachers" and the like. At least scientists don't make me want to regurgitate whenever I see one on TV.
I don't play a scientist on TV, but I am one.
If you can't observe or measure something, it doesn't exist for all practical purposes. For instance, the concept of string theory is popular at the moment. The problem is that there is currently no way to experimentally confirm the existence of strings, hence the "study" of strings is philosophy, not science. Now, maybe some day they will develop a means of discovering strings (by means of the super-colossal gargantuan enormous hadron collider or something), but until then, they don't exist. If you say they might, that just makes you an agnostic. If you say they do, that makes you superstitious.
I stopped reading here.. Scientist are employed no? Yes they have an agenda. I work with them.
That's ok. You are entitled to do what you want. But a scientist probably would not have stopped after the first sentence he did not agree with. he would have read on and investigated. But the other side, the superstitious non-scientists, already have their minds made up...and therefore never need to 'read on'.
Im not a scientist. But a scientist shouldn't state OPPINIONS as FACTS. But they do..
Look up LIGO, thats where I work
Look up LIGO, thats where I work
