The scientific method (and why I love it).

[drteeth]

Im not a scientist. But a scientist shouldn't state OPPINIONS as FACTS. But they do..

Look up LIGO, thats where I work

And that is why we have peer review.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

As far as researcher bias, I had a methods professor in grad school, who's a pretty post-postivist/quantitative sociologist type of guy. In a lot of qualitative/constructivist research, the researcher will usually make a position statement so the reader is aware of any biases or frameworks the investigator is coming from - like, "I'm a postcolonial critical theorist" or whatever.

My prof argued that he'd actually like to see position statements in post-postivist and quanitative social science research. I'm ambivalent. On one hand, the method and data should stand on its own, regardless of where the investigator is coming from. On the other hand, it's more information the reader can use to help reach his or her own conclusion. Unfortunately, it also could lead to people dismissing research without giving it a chance - i.e., "Oh, she's working in a Marxist framework, I'm not going to pay attention to this socialist research," or "He's done research on Milton Friedman's theories. I'm not gonna read this libertarian garbage."

What are your thoughts?

 

[drteeth]

As far as researcher bias, I had a methods professor in grad school, who's a pretty post-postivist/quantitative sociologist type of guy. In a lot of qualitative/constructivist research, the researcher will usually make a position statement so the reader is aware of any biases or frameworks the investigator is coming from - like, "I'm a postcolonial critical theorist" or whatever.

My prof argued that he'd actually like to see position statements in post-postivist and quanitative social science research. I'm ambivalent. On one hand, the method and data should stand on its own, regardless of where the investigator is coming from. On the other hand, it's more information the reader can use to help reach his or her own conclusion. Unfortunately, it also could lead to people dismissing research without giving it a chance - i.e., "Oh, she's working in a Marxist framework, I'm not going to pay attention to this socialist research," or "He's done research on Milton Friedman's theories. I'm not gonna read this libertarian garbage."

What are your thoughts?

It is as you say: when the analysis is done properly, the results should stand on their own, regardless of preference. If data and method are described adequately, it should be possible to identify gaps without information about the inclinations of the scientist. At the same time, I do not think that the position of the scientist is very relevant, since this would be obvious from the framework of the paper.

 

[otherclef]

scientists have recently discovered that because of today's Grammy Awards the end of civilization is much closer than previously thought. There is also a theory that Usher and Chris Brown are the same person... which really dont matter caus ethe world is ending.

 

[Jonyak]

There is a strong anti-science sentiment in the USA right now, based in deep ignorance.

 

[NWB]

There is a strong anti-science sentiment in the USA right now, based in deep ignorance.

Yes, that appears to be the case to me too.

It seems methods of scientific inquiry have been replaced by "because I say so!" statements.