Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
The Scientific Method.
Not really a question as such, but in light of Naomis recent thread, I thought some might find this excerpt from David McCraneys book "You are now less dumb" an interesting read;
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LazyGun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Looking at where we've come from lends prospective to what we have gained from science. But we need also to have a clear vision as to where we are going. Technology in the wrong hands and our growing dependence upon technology are no less demanding of our attention and awareness than our appreciation for what we have gained in the bargain. A gun can be just as powerful a tool in the hands of an enemy as it can be in defending ourselves against them.
Knowledge demands a commensurate measure of respect for the potential it unleashes on an unsuspecting world.
Knowledge demands a commensurate measure of respect for the potential it unleashes on an unsuspecting world.
LazyGun
Question Author
ok, mibs - whats all that have to do with the Scientific Method though?
10:34 Mon 05th Aug 201
Erm, let me think . . . ummm, everything?
What's the point of developing the scientific method if the knowledge gained is ultimately used to destroy those with the ability to use it? That would be dumber than dumb.
Question Author
ok, mibs - whats all that have to do with the Scientific Method though?
10:34 Mon 05th Aug 201
Erm, let me think . . . ummm, everything?
What's the point of developing the scientific method if the knowledge gained is ultimately used to destroy those with the ability to use it? That would be dumber than dumb.
LG, I don’t think it’s entirely fair to imply that the people who contributed to my thread are ‘science deniers’ – or dumb. They’re not. They simply questioned the findings in that particular instance and asked whether science might have missed something. ‘Science deniers’ I would suggest, are, for example, young earth creationists – and that’s a far cry from what we were discussing.
Like all things in life, there is probably a spectrum. People who deny all Science, people who deny some of it, people who are selective in what they accept or reject.
It depends on what you mean by "Science-denying". I think the point David McCraney was making is that Science is the method, rather than the results. Any particular result in Science is potentially "wrong", or not the end of the story, some results more so than others. But the method is undeniably the most successful investigative technique mankind has invented. Because of that it is worth taking scientific claims very seriously indeed. Even if they are wrong then it's likely to be wrong for "the right reasons" -- that is, because the subject defies analysis, or some subtlety has been missed, rather than being wrong for more basic reasons like an over-reliance on personal accounts and hearsay.
It's a personal opinion, but I often find the position of some people on Science to be at best a misunderstanding and at worst a hypocrisy. Specifically, there are many people who seem happy to accept scientific ideas when it suits them, and then reject all that which contradicts their own beliefs or ideas. I think this is wrong because, again, it is a position that seems to think of Science as results when in fact it is a method. In order, then, to accept or reject particular results you have to know how those results were obtained. Only once you have done so are you in a position to accept or reject the results, and then that should be based on whether or not the method was "scientific enough", rather than because it goes against what you think.
This is a general point not aimed at anyone in particular.
It depends on what you mean by "Science-denying". I think the point David McCraney was making is that Science is the method, rather than the results. Any particular result in Science is potentially "wrong", or not the end of the story, some results more so than others. But the method is undeniably the most successful investigative technique mankind has invented. Because of that it is worth taking scientific claims very seriously indeed. Even if they are wrong then it's likely to be wrong for "the right reasons" -- that is, because the subject defies analysis, or some subtlety has been missed, rather than being wrong for more basic reasons like an over-reliance on personal accounts and hearsay.
It's a personal opinion, but I often find the position of some people on Science to be at best a misunderstanding and at worst a hypocrisy. Specifically, there are many people who seem happy to accept scientific ideas when it suits them, and then reject all that which contradicts their own beliefs or ideas. I think this is wrong because, again, it is a position that seems to think of Science as results when in fact it is a method. In order, then, to accept or reject particular results you have to know how those results were obtained. Only once you have done so are you in a position to accept or reject the results, and then that should be based on whether or not the method was "scientific enough", rather than because it goes against what you think.
This is a general point not aimed at anyone in particular.
//I often find the position of some people on Science to be at best a misunderstanding and at worst a hypocrisy. Specifically, there are many people who seem happy to accept scientific ideas when it suits them, and then reject all that which contradicts their own beliefs or ideas. //
I agree. The existence or not of God is one example. ;o)
I agree. The existence or not of God is one example. ;o)
And not just in science. It is necessary to consider what evidence there was, and question it, for all manner of beliefs: Why did our ancestors think that women should not vote? Why could no defendant give evidence in his own defence? Both in such matters as these and in science, there is the inertia of tradition; what G K Chesterton called "the democracy of the dead", that what our predecessors believed as certainty, because "it has always been that way" must be binding on us.
Jim, no it doesn’t disprove it, but there is no evidence, and by your reckoning until evidence is forthcoming, science must assume that God doesn't exist. Nevertheless, you have your doubts, so your charge of hypocrisy against other people who question the conclusions of science simply doesn’t wash. I think the expression is ‘before you criticise others, put your own house in order’.
I had some doubts. I never denied that. They were irrational, I haven't denied that either. There was a good reason for that irrationality, which was that I couldn't admit to myself that people I knew were being irrational. If that makes me a hypocrite, then so be it, but you ought to stop making such an issue out of it. Nobody is perfect, and that includes me.
I am not responsible for David McCraneys book title, Naomi :) So i do not think I can be accused of implying that people are dumb. as in lacking in intelligence, when it comes to evaluating claims about science etc. I have not claimed that in this thread, and I am pretty sure I did not claim any such thing in the other thread either- that certainly was not my intent - but I do think that a significant proportion of the general public are ill-equipped by virtue of receiving a poor scientific education. Educationally speaking, it is my understanding that this is changing, that science is being better promoted and better taught in schools, which is a very good thing.
But the central point of the article is the value of the scientific method and how important it has been to our expanded knowledge base and our technological society. Personally, I do not think its importance can be understated.
Fred makes a very good point re the "democracy of the dead". We do it this way because we have always done it this way, etc. Researchers have often claimed that the scientific method establishes this method of thinking; A kind of tyranical by consensus; that ideas that fall outside this consensus are contemptuously dismissed out of hand. A classic example of this sort of thinking can be seen in any number of the press releases from the college of homeopathy, for example, who claim that homeopathy is not testable by the scientific method, that the mechanism of its effect falls outside what can be demonstrated by the gold standard of clinical trials, a randomised double blind placebo-controlled trial.
Now, it may be true that the mechanism might indeed be beyond conventional thinking. But they err in thinking that therefore the scientific method is either inappropriate or incapable of gauging its claims of efficacy. The real world effect of such treatments of phenomena can be tested for, along with controls for confounding effects.
If a treatment, such as homeopathy, or a practice, such as dowsing, or a communication channel, such as a ouija board, has a real world effect, then this effect can be tested, by controlling for confounding factors and ruling out observer expectancy bias etc. We have remarked upon this before, in fact. When discussing dowsing, the implication of many of those claiming anecdotal evidence for dowsing was that it worked 100% of the time. How then can we square that claim with what the controlled evidence actually shows, which is that it is no better than random chance?
And if, in all the numerous trials of such treatments ( thousands of trials of homeopathy over hundreds of years) and phenomena there is no demonstrable effect beyond what we would expect from random chance. then why continue to assert that there is any objective truth to the treatment / phenomena at all?
But the central point of the article is the value of the scientific method and how important it has been to our expanded knowledge base and our technological society. Personally, I do not think its importance can be understated.
Fred makes a very good point re the "democracy of the dead". We do it this way because we have always done it this way, etc. Researchers have often claimed that the scientific method establishes this method of thinking; A kind of tyranical by consensus; that ideas that fall outside this consensus are contemptuously dismissed out of hand. A classic example of this sort of thinking can be seen in any number of the press releases from the college of homeopathy, for example, who claim that homeopathy is not testable by the scientific method, that the mechanism of its effect falls outside what can be demonstrated by the gold standard of clinical trials, a randomised double blind placebo-controlled trial.
Now, it may be true that the mechanism might indeed be beyond conventional thinking. But they err in thinking that therefore the scientific method is either inappropriate or incapable of gauging its claims of efficacy. The real world effect of such treatments of phenomena can be tested for, along with controls for confounding effects.
If a treatment, such as homeopathy, or a practice, such as dowsing, or a communication channel, such as a ouija board, has a real world effect, then this effect can be tested, by controlling for confounding factors and ruling out observer expectancy bias etc. We have remarked upon this before, in fact. When discussing dowsing, the implication of many of those claiming anecdotal evidence for dowsing was that it worked 100% of the time. How then can we square that claim with what the controlled evidence actually shows, which is that it is no better than random chance?
And if, in all the numerous trials of such treatments ( thousands of trials of homeopathy over hundreds of years) and phenomena there is no demonstrable effect beyond what we would expect from random chance. then why continue to assert that there is any objective truth to the treatment / phenomena at all?
We are all human. We all to a greater or lesser extent more readily accept that which fits with our existing understanding/beliefs, and are more sceptical of that which opposes it. It's no bad thing, it allows for debate. And until absolute proof is available, it's fair enough.
Meanwhile I don't accept the implication made earlier that just because something might prove dangerous that is a reason to welcome/encourage remaining ignorant.
Meanwhile I don't accept the implication made earlier that just because something might prove dangerous that is a reason to welcome/encourage remaining ignorant.
I think the author is confusing access to and knowledge of information, with intelligence. People like Da Vinci and Einstein would never have been dumb (as in stupid) whenever they were born and whatever knowledge they had access to. Equally I am sure that we could all name people who would continue to have difficulty finding their fundament with both hands irregardless of however precisely they applied the scientific method. The difference between the two is that intelligent people can deduce the meaning and importance or otherwise of the facts which the scientific method establishes.
LG, I realise you are not responsible for the title of the book. Nevertheless, your OP implies that reading it will render the people who contributed to my thread less dumb. However, I accept that you didn’t intend to give that impression. Perhaps it was unfortunate that you mentioned my thread specifically.
Jim, why you doubt/doubted isn’t the point. The fact that you doubted at all is sufficient reason to object to you continuously pontificating to other people on the apparently unchallengeable reliability of the scientific method – and that is why I make an issue of it.
Jim, why you doubt/doubted isn’t the point. The fact that you doubted at all is sufficient reason to object to you continuously pontificating to other people on the apparently unchallengeable reliability of the scientific method – and that is why I make an issue of it.
No, it's not. I pointed out earlier that it was a logical fallacy to do so, but you just ignored that and carried on.
http://
http://
