|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scientific method biased..? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
In the thread What is the point of this forum? Slevesque has argued that the scientific method is biased towards a particular outcome. I disagree with this. Because it is off-topic in that thread, I'm starting up this one to discuss this further.
First let me give a summation of what I think the scientific method is. 1)You gather data.2)You use that data to form a hypothesis. 3)You make a prediction with your hypothesis. 4)You do an experiment/gather more data to verify this prediction. 5)Depending on the outcome of the experiment, you either adapt, discard, or leave your hypothesis as is. 6)Return to step 3, rinse repeat... Now, Slevesque, where in there does bias show it's ugly head? I hunt for the truth I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore. -Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Thread copied here from the Scientific method biased..? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I took his point to be the Kuhnian observation that the paradigm in which science is operating determines the questions that one finds relevant to ask. I suppose we can quibble about whether that consists of bias or not, but I think Kuhn's point was valid. What's more, I think it's self sustaining to a degree as well. My impression is that it's considerably harder to get funding to pay for research that challenges the current paradigm, whatever the field. (If someone with real world experience on this matter wants to correct my impression, I certainly wouldn't argue with them.) And arguably this operates as a type of bias as well.
I think the important point to make as far as Kuhnian paradigms and biology go, is that creationism had its day in the sun as the reigning paradigm, but was overthrown by Darwinian evolution. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
In the thread What is the point of this forum? Slevesque has argued that the scientific method is biased towards a particular outcome. I disagree with this. Because it is off-topic in that thread, I'm starting up this one to discuss this further. First let me give a summation of what I think the scientific method is. 1)You gather data.2)You use that data to form a hypothesis. 3)You make a prediction with your hypothesis. 4)You do an experiment/gather more data to verify this prediction. 5)Depending on the outcome of the experiment, you either adapt, discard, or leave your hypothesis as is. 6)Return to step 3, rinse repeat... Now, Slevesque, where in there does bias show it's ugly head?
Steps 4 and 5. You can easily introduce bias in experimental design, what data you discard, and if/how you adapt your hypothesis. Especially when the marketing department is asking you for scientific info that shows that our product is better than the others' products'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4541 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Doesn't peer review play an important role here? Part of the standards for a successful experiment is that it be repeatable and verifiable. So unless one posits a world-wide cabal of Evilutionist Conspirators (TM) (as many creationists apparently do), then the system is self-correcting. You can't just go make up stuff as you go.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The scientific method is biased, like all frameworks are as they work upon a certain formation which as part of their very structure disallows the incorporation of components which cannot be identified, confirmed, or in some other way 'placed' within that framework.
The very structure of the scientific method, for example, makes it quite hostile to things such as (non-exhaustive): spooks, fantasies, wishes, dreams, bullshit, Biblical literalism, ignorance, obstinacy, non-empirically-derived conclusions, crap that is so obviously false, loosy-goosy philosophy, silliness, and Star Trek physics. The bias of the scientific method exists because it is a method for answering questions that are relevant to the school of thought of materialism or empiricism - belief in the existence of only that which can be sensed. Someone who wishes to answer questions that are non-material or cannot be answered with empirical evidence will be unlikely to find the scientific method at all useful to their purpose. As a result, application of the scientific method in pursuit of their answer will result in an answer that does not fit their question but is instead biased to the empirical nature of the scientific method. In short, if we want to know what is, was, and can be, the scientific method is a fine framework and tool; but if we are interested in fairy tales and other silly shit, the scientific method can be quite a heartless b*tch. Is it reality? Of course. Unbiased? Not in the least. Jon [O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined:
|
This seems pretty ressembling to what I was saying. (The kuhnian part, not the finance part. As obviously money will induce bias in science, but this is not due to the scientific method)
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined:
|
Yeah well Percy said exactly the same thing on the other thread, and appealed to peer-review.
But I think it's more of a miscomprehension of what I was trying to say (see the subbie post for a good idea).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined:
|
This was just an awckward post and I don't think it brought up anything positive to the discussion other then how much you despise Creationism and Star Trek physics ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined:
|
First of all, I want to say that I didn't intend to say biased towards a particular, singular outcome.
Now, per se the scientific method isn't Biased. The issue lies more in what actually happens in reality when scientists do science. This is how I see it mostly: 1) You observe something, a phenomenon, etc. in nature 2) An idea pops into your mind about why this is, and/or what this implies. (The idea can sometimes come by it's own though) 3) You formulate this idea in the form of a hypothesis. You make a prediction 4) You imagine a way to test this prediction, and you do it. 5a) If the outcome is positive, the hypothesis stays the same. Test something else about it (if it has multiple facets) 5b) If the outcome is negative, then you will adapt your hypothesis to the very extent that it is adaptable. Only when unreconciliable with the data will you discard it. 6) Eventually promote it to theory. In essence, this is what happens most of the time. We can already see some bias being induced by point 5b). A scientist likes his hypothesis, it is the fruit of his mind and he will keep it alive as long as possible. This does not mean that in some cases, oher data won't come around and completely falsify it, forcing it to be discarded. But I do think that in some cases it leaves place for bias. An additional point must be made that this method works very well. Science hs been proving time and time again to be reliable in this manner, especially in operational science. I do think, however, that when it comes to historical science, a Bias is much more easier to induce itself, particularly in point no2. I'll have to finish this a bit later today. I hope you find everything reasonable up to this point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
This was just an awckward post and I don't think it brought up anything positive to the discussion other then how much you despise Creationism and Star Trek physics ...
LOL. Whatever. Too bad you don't understand the scientific method. [O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined:
|
You should give a thought to the fact that the primary founder of the scientific method, Francis Bacon, believed in ''fairy tales and other silly shit''.
But that's another topic, and as I can see you aren't very disposed to discussion at the moment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi slevesque,
I would have said 3 and 5 provide opportunities for biases and preconceptions to limit what you consider in formulating or reformulating the hypothesis.
3) You formulate this idea in the form of a hypothesis. You make a prediction This formulation and prediction making are necessarily limited by your understanding and beliefs about reality. One of the ways to try to limit this is to form the anti-hypothesis and see if that can be falsified. However, you will be limited to not consider ideas that you don't think of, whether due to bias and preconception or just to lack of knowledge.
5b) If the outcome is negative, then you will adapt your hypothesis to the very extent that it is adaptable. Only when unreconciliable with the data will you discard it. We can already see some bias being induced by point 5b). A scientist likes his hypothesis, it is the fruit of his mind and he will keep it alive as long as possible. This does not mean that in some cases, oher data won't come around and completely falsify it, forcing it to be discarded. But I do think that in some cases it leaves place for bias. Agreed, this tendency is observed in practice, as is the tendency to stick to the current "model" when new theories come along:
Subbie Message 3: My impression is that it's considerably harder to get funding to pay for research that challenges the current paradigm, whatever the field. If a person doesn't believe X is possible, they are not going to go through the trouble, time and expense to solicit funding to investigate and see if it is true. Scientific organizations that fund research are not going to fund studies that their peer review group does not think will result in valid results. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
straightree Member (Idle past 4781 days) Posts: 57 From: Near Olot, Spain Joined:
|
When considering the scientific method, it helps a lot to listen to Karl Popper.
1. The scientific method creates an objective knowledge. When a scientist produces a theory that is published, it is no longer his. It belongs to society. It is an addition to the universal objective knowledge. 2. The scientist, not only relies in his experimentation, but in all pertinent published knowledge (objective knowledge). In fact there are theories produced by pure theorists, like Max Planck, founder of Quantum Mechanics, that was a theoretical physicist. Most of Darwin conclusions were worked out from other naturalist’s works. 3. No amount of positive confirmation is enough to validate any theory. One negative result suffices to invalidate it. For this reason, any theory needs to have the possibility to be falseated (proved false) in order to be scientific. Based on this, K. Popper, for instance, considered that Psychoanalysis was not science, because it was not possible to submit it to falseation process. 4. Theories are not true or false. They are approximations to truth. All this for K. Popper. Now for me, and regarding the main subject of this thread, bias, I would call it a tendency for any theory to resists competing ones. It is quite natural, but at the end selection does its work. The same mentioned Max Planck, explains how he found great resistance for the new concepts of Physics, by the guardians of the old theories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
...regarding the main subject of this thread, bias, I would call it a tendency for any theory to resists competing ones. It is quite natural, but at the end selection does its work. The same mentioned Max Planck, explains how he found great resistance for the new concepts of Physics, by the guardians of the old theories.
And this is well treated by Thomas Kuhn, in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024