Problems With the Scientific Method

[S.A.M.]

Interesting. This clever wordplay is so... clever.

I'm glad to learn that science is "merely" about inferences. Typical of a theist.

The word "truth" simply means that which we can verify to be accurate and "correct" given the tools we possess. Some "truths" are more certain than others.

"The earth is spheroid in shape" is absolutely true given the definitions of the words in that sentence.

Of course, to a mystic like you sam, "truth" or "ultimate truth" has some other meaning and can only be obtained explicitly without the application of reason (science).

All of you - read Fraggle's post carefully. Apologize for being a putz, and acknowledge his post as the truth. Which it is.

I did, I'm a working scientist; any truth in science, no matter how certain, exists only as long as the conditions that define it. It makes no difference to the process of science since there is no lie or truth in science, only the process and its results. The inferences are our own and are based on our assumptions about the hypothesis, its independent and dependent variables, the process we use as well as about the results obtained. Science is merely about the inference, since it not only drives the assumptions that follow, but in many cases, also the assumptions that lead to it. Any notions of accuracy or truth that ignore this are bias.

 

[lightgigantic]

This thread was inspired by medicine-related news. For a long time, it was believed that lycopene, a substance found predominantely in tomatoes, helped to fight cancer. However, recent research shows that lycopene actually worsens cancer! At the same time, they now believe that apple peel is very helpful to fight against cancer.

Ok. I'm not a genius, but there is only one truth. Lycopene is either helpful or harmful. So why does one research shows that it's helpful and the other harmful?

Some scenarios:

1) We gained new knowledge before the new research, therefore, the scientific method is limited by our knowledge range.

2) Our methods of research improved, therefore the scientific method is limited by the accuracy our research methods.

3) Our statistical methods are insufficient to produce reliable results.

4) Other.

5) A combination of the above


I would think one of the main problems is that the use of statistical methods are insufficient, on their own, to produce a reliable result. One must create logical explanations if they want to create an accurate theory. For instance, if apple peel seems to really help, then you have to specify the components in the apple that produce such results AND not only test it with statistical methods, but also carefully research how those components interact with our bodies in different circumstances. Of course, the difficulty in this scenario would be in terms of time and money restrictions, as such pedantic practices would be extremely time consuming.

Anyways... any thoughts?

I am with 4) - the problem with the scientific method is that its foundation are the reserves of human perception and rationalization, which is very much prone to four things
1) imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"
2) tendency to make mistakes ... perceive lycopene as helpful in combating cancer
3) tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert
4) a cheating propensity --- our perception of objectivity is manipulated due to the influence of avarice, wrath, lust etc (I stand to make a packet from lycopene combating cancer)

 

[TruthSeeker]

All of you - read Fraggle's post carefully. Apologize for being a putz, and acknowledge his post as the truth. Which it is.

Fallacy.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Interesting. This clever wordplay is so... clever. I'm glad to learn that science is "merely" about inferences. Typical of a theist. Of course, to a mystic like you sam, "truth" or "ultimate truth" has some other meaning and can only be obtained explicitly without the application of reason (science).

I'm not the moderator of this forum and besides that I'm on the same side as you in the battle against the Forces of Darkness. But I think you're being unnecessarily hard on Sam. The argument is descending into semantics. Please remember that this is an international community. We don't all have the same background, the same context, the same set of understandings and assumptions. And especially not the same subtle meanings for words. Rather than criticize Sam for saying something that does not seem consistent with your own understanding of the universe, I think it would be far more in the spirit of science to simply ask her what she meant. Perhaps this would not only avoid a misunderstanding but spark an interesting and spirited discussion.

All of you - read Fraggle's post carefully. Apologize for being a putz, and acknowledge his post as the truth. Which it is.

I appreciate the vote of confidence. But I never appreciate my work--whether it's my casual writing here, my letters to the editor, the courses I teach, or even my bloody music--being used as justification for a flame war. I don't think it's Sam who owes anyone an apology.

 

[superluminal]

I did, I'm a working scientist; any truth in science, no matter how certain, exists only as long as the conditions that define it. It makes no difference to the process of science since there is no lie or truth in science, only the process and its results. The inferences are our own and are based on our assumptions about the hypothesis, its independent and dependent variables, the process we use as well as about the results obtained. Science is merely about the inference, since it not only drives the assumptions that follow, but in many cases, also the assumptions that lead to it. Any notions of accuracy or truth that ignore this are bias.

In the spirit of fraggles last post...

How do you define truth? What does saying something is "true" mean to you?

 

[superluminal]

Fallacy.

Phallacy.

 

[S.A.M.]

In the spirit of fraggles last post...

How do you define truth? What does saying something is "true" mean to you?

That its not falsifiable.

 

[superluminal]

I'm not the moderator of this forum and besides that I'm on the same side as you in the battle against the Forces of Darkness. But I think you're being unnecessarily hard on Sam. The argument is descending into semantics. Please remember that this is an international community. We don't all have the same background, the same context, the same set of understandings and assumptions. And especially not the same subtle meanings for words. Rather than criticize Sam for saying something that does not seem consistent with your own understanding of the universe, I think it would be far more in the spirit of science to simply ask her what she meant. Perhaps this would not only avoid a misunderstanding but spark an interesting and spirited discussion.I appreciate the vote of confidence. But I never appreciate my work--whether it's my casual writing here, my letters to the editor, the courses I teach, or even my bloody music--being used as justification for a flame war. I don't think it's Sam who owes anyone an apology.

While I completely sympathize with the content of this post, you are far too stodgy and restrictive for a forum who's main purpose is entertainment and consists of a multinational member base with a wide variety of reasons for posting here.

 

[superluminal]

That its not falsifiable.

I see. Of course you do. God, of course, would then consist of truth.

I think that is not a definition of "truth" that many people would accept.

 

[S.A.M.]

I see. Of course you do. God, of course, would then consist of truth.

I think that is not a definition of "truth" that many people would accept.

Of course True =! False is a rather radical definition of truth.

 

[superluminal]

Of course True =! False is a rather radical definition of truth.

So. Science does not deal in things that are !False ?

 

[S.A.M.]

So. Science does not deal in things that are !False ?

Of course not!

Science makes no judgments about certainty.

Haven't you ever read a scientific publication?

 

[superluminal]

Of course not!

Science makes no judgments about certainty.

Haven't you ever read a scientific publication?

Of course. Science always makes judgements about certainty. Have you never heard of statistics? All data and analysis comes with error bars that indicate the degree of certainty of the information.

I fully accept that "truth" is provisional and comes with statistical provisos.

"The Earth is spherical" comes with a high degree of statistical assurance.

"Black holes exist" comes with somewhat less.

"The higgs field underlies the existence of the mass properties of matter" less than that.

 

[S.A.M.]

Of course. Science always makes judgements about certainty. Have you never heard of statistics? All data and analysis comes with error bars that indicate the degree of certainty of the information.

I fully accept that "truth" is provisional and comes with statistical provisos.

"The Earth is spherical" comes with a high degree of statistical assurance.

"Black holes exist" comes with somewhat less.

"The higgs field underlies the existence of the mass properties of matter" less than that.

Provisional truth is an oxymoron, like being almost pregnant.

If its not falsifiable, it is not science.

 

[superluminal]

Provisional truth is an oxymoron, like being almost pregnant.

If its not falsifiable, it is not science.

No. That is a mystical/theistic stance. There is no such thing as absolute truth. All of it is statistical. All truths are provisional as I have said.

I understand that if it's not falsifiable, it is not science. I never argued otherwise. But to say that science dosen't deal in varying degrees of truth (correctness, accuracy, ...?) is clearly wrong.

 

[S.A.M.]

No. That is a mystical/theistic stance. There is no such thing as absolute truth. All of it is statistical. All truths are provisional as I have said.

I understand that if it's not falsifiable, it is not science. I never argued otherwise. But to say that science dosen't deal in varying degrees of truth (correctness, accuracy, ...?) is clearly wrong.

Science does not deal with truth because if it is not falsifiable it is not science.

Am I not clear?

 

[superluminal]

Science does not deal with truth because if it is not falsifiable it is not science.

Am I not clear?

Did I not say that all "truth" is statistically provisional and is of course falsifiable?

Am I not clear???

 

[S.A.M.]

Did I not say that all "truth" is statistically provisional and is of course falsifiable?

Am I not clear???

Then you are saying that Truth = ! False is wrong. so what you are saying is that there is no truth.

 

[superluminal]

Then you are saying that Truth = ! False is wrong. so what you are saying is that there is no truth.

No. Let me be clear. I'm saying that your definition of True and False as absoultes is flawed. Truth = ! False is flawed. Truth = P(!False), P being a statistical probability, would be closer to reality.

 

[S.A.M.]

No. Let me be clear. I'm saying that your definition of True and False as absoultes is flawed. Truth = ! False is flawed. Truth = P(!False), P being a statistical probability, would be closer to reality.

So what is the definition of false?