What is science?
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Sunday, August 30, 2026 21:01
VIEWED: 22722
PAGE 2 of 10
A clear bias on the part of the researcher is indicated when rather than trying to explore a question about some subject or field, an assumption is made about the nature of the subject or field that the experiment is designed around.
This can either result in the experiment subconsciously being constructed to validate that assumption/belief, such as through sampling bias in a psychology study - which is where I most often see this. But another result of this that can be observed is if the data is inconclusive, null hypothesis in statistics, no R correlation, yet there will be an interpretation made in the conclusion that the hypothesis is not null that supports the initial assumption.
Rue posted a good example of this a while back that I argued about for a while. But if you can see a bias, you can also figure out pretty quickly WHY they're doing the experiment, even with very limited information available.
Such experiments can still have useful information, but you have to weigh it against whether the bias has affected the data results too much.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
So to put it another way: Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.
"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"
Not surprised to see faith thrown into a science thread without any relevance, also not surprised it was brought in a negative manner.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, most of the best scientific discoveries ever don't start with "Eureka!", but rather "What the fuck?!".
Sometimes science doesn't go as planned - it's what you do THEN which defines you as a scientist, I think.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would highly recommend that anyone interested in what science is and how it originated should read the book UNCOMMON SENSE by Alan Cromer. He argues that science is a logical and objective thinking method that was developed exclusively by the ancient Greeks because of the unique geographical, social and religious circumstances of their time. Other ancient civilizations tried to mimic the Greeks but added very little to scientific knowledge. Only in recent times have the conditions required for scientific thought reemerged and led to great minds like Copernicus and Galileo.
Science is simply a way of thinking that controls the natural instinct of humans to believe in gods, magic and other nonsense. It is a learned thing and that's why so few are capable of scientific thought. Most people go though life trying to avoid using their brains, while a scientists brain never rests. Scientific thought is brain exercise in the hope that your unique experience will lead to something no one has thought of or done before.
http://www.amazon.com/Uncommon-Sense-Heretical-Nature-Science/dp/01950
96363/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296958435&sr=1-4
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Assumptions are made in every subject or field when an experiment is designed. Assumptions underlie all hypotheses. How do you distinguish valid assumptions from biased assumptions?
Originally posted by Bytemite:
A clear bias on the part of the researcher is indicated when rather than trying to explore a question about some subject or field, an assumption is made about the nature of the subject or field that the experiment is designed around.
Quote:If the flaw in methodology is subconscious, it means they didn't intend to do it. It seems to me that scientists have unconscious biases as human beings. So how would you distinguish one person with unconscious biases from another?
This can either result in the experiment subconsciously being constructed to validate that assumption/belief, such as through sampling bias in a psychology study - which is where I most often see this.
I understand about critiquing papers. You would point out, "There is a sampling bias in this study" or "Conclusions are not supported by the data." It seems that one should be able to level these critiques about objective bias of the studies without making assumptions about personal bias or motives of the authors.
I guess what I don't understand is the conditions under which you would "call foul" or identify "clear bias" in a researcher.
-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
So to put it another way: Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.
"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"
Dmaan, you nailed it
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Actually, most of the best scientific discoveries ever don't start with "Eureka!", but rather "What the fuck?!".
Sometimes science doesn't go as planned - it's what you do THEN which defines you as a scientist, I think.
-F
Frem, you also nailed it
Byte,
I also look backwards from the conclusion, and ask myself if there was any reason that the study group might have a vested interest in having reached it; and I prefer studies that are based on solid previous work, and not conjecture, and usually they work in small incremental steps. If they are major breakthroughs, they'll be much less suspect if the group clearly had no possible interest in the finding, and it has all the trappings of Frem's WTF?
Happy,
I posted a long rant, but it didn't post. Basically, it's my fault. I may doubt my faith at points, but I don't have serious doubts. If it was true for thousands of years, it's liable to remain true. I don't see faith and science at all incompatible. Look at Japan, S. Korea or Iran.
Kirk, I haven't read the book, but Athens was Persian, and that was what made it different, also, the Greeks openly admitted to taking large swaths of their science from Egypt. Greece, like Phoenicia, had the advantage of naval power. That's why they were able to gather so much info. That, and a nifty written language.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT addressed it first. The trick is to go back through the line of inquiry, sometimes to the researcher that inspired the current researcher. Assumptions do exist, but it's only ones that have been previously tested to hold up under given conditions which I consider fair use for an experiment.
Or, in the very least, it can stem from Frem's wtf and an effort from multiple people testing the underlying conditions of the wtf to understand it better. That's also a valid generation point for an assumption.
When you read a paper's citations, there should be a whole bunch of previous papers, that you can trace an idea back to a paper with a conclusion where the base idea/assumption for the experiment arose.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Kirk, I haven't read the book, but Athens was Persian, and that was what made it different, also, the Greeks openly admitted to taking large swaths of their science from Egypt. Greece, like Phoenicia, had the advantage of naval power. That's why they were able to gather so much info. That, and a nifty written language.
The Greeks may have collected the sum knowledge of the World at the time from other civilizations, but it wasn't science. Those civilizations had collected that knowledge primarily to try and predict the future and know the will of their gods. Collecting astronomical data for astrology isn't science though the information derived is useful to science sometimes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That clarifies where you're coming from. Thanks. I understand now.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
When you read a paper's citations, there should be a whole bunch of previous papers, that you can trace an idea back to a paper with a conclusion where the base idea/assumption for the experiment arose.
-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Egyptians were quite scientific in some regards, like medicine. Everyone had gods. Not sure.
CTS
Sometimes there will be an outside theory like Quantum Mechanics which is based on nothing but logic, but it is extremely rare, and will come out of nowhere, have no tie in to anything which came before and will take many decades to take hold.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME