youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
I think you have some misconceptions about science.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How much faith do you have in science?
- Thread starter youknowme
- Start date
I think you have some misconceptions about science.
Not really. if all you are doing is shooting down falsehoods, you don't yet have an area of science. You are doing pre-science.
One of us probably does, I agree.
I have the training in physics, which is a very good example of a science.
Again, the very essence of science (see Popper, if you like) is the ability to make testable predictions that can be verified by observation. Testability is crucial. If you cannot do that, you don't have a science.
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
Well you already demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of the content in the OP in your post number 2 and you also confused observational data with observed data, so while I am sure your knowledge of physics is all well and good it clearly does not make you an expert on other fields of science. Also, before you start throwing around Popper's name perhaps you should read up on some of the criticisms of his ideas.
"staristics has proven 98%of all statistics are false."
Now onto statistics.
- They tend to confirm bias of the one creating the questions.
- Statistics isnt science but one tool.
- Science is always limited but thats no excuse to replace unknowns with the tooth fairy..
- Grandious ideas arent just in religion.
- Because simething is called a theory doesnt mean tooth fairy is a proper theory..
- Creationism is.pseudo science not religion. More specifically it has zero to do with ancient esoteric metaphysic texts.
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
Personally, I think anyone that makes the claim their way is the best way to do science, has a bit of an ego on the subject and is showing a lack of understanding. It would be nice if science had this one size fits all approach, but the reality is it doesn't.
if one keeps in mind that between 40 and 70 percent of the studies reviewed were validated or replicated...
Suggests to me that yes science, especially the social/soft sciences, do indeed have a problem (or more realistically, have a number of problems)...but scientists in those fields ARE making observations and predictions and validating and replicating them. Not all of them. But some, probably even most.
And that failure to replicate is also advancing science...there should be more studies to try to replicate...and to figure out why only some studies do replicate...
I have confidence that as long as researchers work to challenge their own and others' work, science will continue to progress...
But to toss all out, and to label some fields of research as "not science" is, well, not science...
Suggests to me that yes science, especially the social/soft sciences, do indeed have a problem (or more realistically, have a number of problems)...but scientists in those fields ARE making observations and predictions and validating and replicating them. Not all of them. But some, probably even most.
And that failure to replicate is also advancing science...there should be more studies to try to replicate...and to figure out why only some studies do replicate...
I have confidence that as long as researchers work to challenge their own and others' work, science will continue to progress...
But to toss all out, and to label some fields of research as "not science" is, well, not science...
Yerda
Veteran Member
So, for a simple arguments' sake, there's a model in particle physics that predicts supersymmetric partners with mass x. The LHC data tells us there are no new particles with the mass predicted by this model. The activity of creating the model and generating predictions wasn't science in your opinion?
And the activity of designing and implementing the experiment is that not science?
Let me put it this way. If ALL of the theories of particle physics were shown to be wrong in all their major predictions, then particle physics wouldn't be a science. It would be reduced to, essentially, guesswork. But, as we know, it *has* made successful predictions: the top quark, the B and W particles, the Higg's boson, etc.
My criticism isn't of any one particular theory, but of the whole subject: if the subject as a whole has not been able to make a single precise prediction, then that area of study is not a science.
In the case of the LHC, have there been successful predictions made at that energy range? yes, many. In fact, if anything, the main problem is that the Standard Model is so good that nothing has pushed beyond it.
You can't say that about *any* theory in sociology.
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
You are comparing apples and oranges, and essentially your argument is a strawman.
How so? Has sociology been able to verify any precise prediction ever made by *any* of its hypotheses, say to 2 decimal place accuracy? That seems to me to be comparing apples and apples: making precise predictions and verifying them to within some level of accuracy. Simply discarding one bad guess after another isn't science.
And yes, if the 'soft' science cannot do this, they don't qualify as sciences at all. I *hope* that some day they will, but at this point, they don't. They are at the level of alchemy and not of chemistry. Pre-science as opposed to science.
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
I don't know much about sociology, so I would be the wrong person to ask that, but I also get the impression you don't really know much about it either.
Honestly, I don't know why you are pushing the arbitrary "2 decimal place accuracy" as some type of informal standard for all science; that type of binary thinking is exactly the problem the content in the OP is talking about. We need to move away from that type of black and white thinking.
I guess I see it as a minimal standard. It keeps us honest and makes sure we aren't taking out of our hats. If a subject is so fuzzy or ill-defined it can't do at least that, it should not be called a science.
At least, that's how I see it. I'd actually prefer a much more strict standard...say 3 or 4 decimal places. Most of the 'hard' sciences easily pass even that standard. That the 'soft' sciences cannot is, I think, telling.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Ok. I reckon that what people do when they conduct experimantal and theoretical research in psychology is science. With sociology I'm not so sure but I wouldn't rule it out until I knew about the field. The way you've demarcated using a strict principle might rule out all sorts of things that we'd normally call science and I don't think that philosophers of science would agree at all with what you've said (Popper included though I'm not sure how relevant he is these days). That said, it's your call to draw the line where you please and it's a clear line to be fair.
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
However, it does not keep us honest, that is the problem, it is an excuse to shut off your brain and not think. And, at least in context of a p-value, a lower threshold does not always equal better results and in fact it can lead to more errors, a few people tried to explain this to you already.
Its the same reason economics is not a science. Absence of sufficient accuracy in predictions made by the field.
Hotcakes78
New Member
People live without religion everyday, try going one day without using science
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
What are you talking about? This is not a contest between religion and science.
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
I think trying to establish a pecking order in science has just got to be about the silliest thing I have ever heard, especially considering almost all of them use these statistical methods to one degree or another, which means when using these methods they are susceptible to these inherit problems regardless of if you want to call it a "hard" or "soft" science.
And the suggestion that you can just lower your significance level and magically solve your problems only shows a lack of understanding in what a p-value means.
And the suggestion that you can just lower your significance level and magically solve your problems only shows a lack of understanding in what a p-value means.
I strongly disagree. What I see it as being is the necessary discipline to actually start to be able to say something meaningful rather than vaguely phrased nonsense.
I agree that the two decimal place standard is arbitrary. But again, if anything it is too lenient, like the p<.05 standard.
And I also agree, it would be better to have varying levels representing different degrees of confidence: something like p<.05 saying there *might* be something interesting to study there, while lower p values increasing he degree of confidence (and, as many point out, allowing other criteria to enter into the evaluation). But, if you have only 1 decimal place and that has a p=.049, anything you say can be safely ignored (at least until a better study is done).