5 ms·

He talks about the case against science as well as bad studies like they are the same thing. Science is simply a method that can be done well or badly. The bad

He talks about the case against science as well as bad studies like they are the same thing. Science is simply a method that can be done well or badly. The bad studies aren't fundamental to science itself.

zepto 5y ago
> Science is simply a method that can be done well or badly Science as a word doesn’t typically denote “the scientific method”. It usually means the body of knowledge and the collective of institutions that claim to practice the method. The bad studies may not be fundamental to some abstract ideal of what science could be, but they seem pretty fundamental to humans doing science in the real world.
- brutusborn 5y ago
  I completely agree that the term science has many meanings which include the overall body of knowledge which includes bad studies. However I can't understand why bad studies would be fundamental to "humans doing science"? You don't need to take other research results as correct to do your own, so why does bad science need to be part of the mix? Can't we choose to ignore them or treat them with skepticism?
  - zepto 5y ago
    > You don't need to take other research results as correct to do your own Usually you do need to rely on other people’s results.
    - brutusborn 5y ago
      But why? Is it because you can't tell good studies from bad? If so, doesn't that mean that you shouldn't be using these studies in the first place?
      - zepto 5y ago
        Isn’t that the whole point? It does in fact seem that scientists in general are not good at telling good studies from had. Why would this be surprising?
        brutusborn 5y ago
        If scientists can't tell good studies from bad and yet use the results of these studies, then in my mind those scientists are simply doing bad science and are adding to the problem, since their studies will also be bad. The first example given in the article is of a researcher who published faked results. Other researches shouldn't be basing their research on these faked results. They can wait till the results are independently replicated, or replicate them themselves. The main reason of using a scientific method is to eliminate bad theories and part of this is determining the truthfulness of other scientists. In summary, using bad studies isn't fundamental unless you're fundementally doing bad science that can't discern good evidence from bad. The "surprise" you are attributing to my comments is essentially amazement at the idea that people trained to seek knowledge would be so careless that they take the results of studies as a base truth with which to continue their work.
        zepto 5y ago
        > If scientists can't tell good studies from bad and yet use the results of these studies, then in my mind those scientists are simply doing bad science and are adding to the problem, since their studies will also be bad. Yes, I completely agree with this. > They can wait till the results are independently replicated, Yes, this would be ideal. A mechanism to trace replication history would help. Most studies though never get replicated, and don’t replicate. > or replicate them themselves. In very rare cases, perhaps, but in general this would be impractical. > In summary, using bad studies isn't fundamental How can you be so sure? The reason science is done this way is due to human behavior and incentive systems which have never so far escaped this problem. You are comparing against an ideal which has never existed in reality. > unless you're fundementally doing bad science This is how science is done. It is certainly fundamental to the current practice of science. > that can't discern good evidence from bad. This is a false dichotomy. Evidence is not binary. Science is much less able to distinguish strong evidence from weak evidence than in your imagined ideal, but then again, your imagined ideal has never existed, > The "surprise" you are attributing to my comments is essentially amazement at the idea that people trained to seek knowledge would be so careless that they take the results of studies as a base truth with which to continue their work. Are you feigning the surprise as a rhetorical device or do you really not know how science works?
AlexCoventry 5y ago
It sounds like he's talking about science as a living human institution. From that perspective, he's making a strong case.

zepto 5y ago

> Science is simply a method that can be done well or badly Science as a word doesn’t typically denote “the scientific method”. It usually means the body of knowledge and the collective of institutions that claim to practice the method. The bad studies may not be fundamental to some abstract ideal of what science could be, but they seem pretty fundamental to humans doing science in the real world.

brutusborn 5y ago
I completely agree that the term science has many meanings which include the overall body of knowledge which includes bad studies. However I can't understand why bad studies would be fundamental to "humans doing science"? You don't need to take other research results as correct to do your own, so why does bad science need to be part of the mix? Can't we choose to ignore them or treat them with skepticism?
- zepto 5y ago
  > You don't need to take other research results as correct to do your own Usually you do need to rely on other people’s results.
  - brutusborn 5y ago
    But why? Is it because you can't tell good studies from bad? If so, doesn't that mean that you shouldn't be using these studies in the first place?
    - zepto 5y ago
      Isn’t that the whole point? It does in fact seem that scientists in general are not good at telling good studies from had. Why would this be surprising?
      - brutusborn 5y ago
        If scientists can't tell good studies from bad and yet use the results of these studies, then in my mind those scientists are simply doing bad science and are adding to the problem, since their studies will also be bad. The first example given in the article is of a researcher who published faked results. Other researches shouldn't be basing their research on these faked results. They can wait till the results are independently replicated, or replicate them themselves. The main reason of using a scientific method is to eliminate bad theories and part of this is determining the truthfulness of other scientists. In summary, using bad studies isn't fundamental unless you're fundementally doing bad science that can't discern good evidence from bad. The "surprise" you are attributing to my comments is essentially amazement at the idea that people trained to seek knowledge would be so careless that they take the results of studies as a base truth with which to continue their work.
        zepto 5y ago
        > If scientists can't tell good studies from bad and yet use the results of these studies, then in my mind those scientists are simply doing bad science and are adding to the problem, since their studies will also be bad. Yes, I completely agree with this. > They can wait till the results are independently replicated, Yes, this would be ideal. A mechanism to trace replication history would help. Most studies though never get replicated, and don’t replicate. > or replicate them themselves. In very rare cases, perhaps, but in general this would be impractical. > In summary, using bad studies isn't fundamental How can you be so sure? The reason science is done this way is due to human behavior and incentive systems which have never so far escaped this problem. You are comparing against an ideal which has never existed in reality. > unless you're fundementally doing bad science This is how science is done. It is certainly fundamental to the current practice of science. > that can't discern good evidence from bad. This is a false dichotomy. Evidence is not binary. Science is much less able to distinguish strong evidence from weak evidence than in your imagined ideal, but then again, your imagined ideal has never existed, > The "surprise" you are attributing to my comments is essentially amazement at the idea that people trained to seek knowledge would be so careless that they take the results of studies as a base truth with which to continue their work. Are you feigning the surprise as a rhetorical device or do you really not know how science works?

AlexCoventry 5y ago

It sounds like he's talking about science as a living human institution. From that perspective, he's making a strong case.