3 ms·

Decent article. I would just add that there seems to be a common misunderstanding about the role of skepticism and falsification in science. A prevailing idea

Decent article. I would just add that there seems to be a common misunderstanding about the role of skepticism and falsification in science. A prevailing idea is that one only needs to identify a single flaw in a study or piece of research, conclude that the study is bunk, and throw the entire thing in the trash. We see it here on HN all of the time, but that's not how real science works. There is also the problem of selective skepticism, which is really just confirmation bias in disguise. One can remain skeptical of a result or claim for as long as one wishes, and this gives the appearance of scientific thought, but it is exactly the opposite. A more scientific approach is to look at everything in terms of strength of evidence; what are the strengths and the flaws of every study. So this is a PSA: please don't be Fallacy Man [0] and throw out results based on flaws in a study unless they are critical. Moreover, it's true that you may not possess the requisite background to understand which flaws are critical and which are not. Skepticism is a necessary but not sufficient element in scientific methodology, and constantly refuting things does not a scientist make. [0] https://existentialcomics.com/comic/9 https://existentialcomics.com/comic/9

pdonis 4y ago
> A more scientific approach is to look at everything in terms of strength of evidence; what are the strengths and the flaws of every study. And unfortunately, much that is called "science" does not do this; it presents results as much more strongly supported by evidence than they actually are. Then everyone acts surprised when the results don't replicate or something turns up in a few years that shows the results were wrong or predictions based on those results don't pan out. Those results should never have been called "science" in the first place. My view on learning to do one's own research is that, unfortunately, in our current information environment, you don't have a choice: you have to do your own independent research because there is no information source you can trust to always be honest with you about the strengths and weaknesses of claims and evidence. Of course that doesn't mean you can just believe whatever you want, and doing your own research is hard. But there is no alternative in our current society.

pdonis 4y ago

> A more scientific approach is to look at everything in terms of strength of evidence; what are the strengths and the flaws of every study. And unfortunately, much that is called "science" does not do this; it presents results as much more strongly supported by evidence than they actually are. Then everyone acts surprised when the results don't replicate or something turns up in a few years that shows the results were wrong or predictions based on those results don't pan out. Those results should never have been called "science" in the first place. My view on learning to do one's own research is that, unfortunately, in our current information environment, you don't have a choice: you have to do your own independent research because there is no information source you can trust to always be honest with you about the strengths and weaknesses of claims and evidence. Of course that doesn't mean you can just believe whatever you want, and doing your own research is hard. But there is no alternative in our current society.