5 ms·

Luckily, the fact that individual scientists are subject to the confirmation bias does not greatly affect the workings of science as a whole... for as soon as a

by D_Alex 14y ago

Luckily, the fact that individual scientists are subject to the confirmation bias does not greatly affect the workings of science as a whole... for as soon as an interesting theory is developed by some scientist, hordes of other scientists will try to prove it false. For whatever reason...

username3 14y ago
Where are the hordes of other scientists trying to prove Darwinism false?
- JamisonM 14y ago
  I think those hordes assembled in the 1860's, I do not know what the half-life of a disproving scientist horde is but I suspect they have dispersed in disappointment quite some time ago.
- tokenadult 14y ago
  Where are the hordes of other scientists trying to prove Darwinism false? I hope they are reading the prior literature on the science of evolution, for example as assembled in the "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent," http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ so that they understand what "Darwinism" is today after 150 years of scientists checking facts and refining the understanding of the origin of species. Alas, there are still spectacular examples of people who purport to be scientists who disagree with Darwin http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/21/creationist-fud-refuted/ http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/21/creationist-fu... who totally misunderstand what Darwin meant and what evidence has turned up in more recent generations to refine our understanding of evolution.
  - username3 14y ago
    I hope they are reading the critiques, but as your comment proves, scientists trying to prove Darwinism false are just people purporting to be scientists. https://www.google.com/search?q=29%2B+Evidences+for+Macroevolution https://www.google.com/search?q=29%2B+Evidences+for+Macroevo... e.g., A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences For Macroevolution” http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
- natep 14y ago
  Did you know that Darwin wrote 6 additional editions of Origin of Species [1] to address his critics? That there are many possible ways to disprove evolution by natural selection [2]? [1] http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html [2] Finding a species that won't fit in any taxonomy, a dog giving birth to a non-dog, finding a fossil in the wrong layer, etc.
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_eclipse_of_Darwinism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_eclipse_of_Darwinism
  - pjscott 14y ago
    Which was, thankfully, followed by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
- gjm11 14y ago
  In the same place as the hordes of other scientists trying to prove Einsteinism false: in the history books. (No, real scientists don't call it Einsteinism, they call it relativity. Real scientists tend to say "evolution" or "natural selection" rather than Darwinism, too.)
  - username3 14y ago
    https://www.google.com/search?q=darwinism https://www.google.com/search?q=darwinism in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
    - gjm11 14y ago
      Even here in the UK, "evolution" seems to me distinctly more common than "Darwinism".
refurb 14y ago
This is actually very true. During my graduate work in chemistry, I learned how to present well because anytime you present something to a group of scientists, they immediately question every single assumption or scientific result that you obtained.
natep 14y ago
I smiled when I read that the main example of bias in science was countered by more science. Not very many other human endeavors have that quality.
nessus42 14y ago
This just is not true to the degree that people are typically led to believe. As I mentioned elsewhere on this page, Thomas Kuhn completely demolished this idealized version of how science works when he published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962. The particular field that I know best where Kuhn's critique applies is that of psychology. For many decades, Skinnerian behavioral psychology was the orthodoxy for the scientific approach to psychology. Back in the day, if a scientist wanted to pursue a more cognitive approach, he would be squeezed out of the field. The rationale for this from the behaviorists was that cognitivism was anti-scientific because it posited complex internal mental states that could not be directly observed, which was considered to be counter to Empiricism, and hence anti-scientific. Behavioral psychology was based on the premise that mental states are very simple, and therefore that nearly everything important can be easily measured by directly observing behavior. In their enthusiasm to be "scientific" and promote objective measurement, the behaviorists missed something very important: That their model was completely wrong. Wanting something to be easy to measure doesn't make it so. And the cognitivist claim that people have complex internal states is not anti-scientific, despite the protests of the behaviorists. The "paradigm shift" did eventually come, when no other than Noam Chomsky published a devastating criticism of behaviorism that opened the door for the cognitive approach to be taken seriously. But this didn't happen without a fight that had lasted decades, where many careers were needlessly ruined, and the entire field was held back by decades. The fact that Kuhn was so right on is seen by the fact that Kuhn's book was actually written before the Behavoirsim -> Cognitive Psychology shakeup was complete. The most prominent example in Kuhn's book, I believe, is for the rise of quantum mechanics.
- lusr 14y ago
  I'm puzzled by this. As far as I can understand from your argument, a bunch of scientists didn't apply scientific method as well as they could. Meanwhile, another bunch did apply scientific method more objectively. And objectivity won out. Where is the problem? There is an implicit, and idealistic, assumption here that science is flawed because the implementation scientists have is less than perfect and new ideas are not accepted instantly - despite there being very good reasons for this, and, in the long run, all of this working perfectly well to advance human knowledge.

by D_Alex 14y ago

username3 14y ago

Where are the hordes of other scientists trying to prove Darwinism false?

JamisonM 14y ago
I think those hordes assembled in the 1860's, I do not know what the half-life of a disproving scientist horde is but I suspect they have dispersed in disappointment quite some time ago.
tokenadult 14y ago
Where are the hordes of other scientists trying to prove Darwinism false? I hope they are reading the prior literature on the science of evolution, for example as assembled in the "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent," http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ so that they understand what "Darwinism" is today after 150 years of scientists checking facts and refining the understanding of the origin of species. Alas, there are still spectacular examples of people who purport to be scientists who disagree with Darwin http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/21/creationist-fud-refuted/ http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/21/creationist-fu... who totally misunderstand what Darwin meant and what evidence has turned up in more recent generations to refine our understanding of evolution.
- username3 14y ago
  I hope they are reading the critiques, but as your comment proves, scientists trying to prove Darwinism false are just people purporting to be scientists. https://www.google.com/search?q=29%2B+Evidences+for+Macroevolution https://www.google.com/search?q=29%2B+Evidences+for+Macroevo... e.g., A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences For Macroevolution” http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
natep 14y ago
Did you know that Darwin wrote 6 additional editions of Origin of Species [1] to address his critics? That there are many possible ways to disprove evolution by natural selection [2]? [1] http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html [2] Finding a species that won't fit in any taxonomy, a dog giving birth to a non-dog, finding a fossil in the wrong layer, etc.
snowwrestler 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_eclipse_of_Darwinism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_eclipse_of_Darwinism
- pjscott 14y ago
  Which was, thankfully, followed by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
gjm11 14y ago
In the same place as the hordes of other scientists trying to prove Einsteinism false: in the history books. (No, real scientists don't call it Einsteinism, they call it relativity. Real scientists tend to say "evolution" or "natural selection" rather than Darwinism, too.)
- username3 14y ago
  https://www.google.com/search?q=darwinism https://www.google.com/search?q=darwinism in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
  - gjm11 14y ago
    Even here in the UK, "evolution" seems to me distinctly more common than "Darwinism".

refurb 14y ago

This is actually very true. During my graduate work in chemistry, I learned how to present well because anytime you present something to a group of scientists, they immediately question every single assumption or scientific result that you obtained.

natep 14y ago

I smiled when I read that the main example of bias in science was countered by more science. Not very many other human endeavors have that quality.

nessus42 14y ago

This just is not true to the degree that people are typically led to believe. As I mentioned elsewhere on this page, Thomas Kuhn completely demolished this idealized version of how science works when he published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962. The particular field that I know best where Kuhn's critique applies is that of psychology. For many decades, Skinnerian behavioral psychology was the orthodoxy for the scientific approach to psychology. Back in the day, if a scientist wanted to pursue a more cognitive approach, he would be squeezed out of the field. The rationale for this from the behaviorists was that cognitivism was anti-scientific because it posited complex internal mental states that could not be directly observed, which was considered to be counter to Empiricism, and hence anti-scientific. Behavioral psychology was based on the premise that mental states are very simple, and therefore that nearly everything important can be easily measured by directly observing behavior. In their enthusiasm to be "scientific" and promote objective measurement, the behaviorists missed something very important: That their model was completely wrong. Wanting something to be easy to measure doesn't make it so. And the cognitivist claim that people have complex internal states is not anti-scientific, despite the protests of the behaviorists. The "paradigm shift" did eventually come, when no other than Noam Chomsky published a devastating criticism of behaviorism that opened the door for the cognitive approach to be taken seriously. But this didn't happen without a fight that had lasted decades, where many careers were needlessly ruined, and the entire field was held back by decades. The fact that Kuhn was so right on is seen by the fact that Kuhn's book was actually written before the Behavoirsim -> Cognitive Psychology shakeup was complete. The most prominent example in Kuhn's book, I believe, is for the rise of quantum mechanics.

lusr 14y ago
I'm puzzled by this. As far as I can understand from your argument, a bunch of scientists didn't apply scientific method as well as they could. Meanwhile, another bunch did apply scientific method more objectively. And objectivity won out. Where is the problem? There is an implicit, and idealistic, assumption here that science is flawed because the implementation scientists have is less than perfect and new ideas are not accepted instantly - despite there being very good reasons for this, and, in the long run, all of this working perfectly well to advance human knowledge.