3 ms·

> To me, a critical analysis of research is often more valuable than the research itself. Critical analysis of research is science. I'm perpetually frustrated

> To me, a critical analysis of research is often more valuable than the research itself. Critical analysis of research is science. I'm perpetually frustrated with articles like this that seem to portray science as a failure by citing faulty studies, ignoring the fact that everything is working as it should.

jkubicek 14y ago
It bothers me to no end when people discuss "science" as if it were just one of many options available. Science is the pursuit of truth and the pursuit of truth is science. There are no alternatives.
- pnathan 14y ago
  Is logic science?
- tedunangst 14y ago
  Science is a means of pursuing the truth. People who read tea leaves also believe they're pursuing the truth, but nobody would say that's science.
onewland 14y ago
This is the Columbia Journalism Review. It's not saying science is stupid, it's saying that reporters are too quick to publish study results, when not enough research has been done on the subject topic.
- jkubicek 14y ago
  JohnsonB's comment[0] draws the same conclusion I did. The article seems to suggest that studies aren't working and we need to start listening to anecdotal evidence. I could have misinterpreted that passage, though. [0] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5080094 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5080094
  - rm999 14y ago
    The idea that scientific research is infallible is exactly what the article is arguing against - in fact, it claims this attitude is a bigger problem than the scientists or the media. Human-performed studies with limited budgets and unrealistic controls should not supersede expert opinion per se. When there is a disconnect between the two it is irresponsible not to question the scientific studies (in addition to the experts, of course).
rm999 14y ago
> Critical analysis of research is science You missed the point in the name of semantics, but I'll bite. Finding flaws in a scientific paper my be taking part in the scientific process, but it is by no means a science in itself - e.g. as a stats person, I can point out when a p value is misapplied, but I would never claim I just 'used science'. >I'm perpetually frustrated with articles like this that seem to portray science as a failure by citing faulty studies It's worth separating the philosophy of science from its application. This article is purely about the application and what has gone wrong. This is why I think this article is important for the STEM crowd: we are taught that science is an infallible philosophy (which I agree with), but it's easy to forget the garbage-in garbage-out nature of experimentation.

jkubicek 14y ago

It bothers me to no end when people discuss "science" as if it were just one of many options available. Science is the pursuit of truth and the pursuit of truth is science. There are no alternatives.

pnathan 14y ago
Is logic science?
tedunangst 14y ago
Science is a means of pursuing the truth. People who read tea leaves also believe they're pursuing the truth, but nobody would say that's science.

onewland 14y ago

This is the Columbia Journalism Review. It's not saying science is stupid, it's saying that reporters are too quick to publish study results, when not enough research has been done on the subject topic.

jkubicek 14y ago
JohnsonB's comment[0] draws the same conclusion I did. The article seems to suggest that studies aren't working and we need to start listening to anecdotal evidence. I could have misinterpreted that passage, though. [0] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5080094 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5080094
- rm999 14y ago
  The idea that scientific research is infallible is exactly what the article is arguing against - in fact, it claims this attitude is a bigger problem than the scientists or the media. Human-performed studies with limited budgets and unrealistic controls should not supersede expert opinion per se. When there is a disconnect between the two it is irresponsible not to question the scientific studies (in addition to the experts, of course).

rm999 14y ago

> Critical analysis of research is science You missed the point in the name of semantics, but I'll bite. Finding flaws in a scientific paper my be taking part in the scientific process, but it is by no means a science in itself - e.g. as a stats person, I can point out when a p value is misapplied, but I would never claim I just 'used science'. >I'm perpetually frustrated with articles like this that seem to portray science as a failure by citing faulty studies It's worth separating the philosophy of science from its application. This article is purely about the application and what has gone wrong. This is why I think this article is important for the STEM crowd: we are taught that science is an infallible philosophy (which I agree with), but it's easy to forget the garbage-in garbage-out nature of experimentation.