4 ms·

I think the word 'scientific' is one of the most abused or confused words around. Should it only be used for areas where relative certainty can be established o

by dejb 17y ago

I think the word 'scientific' is one of the most abused or confused words around. Should it only be used for areas where relative certainty can be established or should it also encompass logical and evidence-based speculation on things that cannot currently be tested well? It doesn't matter what the 'true' definition of the word is when the majority of people use it differently. From one direction calling evo-psych 'scientific' can fool others into believing there is more evidence than there really is. From the other side a well-reasoned argument with incomplete evidence like 'smoking causes cancer (in the 60s)' can be made to look like astrology by using the word 'unscientific'. Perhaps a new words need to be invented so that people can talk about these things more clearly.

berntb 17y ago
>>I think the word 'scientific' is one of the most abused or confused words around. Agreed, it is misused. But note that some of the research in any field will be of bad quality (the book on rape was probably one) -- and some will be good. You will have probabilities in all active research areas (see e.g. diet advice...). Note that ideologically motivated people argue that researchers in all evolutionary biology are in a conspiracy or complete idiots. Many of the critics of evolutionary psychology are obviously also ideologically motivated, but sure... they could be closer to the target than the creationists. (Marxists and religious people have problems with lots of behavior being built in; don't ask me about the specifics. Don't tell me either, I don't really care). Here is quite a fun answer to some of that criticism: http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html (And note, most researchers in two fields -- intelligence and evolutionary psychology -- would have to be in a conspiracy for Gould to be honest... :-)
- omouse 17y ago
  Note that ideologically motivated people argue that researchers in all evolutionary biology are in a conspiracy or complete idiots. Note that alternative medicine, evolutionary psychologists, and creationists/intelligent designers will argue that the "establishment" scientists are in a conspiracy or complete idiots.
  - berntb 17y ago
    Evolutionary psychologists are the establishment. :-) If you want to contradict, do you have some references from non-idealists that aren't discredited (like Buller)? By the way, the author of the article was "downvoted" on Pharyngula, last time she wrote about evolution... http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/sharon_begley_how_could_you.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/sharon_begley_how...

by dejb 17y ago

berntb 17y ago

>>I think the word 'scientific' is one of the most abused or confused words around. Agreed, it is misused. But note that some of the research in any field will be of bad quality (the book on rape was probably one) -- and some will be good. You will have probabilities in all active research areas (see e.g. diet advice...). Note that ideologically motivated people argue that researchers in all evolutionary biology are in a conspiracy or complete idiots. Many of the critics of evolutionary psychology are obviously also ideologically motivated, but sure... they could be closer to the target than the creationists. (Marxists and religious people have problems with lots of behavior being built in; don't ask me about the specifics. Don't tell me either, I don't really care). Here is quite a fun answer to some of that criticism: http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html (And note, most researchers in two fields -- intelligence and evolutionary psychology -- would have to be in a conspiracy for Gould to be honest... :-)

omouse 17y ago
Note that ideologically motivated people argue that researchers in all evolutionary biology are in a conspiracy or complete idiots. Note that alternative medicine, evolutionary psychologists, and creationists/intelligent designers will argue that the "establishment" scientists are in a conspiracy or complete idiots.
- berntb 17y ago
  Evolutionary psychologists are the establishment. :-) If you want to contradict, do you have some references from non-idealists that aren't discredited (like Buller)? By the way, the author of the article was "downvoted" on Pharyngula, last time she wrote about evolution... http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/sharon_begley_how_could_you.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/sharon_begley_how...