4 ms·

Fair, but in science there is no such thing as innocent until proven guilty or vice versus. The burden of proof lies with anyone trying to make a hypothesis and

by batoure 13y ago

Fair, but in science there is no such thing as innocent until proven guilty or vice versus. The burden of proof lies with anyone trying to make a hypothesis and the author of the article is hypothesizing and claiming results without method or control. This makes his argument effectively unscientific in the worst way.

lutusp 13y ago
> Fair, but in science there is no such thing as innocent until proven guilty or vice versus. There most certainly is. In everyday life, people assume an idea is true until proven false. This explains the widespread belief in the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, UFOs, and God. But to a scientist, the central precept is called the "null hypothesis", which essentially says that an idea is assumed to be false until evidence supports it -- the opposite of the ordinary outlook. This means: 1. A new idea is assumed to be false, and 2. The burden of evidence rests with those who introduce a new idea. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot > The burden of proof lies with anyone trying to make a hypothesis Yes, but in your next phrase, you get it entirely wrong. > ... and the author of the article is hypothesizing and claiming results without method or control. No, the author is placing the burden of evidence where it belongs -- with the originators of the ADHD idea. To go into this a bit more deeply, the reason for the current system of evidence responsibility is because the originator of an idea must provide positive proof, but if the rules were as you suggest, the idea's critics (like the author of the linked article) would have to prove a negative, which in most cases is an impossible evidentiary burden. The impossibility of proving a negative explains why so may ignorant people believe in ideas in the Bigfoot class -- things that cannot possibly be proven not to exist. This is why science has the rules that it does. And this is why psychology is not a science. http://xkcd.com/435/ http://xkcd.com/435/

by batoure 13y ago

lutusp 13y ago

> Fair, but in science there is no such thing as innocent until proven guilty or vice versus. There most certainly is. In everyday life, people assume an idea is true until proven false. This explains the widespread belief in the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, UFOs, and God. But to a scientist, the central precept is called the "null hypothesis", which essentially says that an idea is assumed to be false until evidence supports it -- the opposite of the ordinary outlook. This means: 1. A new idea is assumed to be false, and 2. The burden of evidence rests with those who introduce a new idea. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot > The burden of proof lies with anyone trying to make a hypothesis Yes, but in your next phrase, you get it entirely wrong. > ... and the author of the article is hypothesizing and claiming results without method or control. No, the author is placing the burden of evidence where it belongs -- with the originators of the ADHD idea. To go into this a bit more deeply, the reason for the current system of evidence responsibility is because the originator of an idea must provide positive proof, but if the rules were as you suggest, the idea's critics (like the author of the linked article) would have to prove a negative, which in most cases is an impossible evidentiary burden. The impossibility of proving a negative explains why so may ignorant people believe in ideas in the Bigfoot class -- things that cannot possibly be proven not to exist. This is why science has the rules that it does. And this is why psychology is not a science. http://xkcd.com/435/ http://xkcd.com/435/