4 ms·
>Isn't this the definition of how science should work. There are two problems. First is the easy problem which is that #3 doesn't always happen. The data get
by Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>Isn't this the definition of how science should work.
There are two problems. First is the easy problem which is that #3 doesn't always happen. The data gets slightly cooked, the study gets redone, explanations are given as to explain away the results. The way it is done can be from outright dishonest to quite acceptable.
But the bigger problem is that there are some hypotheses that are not thought up or tested, or are done so in low numbers. Namely ones that would be political/career suicide, but even those that could hurt funding or that would have biased a person from ever becoming a researcher. For example, say you wanted to test an experiment that gay women were more violent to their domestic partners that straight men, straight women, or gay men.
Finally, even when results may be found, they will be attacked as being untrustable because the author must've been biased to even go looking for such results.
- pedrocr 11y agoMost of what you mention, while probably true is not the issue I was replying to. >Finally, even when results may be found, they will be attacked as being untrustable because the author must've been biased to even go looking for such results. Sure, and that may be the problem of looking for a predetermined outcome that haberman was referring to. If your testing methods are poor enough that spurious results are likely, then the fact that all your hypothesis are somehow biased is a problem. Though I'd say the problem is more with the testing methods than with the hypothesis. Using the LHC example again no one could attack Higgs for being biased as an argument for the boson not existing after the LHC results were in. The provenance of the hypothesis should be irrelevant if the testing methods are good enough to provide strong evidence for it.