Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
You can praise the method as much as you like, but the fact is, once you expect human beings to perform it, it becomes as prone to 'fads, fanatics and frauds' as anything else.
To quote him again, with added emphasis:
|
Yes but this reduces with the more people practise it. If this were a single individual or organisation, a collective which a shared motive, then I would agree that their findings would be just that of one study/person. I would take them with a massive pinch of salt if there was suspicion of economic incentive for that person/collective.
Other Scientists looking at the study and agreeing the study is sound, with no evidence suggesting foul play, would start to help reduce doubt. Finally scientist upon scientist coming up with similar findings, ones who may contradict some elements but not the overall picture, and peer review validating those conclusions would cause me to believe that, at the moment, this is the most likely truth.
That is the case with Global Warming, and to a stronger case evolution, with a few disagreeing voices. The problem is that their relatively small voices (i.e minority) are given more weight by the groups that want them to be right which distorts their actual importance and creditability in the debate. Effectively creating a set of sides which do not really exist in the wider scientific community.
These people are in the minority in the Scientific community. They deserve to be heard and serious studies (not populist books) should be taken into account because that is what science should be. However we cannot give undue prominence to them. Science cannot stop every time there are a couple of people who disagree.
---------- Post added at 15:38 ---------- Previous post was at 15:33 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
While it is certainly true that Science is not immune from it, it's a bit of a leap to say it is just as vulnerable. There are processes in place to make it less vulnerable. There is peer review, the process by which fellow scientists judge whether a paper is sound and worth publishing. There is the practice of writing up your studies and results in such a way that they can be replicated by others.
Sure, some people will defend their stance no matter what the evidence, and will just look for evidence that supports their stance. Some people will even massage and manipulate the data to suit their agenda, but generally, they don't. Partly because most scientists just want to find out how stuff works, and want to do it in the proper way, and partly because it won't do your career much good if you don't play by the rules. |
What he said.
Join CF
You are here: 
