08 Feb 21
So we can talk a bit of how science should work.
If I follow Popper I formulate a hypothesis based on evidence.
I formulate in a way that it is possible to falsify my hypothesis.
Then I devise an experiment, where I (implicitly or explicitly) forecast the result based on my hypothesis. Then I preform the experiment and Analyse the result.
Either the result is as foretold, then I have evidence that it might be true. Or the results show something different, falsifying my hypothesis.
In both cases I win some insight.
@Ponderable
Unfortunately, corporations fund most scientific research, which gives lazy thinkers the opportunity to claim that only favourable results are published and unfavourable ones are suppressed.
Is it possible to overcome this perceived distortion of the facts and avoid giving this opportunity to denialists and conspiracy theorists?
@kewpie saidThe problem is: it has happend.
@Ponderable
Unfortunately, corporations fund most scientific research, which gives lazy thinkers the opportunity to claim that only favourable results are published and unfavourable ones are suppressed.
Is it possible to overcome this perceived distortion of the facts and avoid giving this opportunity to denialists and conspiracy theorists?
The next problem is that even state-sponsored research is not always honest about "failures". If you want to publish you have to present what worked. One consequence is that some ideas are tried over and over without success.
@ponderable saidYes, exactly.
The problem is: it has happend.
The next problem is that even state-sponsored research is not always honest about "failures". If you want to publish you have to present what worked. One consequence is that some ideas are tried over and over without success.
see;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias
"...Publication bias is a type of bias that occurs in published academic research. It occurs when the outcome of an experiment or research study influences the decision whether to publish or otherwise distribute it. Publishing only results that show a significant finding disturbs the balance of findings, and inserts bias in favor of positive results.
..."
and it has already and continues to help perpetuate such myths as vit C curing the common cold and phone masks and electric pylons causing cancer and cholesterol causing heart disease and no end of other baseless BS myths.
@sonhouse saidAt first I didn't know what you meant but then I tried to look it up and found this;
@humy
Don't forget wind towers causing cancer.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_syndrome
"...In early 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump suggested a false conspiracy that the noise from windmills may cause cancer..."
LOL. That is news to me. I didn't know about that. What a moron.
I don't know if publication bias has resulted in some studies giving a false belief to many of the more gullible laypeople that there is some kind of significant causal link between wind turbines and cancer, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if that's already happened.
12 Feb 21
@humy
I think his day is coming. Now Georgia AG is filing charges against Trump for the attempt to subvert the election, 'give me 11,780 votes' and a threat if they didn't.
Several felony charges are adding up there, to begin in March.
Then there is NY going after taxes.
Federal pardon which he undoubtedly gave himself secretly, no help against state charges.
Going to be a fun year for our ex corruptor in chief.
@ponderable saidOne way to mitigate the effects of publication bias is through collaborative science, which has been gaining steam for some time. Get the scientists out of their institutional silos and working together to solve problems. That way, while the negative results are still not published in peer reviewed journals (because that's boring) they are at least known to colleagues who work in the same field.
The problem is: it has happend.
The next problem is that even state-sponsored research is not always honest about "failures". If you want to publish you have to present what worked. One consequence is that some ideas are tried over and over without success.
@eladar saidUnfortunately you can't separate the two. Trump made so many anti-science statements that half the population still believe there must be some truth in conspiracy theories, otherwise why would the most powerful man in the world be spruiking them? I guess it's what happens when you hand the throne to an uninformed celebrity without putting a muzzle on him.
How science should work, then Trump, lol.
Following the scientific method, which requires every hypothesis to be constantly challenged and tested, is where we all need our leaders to be. Organisations like the WHO should be strengthened, to reduce confirmation bias among the different silos.
17 Feb 21
@ponderable saidThe next step I would have thought must be to repeat the experiment under exactly the same conditions a number of times and get exactly the same result every time.
So we can talk a bit of how science should work.
If I follow Popper I formulate a hypothesis based on evidence.
I formulate in a way that it is possible to falsify my hypothesis.
Then I devise an experiment, where I (implicitly or explicitly) forecast the result based on my hypothesis. Then I preform the experiment and Analyse the result.
Either the result is as fore ...[text shortened]... the results show something different, falsifying my hypothesis.
In both cases I win some insight.
For example if I enter 2 + 2 into my calculator I will always get the answer 4 unless the conditions have changed such as the battery being very low resulting in the calculator not working properly
17 Feb 21
@venda saidThat is a very important point to show results to be reproducible. However exact is a problem. Being in 1 % is quite well for experimental science. being much more precise needs a lot of effort, due to the problem of having exact the same conditions.
The next step I would have thought must be to repeat the experiment under exactly the same conditions a number of times and get exactly the same result every time.
For example if I enter 2 + 2 into my calculator I will always get the answer 4 unless the conditions have changed such as the battery being very low resulting in the calculator not working properly
17 Feb 21
@sonhouse saidAnyway. Lets cease with that topic please and concentrate on the scientific method.
@Eladar
That would be because Trump is, was, and will forever be anti science, pro conspiracy theories, like windmills cause cancer, ingesting bleach cures Covid, climate change caused by man is fake, GET THOSE COAL MINES GOING AGAIN.
18 Feb 21
@ponderable saidYes, of course, experiments need to be repeated. But for most well-crafted hypothesis testing experiments, exact reproduction is not practical or necessary.
That is a very important point to show results to be reproducible. However exact is a problem. Being in 1 % is quite well for experimental science. being much more precise needs a lot of effort, due to the problem of having exact the same conditions.