Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Eat a Peach

Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 12:01:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If a (student) scientist wanted to do a scientific report on peaches, particularly the taste and flavor of peaches, one thing that would not be required is for the scientist to eat a peach.
To some of us, that may sound almost absurd, but it conforms to Science and how the quest for objectivity works.

If I were a lower level student, doing a report on the taste of peaches for health, or cooking, one of the first things I might do would be to buy various peaches, and eat them, writing down my impressions, but this would not be very scientific. As a matter of fact, it would be the antithesis of Science, as it is generally practiced today, in its quest for "objectivity".
A scientist might tell us that "taste" is a subjective thing, and just cannot be done scientifically, but of course this is not true. Scientists aid food companies in market research for new products, and study flavors to make recommendations.
Do we really think a scientist would say - "Sorry we cannot do a scientific study on the flavor of peaches, to say if they are salty, sweet, sour, bitter, or any particular flavor." I do not think so.

Science tells us that in order to be objective, we must remove ourselves from the subject, and step away from it, and observe it from a position of "nowhere", in as far as this is possible.
We observe it, in secrecy if necessary, that is to say the subject should not be aware of the observation, and the observation should be controlled if at all possible.

We measure it, and catalog its properties.
We have test subjects interact with it, under controlled circumstances if at all possible, and uncontrolled if possible, but less necessary.
In order to be objective, science tells us, we must separate ourselves from the subject, and stay outside of it, so obviously, ingesting it is the last thing we would want.

No ethical scientist experiments on themselves.
IOW, if we want to know reality, we must separate ourselves from it.
Others question this as being the most reasonable approach.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 2:09:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 12:31:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
So testing on yourself increases the Heisenberg effect?

If I want to know what a peach tastes like, and I eat one, I am doing no test, no experiment, I am eating a peach, as strange as that sounds.
I will then, as odd as it sounds, know what a peach tastes like.
As unscientific as this is, I find it works.
If I want to know the reality of eating a peach, I must eat a peach.
Do you believe there is a better way?

If I want to know what the effects on me are, after eating a peach, I must eat a peach.
I suppose that would be a test of sorts.
If others are present when I eat the peach, and they disagree with me about the effects on me, all things being equal, I will trust my judgment.
As unscientific as that is, I find it works.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 2:16:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 12:01:49 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

No ethical scientist experiments on themselves.
IOW, if we want to know reality, we must separate ourselves from it.
Others question this as being the most reasonable approach.

In the 1980s two countrymen of mine -- Barry Marshall and Robin Warren -- established beyond doubt that rather than being caused by stress, diet or lifestyle, stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria Helicobacter pylori infecting and aggravating the gut lining. It has subsequently been shown that this bacillus is responsible for more than 90% of duodenal ulcers, and 80% of gastric ulcers.

They first discovered this through autopsies, and gained supporting evidence through treatment with antibiotics. But because there was still strong medical resistance to the idea, Marshall proved it conclusively by infecting himself with bacteria and then curing his condition with antibiotics.

For this work, the pair won a well-deserved Nobel Prize in 2005, but this example and many others are why I take exception when ignorance says scientists don't involve themselves in their experiments. They do if it makes sense -- at a level politicians, theologicans and judges (for example) don't.

Scientists live for months and sometimes years in horrible conditions -- in deserts, jungles, on forlorn rocky islands or polar ice, in the mouths of volcanoes, on hideous seas, studying biology, anthropology, geology, ecology. Scientists like Marie and Pierre Curie have died of radiation from trying to understand it. Scientists like Copernicus and Galileo have endured persecution and imprisonment just to try to explore new ideas. Often some of the best students in their classes, scientists forego hundreds of thousands of dollars -- even millions sometimes -- in lifetime income, just to study their areas of research.

How ignorant does one have to be not to realise that scientists are deeply involved with their work?

But more than that, when a scientist must be separated from the incident, it's for good reason. The subject of science is not oneself, but humanity; not one person's experience of nature, but the behaviour of nature that everyone can share. So remote observations, and blind and double blind experiments, were developed for a reason - to take the subjective out of the observation.

Why?

Because truth isn't about what one person thinks or feels; it's about what everyone can observe, and how well everyone can predict it.

Anyone who insists otherwise, isn't offering truth, but claiming authority.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 4:34:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Anyone who believes that science is in the process of revealing Truth, with a capital T, meaning it will stand the test of time- for even a century - is ignorant of the history of science, or in denial concerning it.

The likelihood that most of the body of scientific knowledge we have today will still be valid in 100 years is very unlikely.
Major points that are the pillars for of the small points will undoubtedly be overturned.
History says the ability of Science to predict Truth is so-so at best. fifty percent - maybe.
Dr. Terry Halwes in his essay "The Terrible Truth About Truth" explains this very well.
http://www.dharma-haven.org...

"As a result, many of our beliefs about science don't really make much sense.
This article is about one of those beliefs, the notion that science is a method for discovering truth.
The formula for certainty, given in the quote from Magee, can be summarized like this: Careful Observation + Careful Deductive Reasoning = Completely Correct Knowledge. By the first decades of the Twentieth Century, all three of the components of this formula for infallible scientific truth had become highly suspect. "


The individual does not need a scientist to show him Truth.
Truth is all around us, always has been, always will be. Some will see it, some will not.

Attempting to place oneself outside reality, in order to see reality, will be one of those short lived truths of science, like so many others.
It is already being questioned by many on the inside of Science.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 4:59:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 12:01:49 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

No ethical scientist experiments on themselves.

Ha ha what? http://io9.com...
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 5:09:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 4:34:42 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Carelessly tossing a blanket of logic over a variety of reasoning is foolishness.

Anyone who believes that science is in the process of revealing Truth, with a capital T, meaning it will stand the test of time- for even a century - is ignorant of the history of science, or in denial concerning it.

Good thing the scientific community believes that science is the process of searching for the truth.

The likelihood that most of the body of scientific knowledge we have today will still be valid in 100 years is very unlikely.

True. It will have mostly improved.

Major points that are the pillars for of the small points will undoubtedly be overturned.

And improved.

History says the ability of Science to predict Truth is so-so at best. fifty percent - maybe.

Can you prove that?

Dr. Terry Halwes in his essay "The Terrible Truth About Truth" explains this very well.

What knowledgeable people agree with him?

"As a result, many of our beliefs about science don't really make much sense.

Only to people who erroneously think like you.

This article is about one of those beliefs, the notion that science is a method for discovering truth.

That would be a correct belief.

The formula for certainty, given in the quote from Magee, can be summarized like this: Careful Observation + Careful Deductive Reasoning = Completely Correct Knowledge. By the first decades of the Twentieth Century, all three of the components of this formula for infallible scientific truth had become highly suspect. "

Is that a widely accepted formula, and if so, by whom?

The individual does not need a scientist to show him Truth.

Gee, I wonder how they would have seen the truth about curing polio without science.

Truth is all around us, always has been, always will be. Some will see it, some will not.

And science has successively assisted in finding that truth.

Attempting to place oneself outside reality, in order to see reality, will be one of those short lived truths of science, like so many others.

A truly inane philosophy.

It is already being questioned by many on the inside of Science.

Can you prove that?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 5:34:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 5:09:10 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/27/2015 4:34:42 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Carelessly tossing a blanket of logic over a variety of reasoning is foolishness.

Anyone who believes that science is in the process of revealing Truth, with a capital T, meaning it will stand the test of time- for even a century - is ignorant of the history of science, or in denial concerning it.

Good thing the scientific community believes that science is the process of searching for the truth.

I'm glad you agree with me.
The likelihood that most of the body of scientific knowledge we have today will still be valid in 100 years is very unlikely.

True. It will have mostly improved.

You say "improved", I say "outdated".
Either way, it if for wrapping yesterday's fish.

Major points that are the pillars for of the small points will undoubtedly be overturned.

And improved.

See above.

History says the ability of Science to predict Truth is so-so at best. fifty percent - maybe.

Can you prove that?

Yes.

Dr. Terry Halwes in his essay "The Terrible Truth About Truth" explains this very well.

What knowledgeable people agree with him?

Well he is sure not alone.
Wait, you want to make an appeal to numbers. Very unscientific of you, fallacious reasoning and all.

"As a result, many of our beliefs about science don't really make much sense.

Only to people who erroneously think like you.

And the good Dr. Terry Halwes and many others.

This article is about one of those beliefs, the notion that science is a method for discovering truth.

That would be a correct belief.

Problems reading? - false belief.

The formula for certainty, given in the quote from Magee, can be summarized like this: Careful Observation + Careful Deductive Reasoning = Completely Correct Knowledge. By the first decades of the Twentieth Century, all three of the components of this formula for infallible scientific truth had become highly suspect. "

Is that a widely accepted formula, and if so, by whom?

Widely accepted formula???
Oh, I get it, you did not bother to read the essay.

The individual does not need a scientist to show him Truth.

Gee, I wonder how they would have seen the truth about curing polio without science.

What?
Non sequitur, you must be a member in good standing of fallacies -r-us.

Truth is all around us, always has been, always will be. Some will see it, some will not.

And science has successively assisted in finding that truth.

Its assistance is appreciated. Looking forward to the day it can stand on its own.

Attempting to place oneself outside reality, in order to see reality, will be one of those short lived truths of science, like so many others.

A truly inane philosophy.

It is already being questioned by many on the inside of Science.

Can you prove that?

Of course.
Don't get out much, do you.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 5:41:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 4:59:18 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/27/2015 12:01:49 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

No ethical scientist experiments on themselves.

Ha ha what? http://io9.com...

It does seem the subject is more controversial than I had thought.
As usual, not universal agreement, but many would agree with you.
BTW, I did not get any hits searching your reference for 'ethics' or 'ethical', but I did other places, so I will concede, even though your source does not discuss ethics, only results.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 5:49:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 5:41:51 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/27/2015 4:59:18 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 2/27/2015 12:01:49 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

No ethical scientist experiments on themselves.

Ha ha what? http://io9.com...

It does seem the subject is more controversial than I had thought.
As usual, not universal agreement, but many would agree with you.
BTW, I did not get any hits searching your reference for 'ethics' or 'ethical', but I did other places, so I will concede, even though your source does not discuss ethics, only results.

The reason why I found your statement humorous was because you didn't really posit a reason why self experimentation was unethical. As for ethics in the article it was brought up in the first paragraph: "Often, however, that experimentation is laughably silly, incredibly frightening, or unconscionably cruel. Since the reaction of most scientists who are faced with such experiments is either, "get a monkey" or "get an unsuspecting human," there are a lot of horror stories out there. There's also the need to take a little time to thank those few scientists who took one for the team." To avoid harming others in the name of knowledge these men chose to harm themselves instead. How is that not ethical? It's certainly more ethical than using someone else, and the self-experimenter knows the consequences and risks involved in their voluntary action.

In regards to the scientific method and having a higher N sure, but so long as you document that the experiment is done on one person (them self) then that allows others to understand the data and possibly recreate it.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 7:04:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 12:01:49 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
If a (student) scientist wanted to do a scientific report on peaches, particularly the taste and flavor of peaches, one thing that would not be required is for the scientist to eat a peach.
To some of us, that may sound almost absurd, but it conforms to Science and how the quest for objectivity works.

If I were a lower level student, doing a report on the taste of peaches for health, or cooking, one of the first things I might do would be to buy various peaches, and eat them, writing down my impressions, but this would not be very scientific. As a matter of fact, it would be the antithesis of Science, as it is generally practiced today, in its quest for "objectivity".
A scientist might tell us that "taste" is a subjective thing, and just cannot be done scientifically, but of course this is not true. Scientists aid food companies in market research for new products, and study flavors to make recommendations.
Do we really think a scientist would say - "Sorry we cannot do a scientific study on the flavor of peaches, to say if they are salty, sweet, sour, bitter, or any particular flavor." I do not think so.

Science tells us that in order to be objective, we must remove ourselves from the subject, and step away from it, and observe it from a position of "nowhere", in as far as this is possible.
We observe it, in secrecy if necessary, that is to say the subject should not be aware of the observation, and the observation should be controlled if at all possible.

We measure it, and catalog its properties.
We have test subjects interact with it, under controlled circumstances if at all possible, and uncontrolled if possible, but less necessary.
In order to be objective, science tells us, we must separate ourselves from the subject, and stay outside of it, so obviously, ingesting it is the last thing we would want.

No ethical scientist experiments on themselves.
IOW, if we want to know reality, we must separate ourselves from it.
Others question this as being the most reasonable approach.

Science is also a type of communication. So, in this example, if we wanted to communicate to someone what peaches taste like, we'd just give them a bag of peaches and ask them to try them. There'd be no need for a scientific study.

If there was a study on the taste of peaches, the question would be framed in a different way and in the context of existing theories of taste or peaches or whatever. Maybe it would be - are there cultural/gender/age differences in the subjective experience of peach taste? Or maybe it would be, what flavor elements are present in the peach taste during double-blind condition?. Or, how does the flavor experience of peaches relate to pectin content? Or something specific like that.

When the research question is specific like that, it's easy to see that it couldn't be answered by the researcher eating peach. They'd need to have someone - or a range of people - who were unaware of the experimental conditions.

I think that's a pragmatic consequence of those methodologies rather than something inherent to science, though. There are lots of examples of when scientists have used themselves as subjects.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 9:03:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 5:34:40 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/27/2015 5:09:10 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 2/27/2015 4:34:42 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

Carelessly tossing a blanket of logic over a variety of reasoning is foolishness.

Anyone who believes that science is in the process of revealing Truth, with a capital T, meaning it will stand the test of time- for even a century - is ignorant of the history of science, or in denial concerning it.

Good thing the scientific community believes that science is the process of searching for the truth.

I'm glad you agree with me.

You don't even agree with yourself. "Revealing" and "searching for" are quite different.

The likelihood that most of the body of scientific knowledge we have today will still be valid in 100 years is very unlikely.

True. It will have mostly improved.

You say "improved", I say "outdated".
Either way, it if for wrapping yesterday's fish.

I suppose that would mean something if you actually knew what you were talking about.

History says the ability of Science to predict Truth is so-so at best. fifty percent - maybe.

Can you prove that?

Yes.

And yet you don't.

Dr. Terry Halwes in his essay "The Terrible Truth About Truth" explains this very well.

What knowledgeable people agree with him?

Well he is sure not alone.
Wait, you want to make an appeal to numbers. Very unscientific of you, fallacious reasoning and all.

No, I want to question your appeal to obscure authority, and know what intelligent peers have to say to that alleged authority.

"As a result, many of our beliefs about science don't really make much sense.

Only to people who erroneously think like you.

And the good Dr. Terry Halwes and many others.

Many imaginary others.

This article is about one of those beliefs, the notion that science is a method for discovering truth.

That would be a correct belief.

Problems reading? - false belief.

Nope, I read just fine. The problem is clearly with your thinking.

The formula for certainty, given in the quote from Magee, can be summarized like this: Careful Observation + Careful Deductive Reasoning = Completely Correct Knowledge. By the first decades of the Twentieth Century, all three of the components of this formula for infallible scientific truth had become highly suspect. "

Is that a widely accepted formula, and if so, by whom?

Widely accepted formula???
Oh, I get it, you did not bother to read the essay.

No. I questioned your interpretation of the essay. But I admit that I didn't bother reading much of it. Didn't want to waste my time.

The individual does not need a scientist to show him Truth.

Gee, I wonder how they would have seen the truth about curing polio without science.

What?
Non sequitur, you must be a member in good standing of fallacies -r-us.

It followed well enough. Science is essential to some truths.


Truth is all around us, always has been, always will be. Some will see it, some will not.

And science has successively assisted in finding that truth.

Its assistance is appreciated. Looking forward to the day it can stand on its own.

Doing that just fine now.

It is already being questioned by many on the inside of Science.

Can you prove that?

Of course.

And yet again, you don't.

Don't get out much, do you.

Don't prove what you say much, or at all, do you?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 3:56:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 5:41:51 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
BTW, I did not get any hits searching your reference for 'ethics' or 'ethical', but I did other places, so I will concede, even though your source does not discuss ethics, only results.

Thank you, WW, for keeping the discussion thoughtful and civil.

There are in fact boards of ethics for research and experiment. They tend to be jurisdictional, so there may be differences between what's considered ethical in (say) the US or Australia. However, like all ethical conversations, groups exchange ideas; and ethical codes develop in response to experience and reflection.

All of them have something to say about the involvement of human subjects and researchers in experiment. If you want to see how bad things can get when researchers become directly involved in the experiment, there's a notorious example with the Stanford University Prison experiment, which I outline below.

In 1971, a two week experiment into prison psychology had to be abandoned after only six days, because it was producing effects in both students and researchers similar to those subsequently found in Abu Ghraib. The science world was horrified, and subsequent reflection transformed the way scientists think about ethical experimentation, and influenced one of the lead researchers -- Phil Zimbardo -- to think long and hard about the nature of evil, and how it can arise

Since you are very interested in the morals and ethics of science, you may be very interested, WW. (http://www.prisonexp.org...)

Forty years on, here's a TED talk by Phil Zimbardo about the psychology of evil. Although I'm an atheist and an empiricist, I find Zimbardo's talk illuminating, and find nothing to object to in it. (http://www.ted.com...)

You may form the conclusion -- or at least acknowledge the possibility -- that science can voice opinion on morality, and that many scientists think morality (a shared human notion of good and bad, and ethical obligations arising from that) should influence science. You might also acknowledge the possibility that many scientists consider moral responsibility central to their profession -- so that if they screw up and hurt people, then unlike many CEOs, politicians or clergy, they get together and change things so that they won't screw up that way again.

I hope this may be useful.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 6:13:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 7:04:59 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/27/2015 12:01:49 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
If a (student) scientist wanted to do a scientific report on peaches, particularly the taste and flavor of peaches, one thing that would not be required is for the scientist to eat a peach.
To some of us, that may sound almost absurd, but it conforms to Science and how the quest for objectivity works.

If I were a lower level student, doing a report on the taste of peaches for health, or cooking, one of the first things I might do would be to buy various peaches, and eat them, writing down my impressions, but this would not be very scientific. As a matter of fact, it would be the antithesis of Science, as it is generally practiced today, in its quest for "objectivity".
A scientist might tell us that "taste" is a subjective thing, and just cannot be done scientifically, but of course this is not true. Scientists aid food companies in market research for new products, and study flavors to make recommendations.
Do we really think a scientist would say - "Sorry we cannot do a scientific study on the flavor of peaches, to say if they are salty, sweet, sour, bitter, or any particular flavor." I do not think so.

Science tells us that in order to be objective, we must remove ourselves from the subject, and step away from it, and observe it from a position of "nowhere", in as far as this is possible.
We observe it, in secrecy if necessary, that is to say the subject should not be aware of the observation, and the observation should be controlled if at all possible.

We measure it, and catalog its properties.
We have test subjects interact with it, under controlled circumstances if at all possible, and uncontrolled if possible, but less necessary.
In order to be objective, science tells us, we must separate ourselves from the subject, and stay outside of it, so obviously, ingesting it is the last thing we would want.

No ethical scientist experiments on themselves.
IOW, if we want to know reality, we must separate ourselves from it.
Others question this as being the most reasonable approach.

Science is also a type of communication. So, in this example, if we wanted to communicate to someone what peaches taste like, we'd just give them a bag of peaches and ask them to try them. There'd be no need for a scientific study.

If there was a study on the taste of peaches, the question would be framed in a different way and in the context of existing theories of taste or peaches or whatever. Maybe it would be - are there cultural/gender/age differences in the subjective experience of peach taste? Or maybe it would be, what flavor elements are present in the peach taste during double-blind condition?. Or, how does the flavor experience of peaches relate to pectin content? Or something specific like that.

When the research question is specific like that, it's easy to see that it couldn't be answered by the researcher eating peach. They'd need to have someone - or a range of people - who were unaware of the experimental conditions.

I think that's a pragmatic consequence of those methodologies rather than something inherent to science, though. There are lots of examples of when scientists have used themselves as subjects.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Like so many others you dance around the subject and my claim, looking for chinks in the armor to say well, under this or that circumstance my claim may not be true.

Here is what I say:
If a (student) scientist wanted to do a scientific report on peaches, particularly the taste and flavor of peaches, one thing that would not be required is for the scientist to eat a peach.

Do you disagree, or do you only say, 'Well, a (student) scientist may choose to eat a peach.'
Maybe -
'The way some tests are designed, or framed, it may be helpful for the (student) scientist to eat a peach.'
I never said a student scientist was forbidden form eating a peach to do a scientific report on the taste of peaches.
I only said that in some cases any information from such an experience would be completely useless, as it would be completely subjective, and counter to a primary principle of Science.
I feel sure you do not meant to imply that subjectivity as defined by science is now welcomed as a part of Scientific reports.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 6:33:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
An excerpt from a recent reading:

Not everyone accepts the idea that science has made successful, steady progress. Most notably, Kuhn (1962) in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolution," pointed out that if science progressed step-by-step, newer scientific models of reality would be merely more refined, more evolved versions of older models. But they aren"t.

Instead, new models are radically and revolutionarily different from older models. For example, the idea that the earth revolves around the sun is not a refined version of the previous view that the sun revolves around the earth, and Newton"s idea that an object in motion tends to stay in motion is not a refined version of Aristotle"s view that rest is the natural state of an object. Partly to emphasize that scientists" newer models are so different from older models, Kuhn coined the term paradigm: a lens, conceptual worldview, a model of how the world and science works, a framework, or very broad theory shared by a group of scientists that determines what that community of scientists notice, look for, and study.

One obvious implication of the newer paradigm being radically different from the older paradigm is that switching from the old paradigm to the new paradigm does not involve taking a small step but instead involves taking a quantum leap. A less obvious implication of the newer paradigm being radically different from the previous paradigm is that the previous paradigm may have little to contribute to the newer one.

If the older model has little to contribute to the newer model, scientists may, rather than building on to the previous paradigm, bulldoze it. If scientists bulldoze the old paradigm, all that step-by-step progress made by the old paradigm is also swept away. By pointing out that revolutionary change does occur and by arguing that the steady, evolutionary, routine work that scientists do is swept away during the revolution, Kuhn attempts to lay waste to the textbook-created illusion that science makes lasting, steady progress.

http://www.jolley-mitchell.com...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 9:12:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sorry I gotta troll this thread

https://www.youtube.com...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 3:51:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 6:13:30 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:04:59 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/27/2015 12:01:49 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
If a (student) scientist wanted to do a scientific report on peaches, particularly the taste and flavor of peaches, one thing that would not be required is for the scientist to eat a peach.
To some of us, that may sound almost absurd, but it conforms to Science and how the quest for objectivity works.

If I were a lower level student, doing a report on the taste of peaches for health, or cooking, one of the first things I might do would be to buy various peaches, and eat them, writing down my impressions, but this would not be very scientific. As a matter of fact, it would be the antithesis of Science, as it is generally practiced today, in its quest for "objectivity".
A scientist might tell us that "taste" is a subjective thing, and just cannot be done scientifically, but of course this is not true. Scientists aid food companies in market research for new products, and study flavors to make recommendations.
Do we really think a scientist would say - "Sorry we cannot do a scientific study on the flavor of peaches, to say if they are salty, sweet, sour, bitter, or any particular flavor." I do not think so.

Science tells us that in order to be objective, we must remove ourselves from the subject, and step away from it, and observe it from a position of "nowhere", in as far as this is possible.
We observe it, in secrecy if necessary, that is to say the subject should not be aware of the observation, and the observation should be controlled if at all possible.

We measure it, and catalog its properties.
We have test subjects interact with it, under controlled circumstances if at all possible, and uncontrolled if possible, but less necessary.
In order to be objective, science tells us, we must separate ourselves from the subject, and stay outside of it, so obviously, ingesting it is the last thing we would want.

No ethical scientist experiments on themselves.
IOW, if we want to know reality, we must separate ourselves from it.
Others question this as being the most reasonable approach.

Science is also a type of communication. So, in this example, if we wanted to communicate to someone what peaches taste like, we'd just give them a bag of peaches and ask them to try them. There'd be no need for a scientific study.

If there was a study on the taste of peaches, the question would be framed in a different way and in the context of existing theories of taste or peaches or whatever. Maybe it would be - are there cultural/gender/age differences in the subjective experience of peach taste? Or maybe it would be, what flavor elements are present in the peach taste during double-blind condition?. Or, how does the flavor experience of peaches relate to pectin content? Or something specific like that.

When the research question is specific like that, it's easy to see that it couldn't be answered by the researcher eating peach. They'd need to have someone - or a range of people - who were unaware of the experimental conditions.

I think that's a pragmatic consequence of those methodologies rather than something inherent to science, though. There are lots of examples of when scientists have used themselves as subjects.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Like so many others you dance around the subject and my claim, looking for chinks in the armor to say well, under this or that circumstance my claim may not be true.

Hey what? Sorry, if I've missed the point. I thought you meant that subjectivity had no place in scientific reports, and I was just saying that that's not always true because sometimes it does. Is that not what this thread is about?

Here is what I say:
If a (student) scientist wanted to do a scientific report on peaches, particularly the taste and flavor of peaches, one thing that would not be required is for the scientist to eat a peach.

Do you disagree, or do you only say, 'Well, a (student) scientist may choose to eat a peach.'

No, but "the taste and flavor of peaches" isn't a scientific question. It's not a question at all, actually, and until you pose it properly, it's impossible to say whether the student would need to eat a peach or not.

Maybe -
'The way some tests are designed, or framed, it may be helpful for the (student) scientist to eat a peach.'
I never said a student scientist was forbidden form eating a peach to do a scientific report on the taste of peaches.
I only said that in some cases any information from such an experience would be completely useless, as it would be completely subjective, and counter to a primary principle of Science.
I feel sure you do not meant to imply that subjectivity as defined by science is now welcomed as a part of Scientific reports.

It depends on the topic, but I think most people agree that subjectivity is inherent in science in some ways, for example, in the formulation of hypotheses and the choice of research projects. Subjectivity can also make up part of the content of reports. Obviously, if the topic were the subjective experience of peach eating, then the subjective experience of some people needs to be recorded somehow. Usually, that wouldn't be the experimenter's own subjective experience, but in some circumstances it might be. It depends.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 7:05:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 3:51:55 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/28/2015 6:13:30 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:04:59 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/27/2015 12:01:49 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
If a (student) scientist wanted to do a scientific report on peaches, particularly the taste and flavor of peaches, one thing that would not be required is for the scientist to eat a peach.
To some of us, that may sound almost absurd, but it conforms to Science and how the quest for objectivity works.

If I were a lower level student, doing a report on the taste of peaches for health, or cooking, one of the first things I might do would be to buy various peaches, and eat them, writing down my impressions, but this would not be very scientific. As a matter of fact, it would be the antithesis of Science, as it is generally practiced today, in its quest for "objectivity".
A scientist might tell us that "taste" is a subjective thing, and just cannot be done scientifically, but of course this is not true. Scientists aid food companies in market research for new products, and study flavors to make recommendations.
Do we really think a scientist would say - "Sorry we cannot do a scientific study on the flavor of peaches, to say if they are salty, sweet, sour, bitter, or any particular flavor." I do not think so.

Science tells us that in order to be objective, we must remove ourselves from the subject, and step away from it, and observe it from a position of "nowhere", in as far as this is possible.
We observe it, in secrecy if necessary, that is to say the subject should not be aware of the observation, and the observation should be controlled if at all possible.

We measure it, and catalog its properties.
We have test subjects interact with it, under controlled circumstances if at all possible, and uncontrolled if possible, but less necessary.
In order to be objective, science tells us, we must separate ourselves from the subject, and stay outside of it, so obviously, ingesting it is the last thing we would want.

No ethical scientist experiments on themselves.
IOW, if we want to know reality, we must separate ourselves from it.
Others question this as being the most reasonable approach.

Science is also a type of communication. So, in this example, if we wanted to communicate to someone what peaches taste like, we'd just give them a bag of peaches and ask them to try them. There'd be no need for a scientific study.

If there was a study on the taste of peaches, the question would be framed in a different way and in the context of existing theories of taste or peaches or whatever. Maybe it would be - are there cultural/gender/age differences in the subjective experience of peach taste? Or maybe it would be, what flavor elements are present in the peach taste during double-blind condition?. Or, how does the flavor experience of peaches relate to pectin content? Or something specific like that.

When the research question is specific like that, it's easy to see that it couldn't be answered by the researcher eating peach. They'd need to have someone - or a range of people - who were unaware of the experimental conditions.

I think that's a pragmatic consequence of those methodologies rather than something inherent to science, though. There are lots of examples of when scientists have used themselves as subjects.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Like so many others you dance around the subject and my claim, looking for chinks in the armor to say well, under this or that circumstance my claim may not be true.

Hey what? Sorry, if I've missed the point. I thought you meant that subjectivity had no place in scientific reports, and I was just saying that that's not always true because sometimes it does. Is that not what this thread is about?

No disagreement from me.
Sometimes it can be relevant.
I say as much myself. More dancing on your part.
Is the best way to do a scientific study from what is considered to be a subjective viewpoint?
Is a 'subjective' viewpoint a requirement?
This is my point, it is not - unless of course it is. Well, yeah I guess so, as unusual as that would be.


Here is what I say:
If a (student) scientist wanted to do a scientific report on peaches, particularly the taste and flavor of peaches, one thing that would not be required is for the scientist to eat a peach.

Do you disagree, or do you only say, 'Well, a (student) scientist may choose to eat a peach.'

No, but "the taste and flavor of peaches" isn't a scientific question. It's not a question at all, actually, and until you pose it properly, it's impossible to say whether the student would need to eat a peach or not.

These fellows selling peaches what to get as 'scientific' as they can about the product.
They hire 'food scientists'.

An undergraduate food science degree prepares students for successful careers with a food industry, research, or manufacturing company in the public, corporate, or government sector. Food science graduates are leaders in food production and processing, quality assurance and control, technical representation in the sale and marketing of foods, food product development, food science research, and regulation and enforcement of food laws. The need for trained food scientists has grown steadily in pace with consumer demands for convenient, safe, and nutritious food and beverages.

http://sfs.wsu.edu...

Maybe you do not like their use of 'scientist', who knows.
Maybe you think sellers of peaches do know care how they taste, who knows.
My point was well taken, yours not so much.

Maybe -
'The way some tests are designed, or framed, it may be helpful for the (student) scientist to eat a peach.'
I never said a student scientist was forbidden form eating a peach to do a scientific report on the taste of peaches.
I only said that in some cases any information from such an experience would be completely useless, as it would be completely subjective, and counter to a primary principle of Science.
I feel sure you do not meant to imply that subjectivity as defined by science is now welcomed as a part of Scientific reports.

It depends on the topic, but I think most people agree that subjectivity is inherent in science in some ways, for example, in the formulation of hypotheses and the choice of research projects. Subjectivity can also make up part of the content of reports. Obviously, if the topic were the subjective experience of peach eating, then the subjective experience of some people needs to be recorded somehow. Usually, that wouldn't be the experimenter's own subjective experience, but in some circumstances it might be. It depends.

Yes, 'it might be', as I said.
Required? No, as I said.
Do a complete report on the taste of peaches and never eat a peach.
That is what I say, you seem to reluctantly agree that, that could certainly happen.

Hypothetically if I were wiling to pay a group of food scientists to evaluate the taste of some peaches for me, and provide a detailed scientific report, they would be willing to do this. Any disagreement?
That report could be very lengthily, very detailed, very scientific in the methodology, but nowhere would it need to indicate any of us had eaten a peach.

Public opinion polls (one type of scientific study that would apply) claim to be scientific, and people pay big bucks for the results.
http://media.gallup.com...
slo1
Posts: 4,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 12:51:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is pretty simple. Scientists don't use their own personal experience to prove something because one sample is not stastically valid.

Check this out. If a scientist used their own experience with determining the color of this dress, 50% would be wrong by stating it is white and gold when it really is blue and black.
http://www.popsci.com...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 1:07:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 6:33:45 AM, Welfare-Worker quoted:
If the older model has little to contribute to the newer model, scientists may, rather than building on to the previous paradigm, bulldoze it.

Unlike religion, which is unable to do so -- even when old doctrine l is known to be fallacious, inconsistent, misleading, limited and irrelevant.

Bulldozing a model known to be inadequate is what honest people do, WW, when truth is more important than maintaining authority. But keeping a poor model and blaming adherents for failing to make it work is what liars do when maintaining authority is more important than upholding truth.

Part of the reason science gets more accurate in prediction is that the model is allowed to change. Correct predictions remain correct; incorrect predictions become better. The steady progress is in the accuracy, but not always in the paradigm.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 6:16:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 12:51:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
It is pretty simple. Scientists don't use their own personal experience to prove something because one sample is not stastically valid.

Check this out. If a scientist used their own experience with determining the color of this dress, 50% would be wrong by stating it is white and gold when it really is blue and black.
http://www.popsci.com...

That video was cool :D