The Great Scientific Evidence Debate

Waking-Dreams

“And what exactly is the evidence for that claim?”

Okay, so this is part inspired by the recent psychoanalysis thread but is also something which is an extremely important topic when it comes to many things that fall outside the realm of therapy, etc., (i.e. the scientific method is simply a means of unpicking dodgy claims from ones that are verifiable, and can apply to anything from superstition, conspiracy theories and alternative medicine, to name but a few).

Real science is about critically appraising the evidence for someone else’s position. However, there are some positions which happily eschew scientific evidence in favour of their own pet theories, often supported by anecdotal evidence, in which every apparent exception simply confirms the rule. In essence, it becomes a closed system of thought, totally immune to falsification.

But science is the only method that minimises conformation bias over the long term. It also seeks to refute a theory as much as much as provide evidence for it. So how can anyone be against such a method of enquiry or try to assert that “science doesn’t know everything”, when it is the best way we have of testing claims? What else is there to go on that is not subject to human bias, delusion, etc?

I recently stumbled upon The Science Delusion, in which the author attacks a strawman version of the scientific method and then (surprise, surprise) goes on to advocate his own theory of Morphic Resonance or some such nonsense. Basically, the argument boils down to: science doesn’t accept my idea so therefore science is not good enough.

While I could certainly spin you all a yarn about how I have this rock which keeps tigers away, it should be obvious to most that there is a much better explanation as to why I have not encountered tigers that have absolutely nothing to do with my rock. Yet, from my hypothetically warped perspective, the presence of such a rock is perfectly valid for why no tigers ever show up. And in the face of sceptical enquiry I could say: “Well, prove to me that there is not some kind of metaphysical force resonating from within my rock which repels all the tigers! Science can’t prove there isn’t some kind of force at work, so there”.

We can all see how ridiculous this position is, yet the same kind of specious reasoning appears to be employed to buttress many different stances which are not currently supported by science (and most likely never will be).

Naturally, people get defensive when you criticise something they take part in or show interest in, which is only natural. But to try and dismiss science as being somehow inferior when it comes to certain claims is to turn your back on the best tool we have for establishing the reliable from the bogus.

What’s your own position?

Kooli

I think I've a healthy respect and a healthy skepticism for the scientific method (at least when it comes to social sciences like psychology).

I do believe the psychology is socially constructed to a certain extent, and what we take as fact now will be vastly different from what's taken as fact in 2030. Some of that will be to do with advances in scientific understanding of the mind, but not all of it - some will just be about trends in thinking and cultural understanding.

My reasons for skepticism are that the scientific method has too many flaws to be our only source of information about psychology. Scientific research is not unbiased. Confirmations of the null hypothesis are very rarely published. Real world psychotherapy can be difficult to evaluate, so most published research leans towards therapies that are easy to operationalise/manualise such as CBT, and the studies often cut out anyone with a dual diagnosis or severe problems (i.e. most normal clients in a clinical population). People often misuse statistics in various ways such as testing for too many different things without correcting for that. For most things in psychology, it's probably possible to cherry pick the research you want to reference in either direction.

And don't even get me started about psychopharmacological research...

So while I think it's important we are respectful of research, I don't think we need to be overly reverent about it, particularly with something like psychology.

krd

Kooli wrote: »

My reasons for skepticism are that the scientific method has too many flaws to be our only source of information about psychology.

The scientific method is greatly misunderstood. It doesn't give absolute validation to a theory. It will just validate that theory - until maybe a deeper explanation is found, and validated. It doesn't prove something to be correct - it just puts it in a position where it hasn't been disproved yet.

The scientific method is better at invalidating ideas, than validating them. Which is very useful.

And across all the sciences, some theories have lots of good evidence, and some don't. And there are instances where there is not enough evidence to either prove or disprove theories. In an instance where it's difficult or impossible to apply the scientific method, it doesn't mean the theory is wrong - that's not a get out of jail card for every crank idea.

In psychology, it's always going to be difficult to get rock solid scientific evidence that will stand up. It's never going to be something as straightforward as chemistry or physics.

Waking-Dreams

Kooli wrote: »

Scientific research is not unbiased. Confirmations of the null hypothesis are very rarely published.

True, many experiments have a flawed methodology and others are sometimes tucked away when they don’t produce the results one was hoping for, but do you not see all that as being a flaw in the individuals conducting the research as opposed to the overall method itself?

For instance, when experiments are repeated by different researchers over and over we get a meta-analysis; a much truer picture as opposed to cherry-picked results. In other words, think of examples where something has been demonstrated repeatedly using a sound scientific method. When used properly and honestly, it does appear to be the best tool we have at the moment, given that other methods are prone to the same (if not a greater) number of weaknesses.

I agree that many people do not publish their null hypotheses, especially when it comes to testing drug treatments and such. There has been suggestions that one would have to register their study with whatever bodies they intend to publish with BEFORE they actually conduct their experiments, so that they would have to disclose their results whatever they happen to be.

krd wrote: »

The scientific method is greatly misunderstood. It doesn't give absolute validation to a theory. It will just validate that theory - until maybe a deeper explanation is found, and validated. It doesn't prove something to be correct - it just puts it in a position where it hasn't been disproved yet.

Agreed, but my question would be what other methods are there to uncover such deeper explanations that are as reliable and valid as the scientific method is when employed properly?

Again, think of every criticism that can be made against the scientific method and ask do these same criticisms also apply to the other methods of enquiry? If so, then what makes those alternative methods superior or more favourable? If not, then why don’t those criticisms apply to said methods? What makes them immune to confirmation bias, etc.?

Kooli

It's tempting to try to explain away the problems (just a problem with the individual researcher etc.) but that doesn't actually explain them away, they are widespread and systemic.

I'm not suggesting that I have an alternative source of knowledge that is better than the scientific method, I'm just saying that I don't think 'scientific evidence' should be given the god-like reverence it is when it comes to something like psychology.

It's sometimes frustrating in this forum that a poster can be leapt on for offering an opinion that's 'against the grain' and pressed for links in peer-reviewed articles when maybe they are not a psychologist and they don't know how to look up research, maybe they are but don't have the evidence but just want to discuss it, maybe what they're saying will be 'proven' by the evidence in 10 years time, who knows?

Dave!

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

While I could certainly spin you all a yarn about how I have this rock which keeps tigers away, it should be obvious to most that there is a much better explanation as to why I have not encountered tigers that have absolutely nothing to do with my rock. Yet, from my hypothetically warped perspective, the presence of such a rock is perfectly valid for why no tigers ever show up. And in the face of sceptical enquiry I could say: “Well, prove to me that there is not some kind of metaphysical force resonating from within my rock which repels all the tigers! Science can’t prove there isn’t some kind of force at work, so there”.

Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock...

krd

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

True, many experiments have a flawed methodology and others are sometimes tucked away when they don’t produce the results one was hoping for, but do you not see all that as being a flaw in the individuals conducting the research as opposed to the overall method itself?

For instance, when experiments are repeated by different researchers over and over we get a meta-analysis; a much truer picture as opposed to cherry-picked results. In other words, think of examples where something has been demonstrated repeatedly using a sound scientific method.

There's actually a real problem in this approach too. Researchers can be effected by peer bias. In that if their results are radically different - they have temptation to nudge or bury them.

I heard a really good example last week - I can't remember the details, but as an example. In the 80s, there was experimental research into one of the constants in physics. There was an error in the first results - and subsequently other experimenters published results containing the error. Basically they fudged their results - and it may not have been deliberate - they may have just repeated the experiment until they got the "right" result.

Agreed, but my question would be what other methods are there to uncover such deeper explanations that are as reliable and valid as the scientific method is when employed properly?

The scientific method is the most reliable method. Where the problems lie, is some things are a little more elusive than others.

Again, think of every criticism that can be made against the scientific method and ask do these same criticisms also apply to the other methods of enquiry?

There's nothing wrong with the scientific method. It's generally considered to be more sound than divine revelation - but it doesn't have a claim of infallibility. Which some people think it has.

If so, then what makes those alternative methods superior or more favourable?

It's more the appropriateness of where you try to apply the method. Trying to apply it to something like psychoanalysis is silly. Or marketing. In market research the scientific method is employed - there's a limit to it's accuracy.

If not, then why don’t those criticisms apply to said methods? What makes them immune to confirmation bias, etc.?

No methods are immune to confirmation bias. All that you can do, is be aware that confirmation bias is possible. And a way of seeing that there is a confirmation bias, is everyone is getting the same results.

El_Duderino 09

Kooli wrote: »

I'm just saying that I don't think 'scientific evidence' should be given the god-like reverence it is when it comes to something like psychology.

It's sometimes frustrating in this forum that a poster can be leapt on for offering an opinion that's 'against the grain' and pressed for links in peer-reviewed articles when maybe they are not a psychologist and they don't know how to look up research, maybe they are but don't have the evidence but just want to discuss it, maybe what they're saying will be 'proven' by the evidence in 10 years time, who knows?

Hi Kooli. While I agree with most of what you have said I think the idea of god-like reverence should not be given to any information. We were reminded about that when only last year some parts of Einstein's theories were validate and the whole 'noting travels faster than light' thing was put in doubt.

Nothing is taken as true, rather it is the best explanation of we have at the moment. It is shorthand to say a theory is true. That is physics and I agree psychology is less easy to nail down so any theory in psychology has to be seen in that light, ready to be discarded as soon as more information comes along.

Science doesn't deal in proof only in falsification. In your second paragraph you mention the idea of criticising someone for offering an opinion. There are levels of evidence and personal opinion is evidence, but it is quite weak. an opinion based on more experience is better but still weak. So long as someone states that it is opinion then its fair enough to say what you like.

Otherwise you end up with a pile of research on one side, eg conecting smoking an lung cancer, and on the other side someone saying 'my gran smoked until she was 90 and never got cancer so the research must be wrong'. Opinion has a place but it is not equal to a meta analysis.

hotspur

Why most published research findings are false:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Waking-Dreams

Dave! wrote: »

Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock...

Who knew the simpsons could provide a brilliant example of the causation/correlation fallacy?

Waking-Dreams

Certainly, I don’t see the scientific method as being infallible or 100% right all the time. And I agree that in psychology it’s so very hard to say, conclusively, that X is the cause of Y, etc., hence why the biopsychosocial perspective is so beneficial. However, because much of psychology deals with trying to help other people, where do you draw the line at selecting where it is appropriate to abandon a scientific methodology in favour of other methods of enquiry?

krd wrote: »

Trying to apply it to something like psychoanalysis is silly.

Silly because that particular perspective is supposedly unfalsifiable? You did say that the scientific methods deals with falsification. So, just what would it take to falsify psychoanalysis? If it can’t be falsified then how can its effectiveness be determined in comparison to other perspectives if everything, even exceptions, simply confirms the rule?

I suppose my line of questioning comes from being familiar with the scientific method getting batted away as ‘not applicable all the time’ from homeopaths, pseudoscientific woo-woo peddlers, and theological mental gymnasts, all of whom seem to become exasperated at the friendly challenge to simply verify their claims.

And, again, their answer is to point out the weaknesses of science instead of advancing their own credible evidence (which often tends to come under less scrutiny). I’m not saying this of you personally, but you are aware that the arguments used by ‘psychic healers’ and parapsychologists in defence of their theories are quite similar in their dismissal of the scientific method’s use in exceptional circumstances (i.e. their own cases)?

El_Duderino 09

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Certainly, I don’t see the scientific method as being infallible or 100% right all the time. And I agree that in psychology it’s so very hard to say, conclusively, that X is the cause of Y, etc., hence why the biopsychosocial perspective is so beneficial. However, because much of psychology deals with trying to help other people, where do you draw the line at selecting where it is appropriate to abandon a scientific methodology in favour of other methods of enquiry?

Silly because that particular perspective is supposedly unfalsifiable? You did say that the scientific methods deals with falsification. So, just what would it take to falsify psychoanalysis? If it can’t be falsified then how can its effectiveness be determined in comparison to other perspectives if everything, even exceptions, simply confirms the rule?

I suppose my line of questioning comes from being familiar with the scientific method getting batted away as ‘not applicable all the time’ from homeopaths, pseudoscientific woo-woo peddlers, and theological mental gymnasts, all of whom become seem to become exasperated at the friendly challenge to simply verify their claims.

And, again, their answer is to point out the weaknesses of science instead of advancing their own credible evidence (which often tends to come under less scrutiny). I’m not saying this of you personally, but you are aware that the arguments used by ‘psychic chealers’ and parapsychologists in defence of their theories are quite similar in their dismissal of the scientific method’s use in exceptional circumstances (i.e. their own cases)?

In this case it is psychoanalysis which is at fault. Karl Popper used that exact example to demonstrate a Psudo-Science. He did not mean it to be derogatory, he said psychoanalysis is often useful but until it makes predictions which could be demonstrated to be right or wrong, it can not be considered a science.

Waking-Dreams

I have a feeling that many psychoanalysts don’t consider their approach to be a science either, but don’t seem to mind this or think it’s a bad thing, necessarily. The usefulness of its approach is not denied, but I do question whether it is that particular approach which helps the client or is it just having a professional, empathetic person to talk things out with that does it.

People credit psychics for helping them be at peace following the death of their loved ones and so forth. Energy healing, chakras, Reiki - people will swear that these approaches have helped them. That still doesn't make what the psychic or practitioner told them any truer.

I really don't mean to lump analysts in with woo-woo, as it might come across as disrespectful, but they do appear to occupy some of the same kind of ground.

hotspur

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

I do question whether it is that particular approach which helps the client or is it just having a professional, empathetic person to talk things out with that does it.

I'm not sure you know too much about psychoanalysis.

Waking-Dreams

While I’m far from being well-read on everything within the perspective, I know a little bit about psychoanalysis and, to my knowledge, empathy can be present but perhaps not in the way that you may have thought I was suggesting. I suppose my previous post didn’t really give that impression, so my bad.

“For psychoanalysis, empathy is used primarily to help the therapist (and subsequently clients) develop insight into client unconscious dynamics.”
http://jhp.sagepub.com/content/31/1/34.abstract

Furthermore, there have been books written on Psychoanalytical Empathy.
http://www.apadivisions.org/division-39/publications/reviews/empathy.aspx

Odysseus

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

While I’m far from being well-read on everything within the perspective, I know a little bit about psychoanalysis and, to my knowledge, empathy can be present but perhaps not in the way that you may have thought I was suggesting. I suppose my previous post didn’t really give that impression, so my bad.

“For psychoanalysis, empathy is used primarily to help the therapist (and subsequently clients) develop insight into client unconscious dynamics.”
http://jhp.sagepub.com/content/31/1/34.abstract

Furthermore, there have been books written on Psychoanalytical Empathy.
http://www.apadivisions.org/division-39
/publications/reviews/empathy.aspx

I do not wish to part take of vthis deate, but I have to say the above would not be representitive of psychoanalysis as practiced in Ireland.

krd

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Silly because that particular perspective is supposedly unfalsifiable? You did say that the scientific methods deals with falsification. So, just what would it take to falsify psychoanalysis? If it can’t be falsified then how can its effectiveness be determined in comparison to other perspectives if everything, even exceptions, simply confirms the rule?

I suppose my line of questioning comes from being familiar with the scientific method getting batted away as ‘not applicable all the time’ from homeopaths, pseudoscientific woo-woo peddlers, and theological mental gymnasts, all of whom seem to become exasperated at the friendly challenge to simply verify their claims.

I think a better example would be something like the Many Worlds hypothesis in quantum physics. The "evidence" for its' correctness is it explains a major quirk in quantum physics, by postulating there are many parallel worlds, parallel to our own, that we can not interact with -events happen in those worlds that make sense of what happens in our world. The theory is unfalsifiable, and simultaneously unverifiable. The idea is a horrifying as homoeopathy. Yet, it is taken seriously by many scientists.

Psychology is trickier than physics. Because in physics, once you've seen one electron you've seen them all.

With any science, you can only verify what you can verify, and only falsify what you can falsify. And you only ever get indications of veracity, and indications of what is false. The indications do not prove anything, they just prove you have indications.

Doctors are not 100% sure how many diseases occur - or sure how the treatments work, or don't work. Yet, you can not through medicine out with the bath water, because it's imprecise. And has a history of being wrong.

Valmont

I'm not sure I understand the thrust of your argument, OP. The largest problem facing some aspects of psychology as a science is that, to an extent, it is value-based. For example, such questions such as how people should behave, how they should treat each other or themselves are ideological in nature and there are obvious barriers towards resolving such moral issues using the approach of chemist. So I'm not sure a "are you for or against science" type argument really applies here?

krd

Valmont wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the thrust of your argument, OP. The largest problem facing some aspects of psychology as a science is that, to an extent, it is value-based. For example, such questions such as how people should behave, how they should treat each other or themselves are ideological in nature and there are obvious barriers towards resolving such moral issues using the approach of chemist. So I'm not sure a "are you for or against science" type argument really applies here?

It should probably never have been called a science. Just as political science should never be called a science - though political science is one of the greatest abuses of the term. Social sciences is a grand abuse.

El_Duderino 09

krd wrote: »

It should probably never have been called a science. Just as political science should never be called a science - though political science is one of the greatest abuses of the term. Social sciences is a grand abuse.

A fair point to an extent but scientific psychology just means that the scientific method has been applied to test hypothesis. Social sciences' main problem is that is very difficult to exclude all the extraneous variables.

Maths is the only one which can prove a hypothesis, for the rest it is merely about failure to disprove a hypothesis. The hard sciences are usually in a better position to control extraneous variables so they can have more confidence in their results.

So krd I think it is perfectly fair to call social sciences a science so long as the scientific method is applied to test it. If someone thinks "science" means 'absolutely true' then it is they that are at fault and not the science.

Valmont

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Social sciences' main problem is that is very difficult to exclude all the extraneous variables.

So krd I think it is perfectly fair to call social sciences a science so long as the scientific method is applied to test it. If someone thinks "science" means 'absolutely true' then it is they that are at fault and not the science.

I think the point is that due to inherent complexity of society and economies, the innumerable uncontrolled variables render social science bad science. So it can be called science all it wants but perhaps it's trying too hard to put a square peg in a triangular hole.

This is a topic addressed heavily by both Karl Popper and then Friedrich Hayek in The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies in the Abuse of Reason. I'm currently making my way through a book of Popper excerpts and I have to say, I'm not sure I really appreciated the philosophy on which science is based -- it's more limited than I thought; if I take Popper on his word, that is.

El_Duderino 09

Valmont wrote: »

I think the point is that due to inherent complexity of society and economies, the innumerable uncontrolled variables render social science bad science. So it can be called science all it wants but perhaps it's trying too hard to put a square peg in a triangular hole.

This is a topic addressed heavily by both Karl Popper and then Friedrich Hayek in The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies in the Abuse of Reason. I'm currently making my way through a book of Popper excerpts and I have to say, I'm not sure I really appreciated the philosophy on which science is based -- it's more limited than I thought; if I take Popper on his word, that is.

Totally in agreement on the bit in bold but not necessarily the conclusion in italics.

If a social science experiment has a hypothesis, states the prediction and tests that hypothesis, controls as many variables as possible, point out the variables it cannot control, discusses the findings honestly pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the study and its results and the likely contribution to the field or opportunities for further study, then that is awesome science.

Again I think the fault lies with the reader if they imagine 'science' means absolute certainty. When we hear about a study in the media we almost never hear about the limitations the authors have highlighted because they don't make interesting news. That is not the fault of the field.

I have read Popper (but I'm pretty rusty) but not Hayek so I can't comment on him. Scientific predictions are probably more limited than most people think.

This might be a rubbish analogy but if you consider the square peg and triangle hole you mentioned earlier, if the (Square peg) prediction is small enough it will fit through the (Triangle) round hole. That's why they have to keep couching their findings within the context of its limitations. That is good science I think.

Valmont

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Again I think the fault lies with the reader if they imagine 'science' means absolute certainty. When we hear about a study in the media we almost never hear about the limitations the authors have highlighted because they don't make interesting news. That is not the fault of the field.

I think your assumption here is that no matter what the subject science, various weaknesses considered, is always the preferred means of enquiry. However, as Popper pointed out in his devastating critique of Marxism (which saw itself as a science), this isn't always the case.

El_Duderino 09

Valmont wrote: »

I think your assumption here is that no matter what the subject science, various weaknesses considered, is always the preferred means of enquiry. However, as Popper pointed out in his devastating critique of Marxism (which saw itself as a science), this isn't always the case.

That's an interesting point. I suppose I do consider science in that light. I think you might have exposed a bias I didn't know I had so thanks for that.

I'm not well read on Marxism so do you think it was scientific? My understanding is that it was more like using science to confirm the theory they already wanted to use. Having factories over producing tooth brushes which were never gong to be used just to keep people working doesn't sound like great application of science to me.

On the other hand I think it is separate from the discussion of what is good or bad science.

El_Duderino 09

Having thought about it I think the scientific method isn't just the preferred means of enquiry, it is the only method of enquiry of which I am aware.

The topics will lend themselves to enquiry to varying degrees, but I think the method is sound.

krd

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm not well read on Marxism so do you think it was scientific?

You may be confusing it with "scientific socialism". A term used in the Soviet Bloc. Here, in this present day, economics is considered a science. So you may as refer to it as "scientific capitalism". It's more or less the same thing.

My understanding is that it was more like using science to confirm the theory they already wanted to use.

No. What people like Lenin, and many other communists were interested in was industrialisation. The Soviet system was actually modelled on industrialised America. Anti-Soviet propaganda muddied the water. Something like collectivised farms - in the west the idea was sold as the confiscation of farmers and redistribution to masses. In reality, the Soviets were trying to create supper farms - modelled on American super farms.

The Soviet system is not hugely different from the American system. And for a long time in the west it was believed the Soviet system was ultimately more efficient than the western system - because they modelled all their economic activities on large American corporations.

Having factories over producing tooth brushes which were never gong to be used just to keep people working doesn't sound like great application of science to me.

Building houses which were never going to be lived in to keep men with buckets and shovels working never sounded like a great application of science to me.

The Soviets weren't producing tooth brushes etc just to keep people working. There was a central plan. This is identical to how major western corporations work. They control a market - they know the population size, they estimate how many people will need toothbrushes and then they make toothbrushes. American corporations are just as "scientific" as the Soviets. They use all kinds of software systems to control their ordering of materials, the hiring and firing of workers. Market research etc. All very scientific.

There are so many myths about the Soviet Union. There were differentials in pay. If you "worked harder" you got paid more (and it worked just like it works here - if you "work harder" - if you have the right social skills, the right social class, you'll get paid more.) It's not true you couldn't get fired in the Soviet union either. People were fired all the time. Just for the same reasons people get fired here.

Even their bureaucracies were built to mirror western bureaucracies.

The wealth of the west were not terrified of the Soviets because they believed they were doing all the wrong things - they believed they were doing all the right things.

The absolute truth is no one is quite sure why the Soviet union collapsed. And the scariest thing, is our system is run on the same "science" as there's was.

On the other hand I think it is separate from the discussion of what is good or bad science.

It's not a good discussion. And it's very hard to define why it is not a good discussion. A lot of the time what people are looking for in science is something religious. Holy revelation and holy law. They're looking for order and an end to uncertainty. Science doesn't offer that, you'll only get that in religion.

El_Duderino 09

krd wrote: »

You may be confusing it with "scientific socialism". A term used in the Soviet Bloc. Here, in this present day, economics is considered a science. So you may as refer to it as "scientific capitalism". It's more or less the same thing.


No. What people like Lenin, and many other communists were interested in was industrialisation. The Soviet system was actually modelled on industrialised America. Anti-Soviet propaganda muddied the water. Something like collectivised farms - in the west the idea was sold as the confiscation of farmers and redistribution to masses. In reality, the Soviets were trying to create supper farms - modelled on American super farms.

The Soviet system is not hugely different from the American system. And for a long time in the west it was believed the Soviet system was ultimately more efficient than the western system - because they modelled all their economic activities on large American corporations.



Building houses which were never going to be lived in to keep men with buckets and shovels working never sounded like a great application of science to me.

The Soviets weren't producing tooth brushes etc just to keep people working. There was a central plan. This is identical to how major western corporations work. They control a market - they know the population size, they estimate how many people will need toothbrushes and then they make toothbrushes. American corporations are just as "scientific" as the Soviets. They use all kinds of software systems to control their ordering of materials, the hiring and firing of workers. Market research etc. All very scientific.

There are so many myths about the Soviet Union. There were differentials in pay. If you "worked harder" you got paid more (and it worked just like it works here - if you "work harder" - if you have the right social skills, the right social class, you'll get paid more.) It's not true you couldn't get fired in the Soviet union either. People were fired all the time. Just for the same reasons people get fired here.

Even their bureaucracies were built to mirror western bureaucracies.

The wealth of the west were not terrified of the Soviets because they believed they were doing all the wrong things - they believed they were doing all the right things.

The absolute truth is no one is quite sure why the Soviet union collapsed. And the scariest thing, is our system is run on the same "science" as there's was.




It's not a good discussion. And it's very hard to define why it is not a good discussion. A lot of the time what people are looking for in science is something religious. Holy revelation and holy law. They're looking for order and an end to uncertainty. Science doesn't offer that, you'll only get that in religion.

Thanks for all that. As I say I cant really agree or disagree with much of that because I simply don't know enough about it.

If I could draw you back to this point here "I think your assumption here is that no matter what the subject science, various weaknesses considered, is always the preferred means of enquiry. However, as Popper pointed out in his devastating critique of Marxism (which saw itself as a science), this isn't always the case."

The various weakness considered part is crucial. In maths the weaknesses are few, but in other sciences like psychology the weaknesses are much harder to control.

In psychology you can bring subjects into a lab and control the environment which is raises internal validity but can decrease external validity. in economics you can't bring it into the lab at all. External validity might be high but internal validity is very hard to pin down.

The point I am making is that I think you totally underestimate the 'various weaknesses considered part' when it comes to economics. Do you know of a better method than the scientific method for inquiring about economics? (Not trying to make an argument from ignorance here, just asking)

"A lot of the time what people are looking for in science is something religious. Holy revelation and holy law. They're looking for order and an end to uncertainty. Science doesn't offer that, you'll only get that in religion."

This part I think is hugely incorrect. Maybe it is what you are looking for or maybe you are speaking about other people. Popper or Wittgenstein wrote about how we can speak about what we know and all the rest we must pass over in silence. Science doesn't deal in certainty. If you think it does then it is your misunderstanding. Poppers term verisimilitude or truth likeness is what science is looking for.

Science accepts that everything is uncertain even the things we think we know about. Some things we can learn about and become less uncertain than others but nothing is certain.

For what its worth I don't agree that religions give certainty though they may claim to.

krd

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Thanks for all that. As I say I cant really agree or disagree with much of that because I simply don't know enough about it.

If I could draw you back to this point here "I think your assumption here is that no matter what the subject science, various weaknesses considered, is always the preferred means of enquiry. However, as Popper pointed out in his devastating critique of Marxism (which saw itself as a science), this isn't always the case."

I'm pretty sure I've read that Popper. But the same argument could be applied to scientific capitalism - or whatever the system we have here is.

The point I am making is that I think you totally underestimate the 'various weaknesses considered part' when it comes to economics. Do you know of a better method than the scientific method for inquiring about economics? (Not trying to make an argument from ignorance here, just asking)

Fundamentally, economics is ideology - what is good and bad in economics is determined by who benefits. There's not much science to it. Some things in economics can be known, others can't. Some can be predictable and controlled and others can't.

Popper or Wittgenstein wrote about how we can speak about what we know and all the rest we must pass over in silence.

It's Wittgenstein. And I think Wittgenstein was wrong. We must speak about what we do not know. As that is how we may come to know what we don't know - or have an awareness of what we do not know.

Science doesn't deal in certainty. If you think it does then it is your misunderstanding.

That depends. If you're doing a science exam, they can be very certain in the answers they're looking for.

Science accepts that everything is uncertain even the things we think we know about. Some things we can learn about and become less uncertain than others but nothing is certain.

See this is where it gets tricky. There is constant questioning in science, at the same time there are people who would like the discussion closed on certain aspects - or more what should be discussed. I can't remember Niels Bohr's precise formulation - something along the lines of forget trying to understand the whys in physics. Richard Feynman's version is "shut up and calculate".

Feyman's calculations are the most accurate in the history of science - but the underlying theory may be wrong.

For what its worth I don't agree that religions give certainty though they may claim to.

Religion gives people whatever they want it too.

El_Duderino 09

krd wrote: »

I'm pretty sure I've read that Popper. But the same argument could be applied to scientific capitalism - or whatever the system we have here is.

My mistake there, I was trying to quote you for that part about popper an marxism

krd wrote: »

Fundamentally, economics is ideology - what is good and bad in economics is determined by who benefits. There's not much science to it. Some things in economics can be known, others can't. Some can be predictable and controlled and others can't.

The application of the information may be all about ideology but the science part is separate from the application. The science part is simply about testing hypothesis. People are free to argue for their ideology using scientifically derived information but science is simply the application of the scientific method to get accurate information

krd wrote: »

It's Wittgenstein. And I think Wittgenstein was wrong. We must speak about what we do not know. As that is how we may come to know what we don't know - or have an awareness of what we do not know.

Of course you can speak about those things, we can hypothesis all we like but we have to accept that we don't know. I think the point he's making is that all we know is what we have falsified and that is a tiny proportion.[/QUOTE]

krd wrote: »

That depends. If you're doing a science exam, they can be very certain in the answers they're looking for.

That's an exam though, not application of the scientific method.

krd wrote: »

See this is where it gets tricky. There is constant questioning in science, at the same time there are people who would like the discussion closed on certain aspects - or more what should be discussed. I can't remember Niels Bohr's precise formulation - something along the lines of forget trying to understand the whys in physics. Richard Feynman's version is "shut up and calculate".

I have no idea what this has to do with the discussion.

krd wrote: »

Feyman's calculations are the most accurate in the history of science - but the underlying theory may be wrong.

I think this is exactly what I was getting at. We never say we know anything for certain. everything is open to replacement by a better explanation.

El_Duderino 09

Repeat Post