|
Lawrence E. Widman, MD PhD
March 2019 Table of ContentsHow the scientific method worksA brief dictionary of terms we use here Ways to get confused by scientific studies References Background conceptsHow the Scientific Method WorksThe scientific method is by definition based on facts. Observations are made as objectively and precisely as possible. The methods are supposed to be described in as detailed a way as is needed for another person skilled in the area to be able to repeat the same study. Naturally, where human greed and pride are involved, games are sometimes played but when it is important, the person reporting the results has to allow competitors into his or her laboratory to see exactly how things were done. Otherwise, that person loses standing in the scientific community. And, if the same results cannot be obtained by other people, the results are not accepted and the person loses standing. (See the history of cold fusion to see how this works.) Shouting and insults as methods of persuasion have always been allowed but they provide only color and interest for observers. Appeals to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) or to popular consensus (Argumentum ad populum) are similarly of no weight. Albert Einstein, for example, whose theories of special and general relativity have proved correct (so far) despite almost a century of repeated verification that continues to this day, is said to have remarked that he did not believe that "God plays dice with the universe," meaning that he did not accept the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. (He apparently believed that, if the underlying physics were understood better, what appeared probabilistic would turn out to be deterministic, as described by Dr. Stephen Hawking.) However, quantum mechanics, as bizarre as it seems to be, does in fact seem to explain correctly how, for example, modern electronic devices work. No one has found an underlying deterministic mechanism to account for it, and no one would reasonably assert that quantum mechanics could not be correct because a noted authority (Albert Einstein) did not accept it. The same reasoning applies to all aspects of scientific discourse. A brief dictionary of terms we use hereFrom U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 8th Edition (DGA), pages 90-93:
Ways to get confused by scientific studiesA major source of inaccuracy is simple bias. No matter how well intentioned, someone who has vested interest (such as making money) from a given viewpoint, is likely to find a way to promote that viewpoint. In this article, we have a bias that unprocessed grass-fed beef is healthy. We are trying to be as objective as possible, but it is certainly possible that we have found a way to present a case in favor of this conclusion that is actually not justified by the data. If you think so, do not hesitate to let us know (especially if you can justify your thoughts based on objective data!)) Wikipedia lists more than 130 different logical fallacies, any one of which can invalidate one or all of the conclusions of an otherwise scientific study. A few common ones are listed below:
References
|