Posts by 81stcolumn
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Reece:
After all, learning has to start somewhere, we're not all born genii.
Nor am I, think sometimes the learning I did came at the expense of valuable skills in social etiquette and diplomacy ;-)
Bart:
While I agree with much of what you said regarding the influence of prior knowledge on what questions get asked and the interpretation of results –
And may I say before I go further that I place great value on the very well informed comments you have made in the past.
On two points I differ.
First in most cases the data is good. It is the exception that data is distorted not the rule.
We may end up having to agree to disagree on how “good” data is at times. Issues such as intention to treat in MedSci highlight that at best, good data is a moving target. Regardless of whether data is deemed good or not it still doesn’t mitigate the habit of science to emphasise some data at the expense of others. Contemporary science is in my belief more vulnerable to this problem now than ever before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_to_treat_analysis
The second area I disagree with is the quote above. I really really dislike it when folks in and out of science intimate that the general public cannot understand the science. It just isn't true.
It really wasn’t my intention to suggest/intimate that lay reading of research should be regarded as too hard. I do think it is fair to say that at times it isn’t easy. As below;
Nope there is no easy way to grasp this debate or evaluate the evidence within it. But usual rules apply; multiple sources, cross reference, check authority and agenda.
My intention was to encourage lay readers to read widely and interpret with caution. This is presented as a prelude to a plea on behalf of many who work in science like yourself.
Please be patient and persist with science and scientists it is tough turning squiggles and graphs into yes/no, good/bad right/wrong, and sometimes common language isn't good enough.
Your analogy is false, reading journal papers without truely understanding methods and stats is NOT like kicking tyres on a car. It is what it is and isn't really "like" anything else.
Like you, I also dislike what I perceive to be poor analogies *. I might have made my point better if I had said "runs the risk of being like kicking the tyres on a car". Nonetheless I am confused when you say science “is what it is”. This seems to risk suggesting that science is an enigma. This doesn’t reveal the falsehood (perceived or otherwise) in the analogy but rather it appeals to personal authority as a point of argument.
Reading the background and conclusions presented in refereed journals allows the lay reader (most times) to get a reasonable idea of what the author and the reviewers believe is the current state of knowledge.
I would always encourage lay reading of research. The gap between lay knowledge and science is too large and quite frequently it is filled by the Durkin’s of this world or dare I say it militant anti-science creationists. The key issue here is the belief that reading backgrounds and conclusions to research leads to reasonable conclusions most of the time. I think we can agree that these conclusions are most likely to be based on incomplete understanding. What perhaps is more interesting is that by addressing only the background and conclusion sections, “reason/reasoning” is based on interpretation led by authors, reviewers and context. In this situation, the data however good cannot speak for itself. Call me an old cynic if you must, but I am not convinced of the robustness of this approach. As a reviewer myself I am well aware of how imperfect my own reading and judgement can be.
To suggest that folks shouldn't try because they don't have the years of training needed to understand the methods in details is just the kind of arrogance that I display (and am ashamed of) all too often.
As pointed out earlier, not really my intention. However, I don’t think it is arrogant to suggest that sick people go and see GP’s, that car is taken to the garage to be fixed or that people listen carefully to what scientists have to say. These activities tend to bring about reliable outcomes, which is surely why such professions exist.
Apologies for the long post I’m trying not to flame but perhaps I’ve had a little too much coffee today.
* I particularly dislike the way the butterfly analogy is over-used and over generalised - yes small changes can precipitate much bigger ones but this doesn’t dictate that there should be a search for a single cause. -
LOL: Flobble lobble lobble Weeeeed !
-
Oh well......
-
Just checking the gravatar
-
About science, facts and knowledge.
i) The scientist and the science cannot be separated. Polanyi’s still influential work points out that the scientists are informed by tacit knowledge which determines the scientific questions they ask, the methods they use and the way in which data is presented.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi
My point is that there is probably no such thing as objective science or pure unbiased facts as a result.
ii) Causality is difficult, hard and maybe impossible to prove -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_RussellWhich is why many settled for falsification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
However even this approach suffers because of the methods involved with falsification. Hence we should note that sceptics are often dealt the better hand in science and to some extent law. The sceptics mantra should read - If you don’t like the facts start to pick at how they are created; failing that start on semantics and agreed truths.
iii) The theories we choose to apply and make use of are as much determined by mood of the time and history as they are by the basic business of scientific falsification.
Philosophy of Science in the Twentieth Century: Four Central Themes (Paperback) by Donald Gillies and work by TS Kuhn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Samuel_Kuhn) still offer useful thoughts on this issue.
The point here is that we shouldn’t be surprised if public policy is slow to change-scientific consensus is also really slow to arise.
iv) In some ways saying that you can understand research without having a grasp of stats and methodology is a bit like suggesting you should just kick the tyres before buying a car. Yep you can do it, but don’t be surprised if what you get is unreliable.
Conclusion:
Nope there is no easy way to grasp this debate or evaluate the evidence within it. But usual rules apply; multiple sources, cross reference, check authority and agenda. Please be patient and persist with science and scientists it is tough turning squiggles and graphs into yes/no, good/bad right/wrong, and sometimes common language isn't good enough.
P.S. I just wish students would study………..
-
Hmmmmm yeah that'll be the lame book for bodybuilders that tries to push the the patent "superfood" Accelerade.
-
Ahhhh is that why my cousin boasts about getting thrown out of bars.....
-
Point taken - though at risk of being a hair splitting pedant I would prefer to regard pain and fear differently. Fear unlike pain is generally thought of as a meta-cognitive experience requiring a greater degree thought/interpretation. Hence, fear falls into the category of emotions and beyond the scope of strict behaviourist theory.
-
On rewards and reinforcement.
Positive Reinforcement may well work for dogs but I would love to see someone try this on the local cats (perhaps I could throw food in the neighbours back yard….mmmmm).
On the more serious issue of reward contingent behaviour and training kids.
This over simplifies both the argument and the child.
More important than the reward is the perception of that reward. Two flavours are generally described - controlling and informational. Controlling is just used to control behaviour a la giving sweets etc. Informational on the other hand provides information about competence. The beauty of this is that the competence based rewards are more likely to increase the probability of that behaviour being repeated in the absence of other rewards (notwithstanding conditions of choice). Controlling rewards are rarely as effective.
Not surprisingly punishment or negative rewards don’t accrue any such benefits.
This is a poor interpretation of a critique of behaviourism first launched in the 1970’s which is discussed in far greater depth http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/cont_reward.html.
For another view on perceptions of reward and behaviour look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Bandura.
And yes mis use of these ideas does mess with education badly……as I know to my pain.
-
Um, really? I have my moments when I wish Richard Dwakins and Brain Tamiki would STFU and stop being so hysterical and self-righteous (I also wish they'd be a little less self-serving in their grossly simplistic reading of history and culture), but I'm just cranky that way. :(
For the most part you do have my sympathy. However I understand that Richard Dawkins' recent round of hysteria was provoked by a considerable invasion of his privacy by the other team. From my own POV I got more than a little bit nasty after an incident involving evangelical recruitment and vulnerable freshers at Uni. Specifically an Indian (Hindu) kid had dropped his first tab of acid and lost his friends. Needless to say he found new ones with the evangelists who promptly took him to a "meeting". Whilst at the meeting the hallicinogens made a big surge and he endured a profound religious experience....... The last we saw of him was when he set off to drive home in order to pronounce his conversion to his parents.....
Later, I quite shamefully verbally bullied one of their recruiters until she cried I was so angry at the time.
Since then I have never quite felt the same about "spreading the word"..........