The Scientific Method For Dummies

[antagon]

i think polygraphs are scientific. there is a definite coincidence with the physical responses measured and the conclusions drawn. it is exploitable, however, and that makes it difficult to use as certain evidence. there is also the issue of malpractice on the part of the 'expert'. the idea that it can be exploited and that there are best practices which can be fumbled underscores the science-basis for me. you can screw up forensics and plant evidence too. i'd hate to be on the bad end of botched forensics or polygraph evidence. if it were polygraph though, i dont even think the fact could be mentioned in court.

does anyone know if polygraphs can entail reasonable suspicion?

What are you asking, anatagon? If a polygraph test result would support a probable cause for arrest warrant? The answer is no. Such warrants have to be supported by admissible evidence...but a search warrant does not. "Reasonable suspicion" is the standard for searches...I suppose a failed polygraph would suffice, but off-hand I can think of no case where a search was authorized on a warrant application supported only by polygraph results.

I have a feeling many judges would be reluctant to sign such an application, even though it at least seems as if it would be legally sufficient.

yeah. i was trying to picture the shitstorm that a PG could stir up. doesn't seem too bad. i guess it could tip investigators off. they could build a framework to color in with evidence if you let them interview you with a device which could tell what you are telling the truth about and even what makes you uncomfortable.

 

[geauxtohell]

Let's look at the six criteria again:

Falsifiability
Logic
Comprehensiveness
Honesty
Replicability
Sufficiency

I believe that only falsifiability and replicability would apply to what is now understood as scientific criteria.

Perhaps without intending to do so, Madeline gave a perfect illustration of the paradox that exists between scientific criteria and the other four principles: logic, comprehensiveness, honesty, sufficiency.

There is much of the universe that is known but most that is not known. Still the scientific principles applies to 'laws of the universe' are based on the assumption that they can be falsified and/or replicated. As Maddie said, we can't prove that plant life existed on Mars, yet it is suitable as a scientific subject because the day will likely come that we will be able to verify or falsify that assumption.

When it comes to any concept of a deity or intelligent design, however, the assumption is that there will NEVER be a way to falsify or verify that, so it is not a suitable scientific subject. Yet the other four criteria do apply here: logic (the sense that it all couldn't have happened purely by chance); comprehensiveness (ability to understand something greater than ourselves existing); honesty (billions do sincerely believe it); and sufficiency (it fills in all the holes and questions that science is unable to fill or answer.)

Is it possible for science and the non scientific to be equally credible? Is that not the real question being asked here?

I personally think the good professor left out one important quotient to the issue: EXPERIENCE.

If a thousand credible people report seeing a particular phenomenon, I don't think scientists would dismiss that out of hand but would be looking for some way to verify or falsify the reports.

Those same scientists might or might not discount a billion people reporting an experience with a deity or deities.

It is of interest to me why one is so threatening to so many and the other is not. And I think that would make an interesting addition to the professor's lesson plan.

Of all the criteria, falsifiability is among the most important because it addresses the hypothesis, or the fundamental question being asked. To have a hypothesis, you have to be able to show that there is a null hypothesis which makes your postulation able to be rejected by data and evidence.

The existence of God is the fundamental question of existence. I don't think the people who want to insert God (not directed at you) into evolution understand that, to do so, they would have to admit, not only that there is no God, but that this can be proven through scientific methods.

Once you claim something is all powerful, then any human constructs go out the window. This is why a question like the existence of God is outside of the scope of the scientific method.

That's only if you take the position that if it isn't science, then it isn't real. I don't take that position. I see science as one compartment in all knowledge that exists, and perhaps all that exists fits into science somewhere, but we sure as heck can't either falsify or replicate all that we know exists.

I take the position that there is much that is real that science can't explain. And that's okay. I also take the position that we have a tiny fraction of all the science that there is to know and that we will discover or that will be revealed to us later on.

For me it is illogical and irrational to disbelieve something purely because it cannot be falsified or replicated scientifically.

I don't think that anyone would argue that with you (with, perhaps the exception of a pompous asshole like Dawkins).

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. However, when it comes to real science, it would be nice if the theocrats would kindly stop trying to pervert the field with their beliefs that are not scientific in any way.

 

[zzzz]

I have said before that you can never say never! In time everyting can be proven or disproven. The existance of God can be proven if he shows himself or Jesus returns as foretold. Yet here you say he does not exist because he will never return. This is not scientific it is opinion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of all the criteria, falsifiability is among the most important because it addresses the hypothesis, or the fundamental question being asked. To have a hypothesis, you have to be able to show that there is a null hypothesis which makes your postulation able to be rejected by data and evidence.

The existence of God is the fundamental question of existence. I don't think the people who want to insert God (not directed at you) into evolution understand that, to do so, they would have to admit, not only that there is no God, but that this can be proven through scientific methods.

Once you claim something is all powerful, then any human constructs go out the window. This is why a question like the existence of God is outside of the scope of the scientific method.

That's only if you take the position that if it isn't science, then it isn't real. I don't take that position. I see science as one compartment in all knowledge that exists, and perhaps all that exists fits into science somewhere, but we sure as heck can't either falsify or replicate all that we know exists.

I take the position that there is much that is real that science can't explain. And that's okay. I also take the position that we have a tiny fraction of all the science that there is to know and that we will discover or that will be revealed to us later on.

For me it is illogical and irrational to disbelieve something purely because it cannot be falsified or replicated scientifically.

I don't think that anyone would argue that with you (with, perhaps the exception of a pompous asshole like Dawkins).

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. However, when it comes to real science, it would be nice if the theocrats would kindly stop trying to pervert the field with their beliefs that are not scientific in any way.

I agree that the religious should not attempt to interject non-scientific things into scientific curriculum. And the anti-religious should stop trying to erase appropriate religious history and influence from the history of science and everything else.

Having been heavily involved in the schools for a lot of years, I devoted a lot of time, energy, and effort clarifying these two things.

 

[antagon]

Let's look at the six criteria again:

Falsifiability
Logic
Comprehensiveness
Honesty
Replicability
Sufficiency

I believe that only falsifiability and replicability would apply to what is now understood as scientific criteria.

Perhaps without intending to do so, Madeline gave a perfect illustration of the paradox that exists between scientific criteria and the other four principles: logic, comprehensiveness, honesty, sufficiency.

There is much of the universe that is known but most that is not known. Still the scientific principles applies to 'laws of the universe' are based on the assumption that they can be falsified and/or replicated. As Maddie said, we can't prove that plant life existed on Mars, yet it is suitable as a scientific subject because the day will likely come that we will be able to verify or falsify that assumption.

When it comes to any concept of a deity or intelligent design, however, the assumption is that there will NEVER be a way to falsify or verify that, so it is not a suitable scientific subject. Yet the other four criteria do apply here: logic (the sense that it all couldn't have happened purely by chance); comprehensiveness (ability to understand something greater than ourselves existing); honesty (billions do sincerely believe it); and sufficiency (it fills in all the holes and questions that science is unable to fill or answer.)

Is it possible for science and the non scientific to be equally credible? Is that not the real question being asked here?

I personally think the good professor left out one important quotient to the issue: EXPERIENCE.

If a thousand credible people report seeing a particular phenomenon, I don't think scientists would dismiss that out of hand but would be looking for some way to verify or falsify the reports.

Those same scientists might or might not discount a billion people reporting an experience with a deity or deities.

It is of interest to me why one is so threatening to so many and the other is not. And I think that would make an interesting addition to the professor's lesson plan.

Of all the criteria, falsifiability is among the most important because it addresses the hypothesis, or the fundamental question being asked. To have a hypothesis, you have to be able to show that there is a null hypothesis which makes your postulation able to be rejected by data and evidence.

The existence of God is the fundamental question of existence. I don't think the people who want to insert God (not directed at you) into evolution understand that, to do so, they would have to admit, not only that there is no God, but that this can be proven through scientific methods.

Once you claim something is all powerful, then any human constructs go out the window. This is why a question like the existence of God is outside of the scope of the scientific method.

there's too many concerns in science which cant keep with the falsifiability criteria. anything proposing universal scope or drawing hypotheses on phenomena subject to time-frames which are not reproducible can scarcely be falsified or proved per sa. this fact elevates empirical support as a fundamental criteria for a scientific argument. examining deity, an empirical approach calling on observation starts to press deity out of scientific plausibility from the onset.

surely a proposal offering potentially falsifiable basis is not scientific for that reason alone. beating the life on mars idea to death again, simply because we have not investigated or proved no life does not invite or validate a hypothesis that there is life.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Me, I liked his "Falsifiability" tenet. It had not occurred to me before but seems true: any belief that is never going to be susceptible to being proven false has to be considered magical thinking or religious belief, not "fact".

Very good. That is a wonderful explanation for describing atheism, "magical thinking".

 

[Foxfyre]

And yet who would dare say that whether or not there is or has ever been life on Mars is not of scientific interest?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am sure no Martian every made that statement.

 

[antagon]

And yet who would dare say that whether or not there is or has ever been life on Mars is not of scientific interest?

i think anything is of scientific interest, but a qualification of scientific inquiry is such investigation confined by the method we're discussing. most importantly, conclusions are required to be derived from this method to be regarded as scientific.

despite the scientific interest, some concerns lack scientific 'tangibility', that is, they lack the evidence, observability, testability, basis in experience or attachment to valid theory etc which constitutes the bases of proper scientific inquiry. the ball can't get rolling.

for martian fans, the ball was static until some evidence of potential seasonal respiration was discovered which fit with potential life. i suppose marvin is plausible, although 'he' is believed to be a slime colony if alive at all. methane-breathing slime i think.

 

[Foxfyre]

And yet who would dare say that whether or not there is or has ever been life on Mars is not of scientific interest?

i think anything is of scientific interest, but a qualification of scientific inquiry is such investigation confined by the method we're discussing. most importantly, conclusions are required to be derived from this method to be regarded as scientific.

despite the scientific interest, some concerns lack scientific 'tangibility', that is, they lack the evidence, observability, testability, basis in experience or attachment to valid theory etc which constitutes the bases of proper scientific inquiry. the ball can't get rolling.

for martian fans, the ball was static until some evidence of potential seasonal respiration was discovered which fit with potential life. i suppose marvin is plausible, although 'he' is believed to be a slime colony if alive at all. methane-breathing slime i think.

The point is that nobody would question a science teacher including the question of whether there is or has ever been life on Mars in his lesson plan. The prospect could open up all manner of discussion, imagination, and interest in how that might be determined, and what methods we currently have to make such determinations or what additional resources we might need.

There is all manner of room within science to stretch the mind beyond what we already know. If we didn't do that we would rarely advance scientific knowledge much at all.

 

[Old Rocks]

Let's look at the six criteria again:

Falsifiability
Logic
Comprehensiveness
Honesty
Replicability
Sufficiency

I believe that only falsifiability and replicability would apply to what is now understood as scientific criteria.

Perhaps without intending to do so, Madeline gave a perfect illustration of the paradox that exists between scientific criteria and the other four principles: logic, comprehensiveness, honesty, sufficiency.

There is much of the universe that is known but most that is not known. Still the scientific principles applies to 'laws of the universe' are based on the assumption that they can be falsified and/or replicated. As Maddie said, we can't prove that plant life existed on Mars, yet it is suitable as a scientific subject because the day will likely come that we will be able to verify or falsify that assumption.

When it comes to any concept of a deity or intelligent design, however, the assumption is that there will NEVER be a way to falsify or verify that, so it is not a suitable scientific subject. Yet the other four criteria do apply here: logic (the sense that it all couldn't have happened purely by chance); comprehensiveness (ability to understand something greater than ourselves existing); honesty (billions do sincerely believe it); and sufficiency (it fills in all the holes and questions that science is unable to fill or answer.)

Is it possible for science and the non scientific to be equally credible? Is that not the real question being asked here?

I personally think the good professor left out one important quotient to the issue: EXPERIENCE.

If a thousand credible people report seeing a particular phenomenon, I don't think scientists would dismiss that out of hand but would be looking for some way to verify or falsify the reports.

Those same scientists might or might not discount a billion people reporting an experience with a deity or deities.

It is of interest to me why one is so threatening to so many and the other is not. And I think that would make an interesting addition to the professor's lesson plan.

Depends on the people. Millions of Republicans believe Obama is the "anti Christ". Will scientists start to look for "evidence"?

Link for the 'millions of Republicans believe Obama is the 'anti Christ' claim?

Quarter of Republicans Think Obama May Be the Anti-Christ | LiveScience


Americans have some extreme views of President Obama, with a new controversial survey suggesting that 40 percent of adults believe he is a socialist, and about a quarter of survey participants thinking the president is a racist, anti-American and even doing things Hitler did.

The whammy: 14 percent of Americans say President Barack Obama may be the Antichrist. When split by political party, 24 percent of Republicans and 6 percent of Democrats viewed the nation's leader in this way.

The results come from an online Harris Poll involving 2,320 adults who were surveyed online between March 1 and March 8 by Harris Interactive, a market research firm. Respondents were read each of 15 statements and asked whether they thought they were true or false. The sample of people was selected from among roughly 4 million people who agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys and are given "modest incentives," according to Harris. The results were then weighted to reflect the composition of the U.S. adult population. [Infographic Compares Views]

 

[Madeline]

I cannot prove God exists any more than I can prove that I am looking forward to seeing an old friend or that I hope for a certain outcome or that I want to be a millionaire. Yet the most staunch Atheist does not question my reported feelings of anticipation or desire or anticipation even though these cannot be tested, falsified, or replicated by any scientific process.

Yet that same Atheist will deny that I have experienced God based purely on his/her insistance that there is no way to prove it.

For me that is totally illogical.

Maddie raises the question of how there can also be God and an imperfect world with grief, pain, suffering, injustice, etc. etc. etc.

Yet she does not question how there can be millionaires who experience no joy from their wealth. She doesn't question that some people enjoy alcoholic beverages with no ill effect while others become ill, hallucinate, or become hopelessly addicted. It doesn't bother her that the automobile gives us tremendous freedom and mobility and safety even as it is involved with thousands who lose property or loved ones or who incur pain, maiming, suffering, death.

For me it is illogical to accept that many wonderful things exist imperfectly but reject that a deity can exist in an imperfect world.

For me, who has experienced God, it is incomprehensible to not believe in that experience. There is no way to falsify or replicate that experience any more than I can falsify or replicate the hope, desire, or anticipation that I experience in other things.

He who has not experienced may doubt or accept the validity of the experience of another. But in all cases, both doubt and acceptance require faith.

And as for sufficiency of my belief, experience, faith or whatever one wishes to call it, I go back to logic that tells me that if I could fully understand, comprehend, or explain the God I experienced, he wouldn't be much of a God.

Let's be clear, miss. We BOTH believe in God. My contention is, his existence cannot be proven via the scientific method -- not that he does not exist. Faith is, at its base, a choice made from a pyschological need (to please one's parents, to feel less vulnerable, to satisfy a craving for justice, etc.) and no matter how strong that need is and how firm the belief is we have chosen to fulfill it, that cannot be "scientific evidence".

BTW, if God exists (and I agree he does, this is just for fun) why don't feral children ever report such a belief?

 

[Madeline]

Let's look at the six criteria again:

Falsifiability
Logic
Comprehensiveness
Honesty
Replicability
Sufficiency

I believe that only falsifiability and replicability would apply to what is now understood as scientific criteria.

Perhaps without intending to do so, Madeline gave a perfect illustration of the paradox that exists between scientific criteria and the other four principles: logic, comprehensiveness, honesty, sufficiency.

There is much of the universe that is known but most that is not known. Still the scientific principles applies to 'laws of the universe' are based on the assumption that they can be falsified and/or replicated. As Maddie said, we can't prove that plant life existed on Mars, yet it is suitable as a scientific subject because the day will likely come that we will be able to verify or falsify that assumption.

When it comes to any concept of a deity or intelligent design, however, the assumption is that there will NEVER be a way to falsify or verify that, so it is not a suitable scientific subject. Yet the other four criteria do apply here: logic (the sense that it all couldn't have happened purely by chance); comprehensiveness (ability to understand something greater than ourselves existing); honesty (billions do sincerely believe it); and sufficiency (it fills in all the holes and questions that science is unable to fill or answer.)

Is it possible for science and the non scientific to be equally credible? Is that not the real question being asked here?

I personally think the good professor left out one important quotient to the issue: EXPERIENCE.

If a thousand credible people report seeing a particular phenomenon, I don't think scientists would dismiss that out of hand but would be looking for some way to verify or falsify the reports.

Those same scientists might or might not discount a billion people reporting an experience with a deity or deities.

It is of interest to me why one is so threatening to so many and the other is not. And I think that would make an interesting addition to the professor's lesson plan.

Of all the criteria, falsifiability is among the most important because it addresses the hypothesis, or the fundamental question being asked. To have a hypothesis, you have to be able to show that there is a null hypothesis which makes your postulation able to be rejected by data and evidence.

The existence of God is the fundamental question of existence. I don't think the people who want to insert God (not directed at you) into evolution understand that, to do so, they would have to admit, not only that there is no God, but that this can be proven through scientific methods.

Once you claim something is all powerful, then any human constructs go out the window. This is why a question like the existence of God is outside of the scope of the scientific method.

That's only if you take the position that if it isn't science, then it isn't real. I don't take that position. I see science as one compartment in all knowledge that exists, and perhaps all that exists fits into science somewhere, but we sure as heck can't either falsify or replicate all that we know exists.

I take the position that there is much that is real that science can't explain. And that's okay. I also take the position that we have a tiny fraction of all the science that there is to know and that we will discover or that will be revealed to us later on.

For me it is illogical and irrational to disbelieve something purely because it cannot be falsified or replicated scientifically.

Well of course, foxfyre. After all, history cannot be replicated and yet we believe certain things occurred in the past. However, I would argue that in light of the tension between religious faith and science, only science belongs in science classes.

If all things were equal, time, resources, etc., I would not object to a Comparative Religion or Modern Ethics class in public HS's.....I just object to cloaking one such as a Sex Ed 101 or Biology class.

 

[Gadawg73]

* the irrationality of the American world-view, which supports such unsupportable claims as life after death and the efficacy of the polygraph, (Whoops...I did think polygraphs had some validity) and

I remember reading a book by a world renowned polygrapher who told a story about being in Italy for a conference when the local police asked him for help. A rich italian businessman's wife had disappeared and the cops couldn't find the body but he was stupid enough to let himself be hooked up to the machine. the polygrapher didn't know how to speak italian so he asked for photos of the businessman's villa. after silently presenting the photos and getting physiological results he was able to tell the police where to find the body and the businessman went to jail.

this polygraph expert believed that the methods routinely used are inadequate and can be manipulated. but that recognition of pertinent images can't be faked. interesting stuff.

It is interesting but police do not ask for help from polygraphers ever.

 

[IanC]

* the irrationality of the American world-view, which supports such unsupportable claims as life after death and the efficacy of the polygraph, (Whoops...I did think polygraphs had some validity) and

I remember reading a book by a world renowned polygrapher who told a story about being in Italy for a conference when the local police asked him for help. A rich italian businessman's wife had disappeared and the cops couldn't find the body but he was stupid enough to let himself be hooked up to the machine. the polygrapher didn't know how to speak italian so he asked for photos of the businessman's villa. after silently presenting the photos and getting physiological results he was able to tell the police where to find the body and the businessman went to jail.

this polygraph expert believed that the methods routinely used are inadequate and can be manipulated. but that recognition of pertinent images can't be faked. interesting stuff.

It is interesting but police do not ask for help from polygraphers ever.

I concede to your expert knowledge of Italian police procedures of the 70's.

that said, I seem to remember a pretty good Italian newspaper headline photo in the centrefold photo album of the book. a fake no doubt.

 

[Madeline]

* the irrationality of the American world-view, which supports such unsupportable claims as life after death and the efficacy of the polygraph, (Whoops...I did think polygraphs had some validity) and

I remember reading a book by a world renowned polygrapher who told a story about being in Italy for a conference when the local police asked him for help. A rich italian businessman's wife had disappeared and the cops couldn't find the body but he was stupid enough to let himself be hooked up to the machine. the polygrapher didn't know how to speak italian so he asked for photos of the businessman's villa. after silently presenting the photos and getting physiological results he was able to tell the police where to find the body and the businessman went to jail.

this polygraph expert believed that the methods routinely used are inadequate and can be manipulated. but that recognition of pertinent images can't be faked. interesting stuff.

It is interesting but police do not ask for help from polygraphers ever.

Dun the state police departments have such folks on staff, Gadawg? Nice to see you post again, BTW.

 

[Madeline]

Depends on the people. Millions of Republicans believe Obama is the "anti Christ". Will scientists start to look for "evidence"?

Link for the 'millions of Republicans believe Obama is the 'anti Christ' claim?

Quarter of Republicans Think Obama May Be the Anti-Christ | LiveScience


Americans have some extreme views of President Obama, with a new controversial survey suggesting that 40 percent of adults believe he is a socialist, and about a quarter of survey participants thinking the president is a racist, anti-American and even doing things Hitler did.

The whammy: 14 percent of Americans say President Barack Obama may be the Antichrist. When split by political party, 24 percent of Republicans and 6 percent of Democrats viewed the nation's leader in this way.

The results come from an online Harris Poll involving 2,320 adults who were surveyed online between March 1 and March 8 by Harris Interactive, a market research firm. Respondents were read each of 15 statements and asked whether they thought they were true or false. The sample of people was selected from among roughly 4 million people who agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys and are given "modest incentives," according to Harris. The results were then weighted to reflect the composition of the U.S. adult population. [Infographic Compares Views]

I find it disturbing that 14% even believe there will be an Antichrist, nevermind that they think Obama is he.

On the other hand, I am convinced Rupert Murdoch is Satan, so who am I to judge?

 

[IanC]

I am often shocked at what people say they believe when polled. manmade HIV, fake moon landing, alien abduction, etc. I don't know anyone who believes crap like that except the conspiracy theory guy who used to work down the hall. and my mother-in-law, of course.

 

[Madeline]

I am often shocked at what people say they believe when polled. manmade HIV, fake moon landing, alien abduction, etc. I don't know anyone who believes crap like that except the conspiracy theory guy who used to work down the hall. and my mother-in-law, of course.

I have a friend who does these opinion polls...I'll have to ask him if they have ever tried to see if responders are punking them.

My sympathies on the MIL, Ian.

 

[zzzz]

Of all the criteria, falsifiability is among the most important because it addresses the hypothesis, or the fundamental question being asked. To have a hypothesis, you have to be able to show that there is a null hypothesis which makes your postulation able to be rejected by data and evidence.

The existence of God is the fundamental question of existence. I don't think the people who want to insert God (not directed at you) into evolution understand that, to do so, they would have to admit, not only that there is no God, but that this can be proven through scientific methods.

Once you claim something is all powerful, then any human constructs go out the window. This is why a question like the existence of God is outside of the scope of the scientific method.

That's only if you take the position that if it isn't science, then it isn't real. I don't take that position. I see science as one compartment in all knowledge that exists, and perhaps all that exists fits into science somewhere, but we sure as heck can't either falsify or replicate all that we know exists.

I take the position that there is much that is real that science can't explain. And that's okay. I also take the position that we have a tiny fraction of all the science that there is to know and that we will discover or that will be revealed to us later on.

For me it is illogical and irrational to disbelieve something purely because it cannot be falsified or replicated scientifically.

Well of course, foxfyre. After all, history cannot be replicated and yet we believe certain things occurred in the past. However, I would argue that in light of the tension between religious faith and science, only science belongs in science classes.

If all things were equal, time, resources, etc., I would not object to a Comparative Religion or Modern Ethics class in public HS's.....I just object to cloaking one such as a Sex Ed 101 or Biology class.

I agree that science not religion should be taught in high school. There are religious studies in college and if a high schoool offered a course in that it would be ok too, just keep them seperated.

As a Christian I believe God created the world and all life, yet I also believe that evolution was God's tool to create humankind. The Bible is not literal in that the people writing it had to describe things that they could relate to and the visions God gave them were indescribable for the most part. In the Bible it took 6 days to create the world and universe, yet to God, 6 days are many millenia. Yes God created man and he created man not from nothing but he created a process of evolution that created man and all living things.

But religion is not science and should be treated as such. Religion is based on faith, science on theories and facts. ESP and other things, although discounted to a certain extent also have their places in society.