Jim Swanson wrote
"This point focusses on something I have never been able to
understand in critiques of science: what methods are we to use to
"assess the claims of science" if not the very methods of science,
namely logic and experimental verification? The basic tools of
rationality form the basis of scientific enquiry. Any other method of
assesment would seem to require that we do indeed take our results
on faith."
It seems to me that it is exaclty the fact that only science can verify science,
which leads to the progression of the field. If, for example, some study claim
s to prove something or a scientist claims that he/she can prove something given
the right amount of public funds, then it is up to other scientists, or a scien
tifically literate populace to weigh such things as experiment design, sampling
techniques, and other factors that can lend legitimacy or cast doubt on a claim.
That the doubt and the legitimacy can also be judged by scientific standards(s
hifting scientific standards at that) that keeps the whole field moving, shiftin
g, and able to adopt new ways of thinking.
We must also, IMHO, get away from using the most extreme examples to prove and d
isprove a case. Yes a plane will still fly regardless of culture, but should we
accept a study on face value that claims that good looking people make more mon
ey than ugly people without looking at definitions, sampling, and cultutral bias
? Of course not. If a scientist claims to be on the verge of finding a cure fo
r AIDS should we give him funding over a scientist who is conducting a general s
tudy of cell structure? We must, as a society who spends a great deal of public
money on science, never take any claim on faith, scientific or otherwise.
Matthew A White
Director of Education
Baltimore Museum of Industry
[log in to unmask]
(410)727-4808
History, noun- An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are
brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.
-Ambrose Bierce
|
