Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Objective Evidence? (Evidence for More than One)
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 1 of 18 (100504)
04-16-2004 10:15 PM


This is a spin off from here:
Message 145
Before one arrives at some conclusion it is necessary to gather some evidence. Evidence clearly comes in a wide variety of forms. It also comes in varying levels of quality.
As individuals we have different ways of picking what we take as evidence for anything.
In this topic I would like to discuss what is evidence beyond that which applies to one person. This, obviously to me, includes what would by consensus be called scientific evidence. Is there any other distinct kind?
I think it will come to two kinds; scientific and otherwise with some overlaps or fuzziness. Maybe we'll se otherwise.
To start we should have a few attempts at offering an operational defintion for 'evidence'.
{4/23/04 - Topic title modified from "Evidence for More than One?" to "What is Objective Evidence? (Evidence for More than One)" - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-23-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Loudmouth, posted 04-23-2004 6:16 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 4 by ElliPhant, posted 04-24-2004 8:38 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 18 (102482)
04-24-2004 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ElliPhant
04-24-2004 8:38 PM


Believing is Seeing
Carl Sagan said that.
And you're right that is the problem. That is why we don't relay on one person's view to define "objective evidence".
We rarely see things that are unnotable and what we are not looking for.
That is absolutely true. That is why a good researcher is open to those things are unexpected. Discoveries often aren't by big surprises they can be because someone goes "mmm??" at some detail.
Aren't all observations heavily theory dependent?
I would think that it is true that what observations will be attempted are frequently based on theory. That is part of the interplay between theoreticians and experimentalists in physics (e.g.). It is also true that an observation that fits a theoretical framework is probably going to be questioned less than one that doesn't.
The above issues are why you don't see a single experimental result being taken as the last word on anything. Careful replication is an important part of the work.
The scientific process requires rigoruous honesty. That is why there is such a rapid and large consequence if someone violates that. The obsessive scrutiny that interesting results are put under encourages experimenters to be careful.
I was at a talk last fall from the lead physicist who formed the first Bose-Enstein condensate. They spent most of a year after getting it trying to figure what they might have done wrong. Only then did they publish.
{Fixed first quote box - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-25-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ElliPhant, posted 04-24-2004 8:38 PM ElliPhant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ElliPhant, posted 04-24-2004 10:03 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 8 of 18 (102505)
04-24-2004 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ElliPhant
04-24-2004 10:03 PM


Re: Believing is Seeing
True, but as pretty much all scientists exist within the same paradigm repeatability of results helps a little but still gets us nowhere near objectivity.
It doesn't? What does? How else would we determine objective facts.
Why do you think repeatability only "helps a little". If there are those who disagree with the results, that is, those whose views would bias against the results, and they repeat the results doesn't that do more than "help a little"? Even if they replicators are operating with the same overall views they aren't just going through the replication for fun. They are trying to see if it does work.
You'd have to show the particular paradigm and how it presents a problem to a particular result to be able to demonstrate that there is a real problem.
The danger of individual bias is, of course, recognized. At any time when there is room for experimentor bias the experimental arrangement should be double blinded. This allows for results to be evaluated without an awareness of how that affects results.
In other cases single blinding is adequate.
Could you explain how the current process only "helps a little" and offer precise examples of the difficulty?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ElliPhant, posted 04-24-2004 10:03 PM ElliPhant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ElliPhant, posted 04-25-2004 2:24 AM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 11 of 18 (102539)
04-25-2004 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by ElliPhant
04-25-2004 2:24 AM


Absolute Objectivity
I would argue that absolute objectivity is impossible.
Sure, I think I agree. But what the heck is "absolute objectivity"? And so what? What does this change?
We do the best we can. When you have some better approach please let me know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ElliPhant, posted 04-25-2004 2:24 AM ElliPhant has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024