Good morning, Holmes.
quote:
I am also unsure how to exhibit an increase in poor studies or citations of studies in a clinical way. It is true that when one does not understand that science is philosophy one is generally ignorant of the scientific method... which I showed with evidence... but whether that results in problems is less defined.
I would point to the multiple poor references at EvC to articles showing mere correlation, which are treated as causative. Evolutionary Psychology is a fantastic example of an entire field growing up around extremely poor methodology based on a lack of understanding of the limits of scientific method. You can find threads on that field here at EvC.
If you want something more specific, you'll have to be a bit less vague. My main point was to show the connection between philosophy and science. My rant was less important and focused on those at EvC who had made such claims, which apparently you disagree with?
I requested examples, not a clinical study. Your "point about the connection between philosphy and science" is irrefutable; your assertion about the extent of the problem was broad and unsupported.
I recognize the difficulty of quantifying a broad claim about one's sense of things and asked for illuminating examples, not citations of studies. There does't seem to be anything vague about that request.
Forum posts from undefined authors (e.g.,lay vs. pro) hardly serve to support the notion that "many scientists" suffer from the problem you describe. A more telling example would be published work in which the scientist(s) went wrong, and peer review failed to correct the problem.
On the other hand, if that characterization was merely a rant, as you say, intended to provoke discussion and a greater appreciation of science's philosophical underpinnings, that's fine with me. I am quite sure I will learn by following the discussion.
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
™ Version 4.2
