>objective scientific methods are near perfectby GreenMan (no login)
Except when the results are skewed or even falsified by scientists who are stubbornly convinced that they know what they SHOULD be. In some fields (biology in particular) the nature of the data often involves ambiguities which can make them subject to different interpretations (did a particular skull belong to an exceptionally small individual, or is it typical? - maybe it was not completely mature, diseased, undernourished...maybe this specimen should not be included in our sample...) There are a thousand ways to skew data, and not all of them even require deliberate intent. Stephen Jay Gould's book "The Mismeasure of Man" goes into mind-numbing detail on this subject.
To counter this, "objective" scientific methods are all we've got. But how can they be perfect (or even truly objective) having been devised by "people who are highly subjective"?
Having said that, I tend to agree that objective scientific methods are NEAR perfect. In principle, and most often in practice as well. But we need to remember that the most vital piece of equipment in the process (the human brain) tends to look where it expects to find something, and tends to see what it expects to see.
>since there are so many scientists anyway, I'm pretty >sure almost every question that could reasonably be >asked, is being asked.
Well, now I'm sure you didn't really mean THAT. That sort of notion was popular before guys like Gödel, Planck, Heisenburg, and Einstein came along and showed just how easy it is to turn the whole outfit on its ear. It'll happen again...don't you think?
|Response Title||Author and Date|
|Re: >objective scientific methods are near perfect||Earthborn on Oct 1|
Newbies usually go to www.qbasic.com and click on
The QBasic Forum
Forum regulars have their own ways, which include The QBasic Community Forums