Free speech.

[Ulsterkiwi]

What is this "real" science you all speak of? Bogan your definition is not one that scientists would use. By scientists I mean of course people who actually "do" science and not those who write websites or blogs with no editorial or peer review oversight.
An approach which is mechanical never learns. Experimental repetition is merely one way to address the fact that it is not always feasible to control all variables especially in complex systems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bogan]

Wow, it almost looks like you've finally come to your senses.

Many of the people featured in that series have been in the countless youtube videos you've refused to view in the past.

And I fully expect that series to see through and expose the bullshit such muppets (on either side) put forth; if not, I'll be unsubscribing from a certain naturopathy mailing list.

What is this "real" science you all speak of? Bogan your definition is not one that scientists would use. By scientists I mean of course people who actually "do" science and not those who write websites or blogs with no editorial or peer review oversight.
An approach which is mechanical never learns. Experimental repetition is merely one way to address the fact that it is not always feasible to control all variables especially in complex systems.

Experimental repetition is the confirmation of science, you can't do science without it. While my definition may have missed the creative step of coming up with the theory, there is only one way to prove it...

[Katman]

And I fully expect that series to see through and expose the bullshit such muppets (on either side) put forth; if not, I'll be unsubscribing from a certain naturopathy mailing list.

I sincerely hope you learn a lot from them.

I suspect they won't be what you were expecting though.

[bogan]

I sincerely hope you learn a lot from them.

I suspect they won't be what you were expecting though.

It will be what it will be, I'll be learning from it either way, will you?

[Katman]

It will be what it will be, I'll be learning from it either way, will you?

Absolutely.

I'll look forward to a rational discussion on what they present.

[husaberg]

Absolutely.

I'll look forward to a rational discussion on what they present.

Now thats funny.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Experimental repetition is the confirmation of science, you can't do science without it. While my definition may have missed the creative step of coming up with the theory, there is only one way to prove it...

Uhm, not true I am afraid. One pretty good example to show why: there is a huge proportion of evidence driving medical practice which was not produced using experimental repetition. Unless of course you want to describe medicine as unscientific?
Some disciplines avail of experimental repetition, for others it is neither practical nor appropriate. That is not what makes the discipline valid or otherwise.
I would suggest that you need to be careful of making such broad assertions about something you are not expert in. I understand why you might make the statement you did but the statement is coming from a limited understanding of what the scientific method is about.

[Katman]

Now thats funny.

How about you - are you going to watch them?

Or will you instead continue to argue from a position of ignorance?

[Ocean1]

Uhm, not true I am afraid. One pretty good example to show why: there is a huge proportion of evidence driving medical practice which was not produced using experimental repetition. Unless of course you want to describe medicine as unscientific?
Some disciplines avail of experimental repetition, for others it is neither practical nor appropriate. That is not what makes the discipline valid or otherwise.
I would suggest that you need to be careful of making such broad assertions about something you are not expert in. I understand why you might make the statement you did but the statement is coming from a limited understanding of what the scientific method is about.

He's perfectly correct, perhaps your understanding of scientific methods could use a scrub up. Observation and theory aren't unique to the field of science.

The bulk of scientific advances are based on proving those concepts, the product of many, many iterations of experimental work.

[husaberg]

How about you - are you going to watch them?

Or will you instead continue to argue from a position of ignorance?

I don't intend to log in as you. Incase it escaped your notice you are the one always arguing with the rumours and non-facts and unsubstantiated allegations.
But that said, gee you are on form tonight with the OTT narcissism. Kudos to you.

[bogan]

Uhm, not true I am afraid. One pretty good example to show why: there is a huge proportion of evidence driving medical practice which was not produced using experimental repetition. Unless of course you want to describe medicine as unscientific?
Some disciplines avail of experimental repetition, for others it is neither practical nor appropriate. That is not what makes the discipline valid or otherwise.
I would suggest that you need to be careful of making such broad assertions about something you are not expert in. I understand why you might make the statement you did but the statement is coming from a limited understanding of what the scientific method is about.

Perhaps you should provide the example then, because medical practice is based on experimental repetition. Weren't terms like like "double blind studies" created due to their medical application?

[Ulsterkiwi]

He's perfectly correct, perhaps your understanding of scientific methods could use a scrub up. Observation and theory aren't unique to the field of science.

The bulk of scientific advances are based on proving those concepts, the product of many, many iterations of experimental work.

I see, so when did you last conduct original research?
Science is not a "field". Science is a way of learning how and why things are the way they are. A myriad of disciplines are scientific. Science calls for a methodical, structured and transparent approach, identifying the particular question you wish to attempt to answer and developing an appropriate method to collect data which will hopefully provide an answer. The results need to be made sense of, essentially interpreted, and set in the context of current understanding and knowledge. The results and the explanation for them which is offered are then subject to critique from ones peers. That in itself does not mean the ideas coming from those results will stand the test of time, regardless of how many iterations were run.
It may surprise you to know that not all science is conducted on the basis of hypothesising and experimental repetition. It may further surprise you that for those disciplines which do, the hypothesis is more often than not shown to be incorrect and the results provide more questions than answers. More iterations of the experiments do not make the issue any less clouded. Hence my statement that mechanical thinking or process is not conducive to learning.
It's interesting that you say the bulk of advancements happen due to many iterations of experiments. Again calling on the discipline of medicine as an example, one simply cannot say that. To do so ignores the vast array of evidence produced by clinical audit, systematic review, case studies, case series, retrospective analysis, single cohort studies, meta analyses and epidemiological studies to name a few. Even the gold standard, randomised clinical trials, are not actually experimental repetition certainly not if we look at stage 1 and 2 trials and it's a stretch for stage 3 and 4 trials.

Absolutely, experimental repetition is important and an appropriate approach for many disciplines. It is not however the sole measure of the validity of a discipline or its scientific merit.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ulsterkiwi]

Perhaps you should provide the example then, because medical practice is based on experimental repetition. Weren't terms like like "double blind studies" created due to their medical application?

Hopefully the answer I gave Ocean will help.

Double blinded studies are a particular form of randomised clinical trial. It's where say a drug is tested for superiority against another. The double blinding means that neither the patient nor the person collecting the data on the patients response to the drug know which drug the patient has been given.
Now, as it is not appropriate to repeat the process over and over again in the same patient then lots of different but related experiments are conducted. That is where the patient cohort comes in. It is possible that a drug works better in one person rather than another anyway, that could be for all sorts of reasons. Alternatively one drug appearing better than another might be purely down to chance. So to obtain more insight the testing is done across a number of people. That number will be determined by a number of things, mostly what scale of difference you want to try and establish, this is called powering a study. Simply put, if you think a drug is 40% "better" then you will need x number of patients enrolled in the study to test that. If you think it's 50% better then you will need a different number of people.
Then you will need to see if any difference is significant, that is what amount of the difference you see is down to chance?
Bear in mind what you end up with is a statistical analysis telling you that on the balance of probabilities you can make a prediction about how a patient fitting the profile of those on the trial will respond a particular way to the drug.
And it's just that, a prediction. There are no certainties and no scientist will ever claim any.

Of course an RCT is one of a number of scientific approaches to gather evidence leading to an "advance" as Ocean (accurately) described it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bogan]

Hopefully the answer I gave Ocean will help.

Double blinded studies are a particular form of randomised clinical trial. It's where say a drug is tested for superiority against another. The double blinding means that neither the patient nor the person collecting the data on the patients response to the drug know which drug the patient has been given.
Now, as it is not appropriate to repeat the process over and over again in the same patient then lots of different but related experiments are conducted. That is where the patient cohort comes in. It is possible that a drug works better in one person rather than another anyway, that could be for all sorts of reasons. Alternatively one drug appearing better than another might be purely down to chance. So to obtain more insight the testing is done across a number of people. That number will be determined by a number of things, mostly what scale of difference you want to try and establish, this is called powering a study. Simply put, if you think a drug is 40% "better" then you will need x number of patients enrolled in the study to test that. If you think it's 50% better then you will need a different number of people.
Then you will need to see if any difference is significant, that is what amount of the difference you see is down to chance?
Bear in mind what you end up with is a statistical analysis telling you that on the balance of probabilities you can make a prediction about how a patient fitting the profile of those on the trial will respond a particular way to the drug.
And it's just that, a prediction. There are no certainties and no scientist will ever claim any.

Of course an RCT is one of a number of scientific approaches to gather evidence leading to an "advance" as Ocean (accurately) described it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, just what in that doesn't sound like repeated experimentation to you?

[swbarnett]

He's perfectly correct, perhaps your understanding of scientific methods could use a scrub up. Observation and theory aren't unique to the field of science.

The "Scientific Method" is not the be-all and end-all of science. A fair bit of cosmology can't be tested for example.

The bulk of scientific advances are based on proving those concepts, the product of many, many iterations of experimental work.

While sometimes true this applies more to technological advances than scientific ones.