Free speech.

[Ulsterkiwi]

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

I didn't say it wasn't, if you check back you will see that I said "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."

The kind of repetition being alluded to by your and Ocean's posts is the idea of the exact same experiment being repeated over and over again to ensure the veracity of results. That is of course the cornerstone underpinning evidence provided by many disciplines. Let me be clear I have no argument with that.
In the specific case of a double blinded stage 3 RCT (a particular form of RCT) there are multiple iterations of the experiment but in different people, so there is no way they can be considered exact repetitions as the conditions change with every patient. A physicist may run an experiment 3 times because they can control things to the extent its the same experiment on each of those 3 occasions. That will give them enough to publish. Medical science cannot do that, hence needing dozens, hundreds and sometimes thousands of different but related experiments to add sufficient weight to any evidence. It is still just that, evidence for consideration, not absolute proof.
You asked specifically about double blinding, I was attempting to answer that question. So, we could get into an argument about semantics, not helpful.

Hence, my general point is there are many valid scientific methods of producing evidence which do not involve experimental repetition. Please step back a little bit and consider that.
With the list I gave in my reply to Ocean I have provided a range of examples of methodological approaches which is by no means exhaustive but all have a place in establishing the evidence which drives medical practice.

A stand out example was the case of Fenoterol, a drug used to treat asthma. A group of scientific researchers suspected that the drug was actually responsible for a number of asthma related deaths. They went to the library and archives, not the laboratory or the wards. Their publication in the Lancet at the end of their study was explosive and if the story had happened in the US and not NZ it would have been made into a movie by now. The drug was removed from use and yet not a single experiment was conducted to reach their scientific conclusion.

Lets take another example. I think we can all agree that Stephen Hawking is a scientist yes? He has written about the concept of models to explain various phenomena. At times those models work well and withstand repetitive experimentation. He also explains however that sometimes a model just cannot adequately explain what is going on. No amount of experimental iterations will change that. The only response is to come up with a new model.
The test therefore for knowledge to stand is not necessarily repeated experiments, rather we need to ask "does this explain what we need explained?"

[TheDemonLord]

The test therefore for knowledge to stand is not necessarily repeated experiments, rather we need to ask "does this explain what we need explained?"

To play the Devil's advocate for the moment:

How does your knowledge hold up when the explanation is "God did/does it"

[swbarnett]

To play the Devil's advocate for the moment:

How does your knowledge hold up when the explanation is "God did/does it"

I strongly suggest you read "The God Delusion" with a truly open mind.

[Ulsterkiwi]

To play the Devil's advocate for the moment:

How does your knowledge hold up when the explanation is "God did/does it"

That is probably playing the devils advocate in a more literal sense of the phrase.
I thought we were talking about scientific methodologies?
You have moved the conversation into philosophy, specifically epistemology. That of course leads to one's ontological framework or assumptions.
The argument is that experimentation cannot prove God did it. Neither can experimentation prove God did not. Experimentation cannot solve the philosophical question does God exist so one's ontology may include the assumption that he does (or that he does not).
Dawkins is keen to argue he does not. I take the view that there are things that we do not understand and scientific study has yet to provide an explanation. It's not "my" knowledge per se but there are models which use the "God did it" premise. They do not tend to be complete, falling over at some point or at the very least leaving unsatisfactory gaps. That is usually when we hear the phrase "mysterious ways". At that point we have moved into faith and that's completely off topic.

To return to the point I was trying to make. One can try to answer a question in a scientific manner that does not necessarily include experimental repetition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Berries]

I can hear Ed turning in his grave.

[Katman]

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.

Yeah, I never really imagined you'd be interested in opening your mind.

I trust that now bogan has publicly stated his intention to watch the series with an open mind, that he'll follow through with it.

I suspect I might be disappointed though.

[Ocean1]

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

Original? Can't be sure. Research? Most days.

Science is most certainly a "field" insomuch as there are professionals that earn their crust doing "pure" science of one sort or another. Perhaps you're confusing that with "scientific method", which describes behaviors somewhat beyond the science found in classrooms.

And I still insist that it's a fucking rare scientific proof that doesn't involve more than one experiment.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Original? Can't be sure. Research? Most days.

Science is most certainly a "field" insomuch as there are professionals that earn their crust doing "pure" science of one sort or another. Perhaps you're confusing that with "scientific method", which describes behaviors somewhat beyond the science found in classrooms.

And I still insist that it's a fucking rare scientific proof that doesn't involve more than one experiment.

I suppose we may have to agree to disagree.

By original research I mean are you producing research or consuming it? Original research involves the identification of a question, the design of a study to address the question, collecting and analysing data to produce results, reporting those results to make a cogent argument which expands or adds to the knowledge base. Consuming research is using what others have done to inform what you are doing or help you solve a problem. It does not entail adding to the knowledge base.

Your definition of "pure" may be a factor as well. The likelihood is we end up in a circular argument as to whether or not you are talking about physics, chemistry and biology which is the school definition of science.

I am not confused, science is the structured or systematic endeavour to understand the world around us. What you describe as "the classroom" is simply a term applied to a place to learn which can be physical or abstract, we could equally well use the term "laboratory" to convey the idea. To that end, don't be too dismissive of "the classroom".

Again your choice of term with respect to "proof" is interesting. Scientists present evidence gathered in the manner described above. It is common to use absolute terms like "proof" when no absolute was intended or inferred.
Again, I have given examples where scientific evidence guides what we do but no experiments were conducted. SWBarnett also made some suggestions for consideration. So again what I am saying is experimental repetition is not the be-all and end-all of assessing the value of scientific evidence. That does not derail or otherwise threaten the high value we can place on evidence supported by experimental repetition.
Tomorrow we may learn something which forces us to revise what we have accepted as being the case today so science does not always deal in absolutes and some seem to have issue with that.

[Voltaire]

I strongly suggest you read "The God Delusion" with a truly open mind.

Also available on U Tube

[TheDemonLord]

I strongly suggest you read "The God Delusion" with a truly open mind.

I think we may be talking cross purposes (although I must confess, I've yet to read that book in full, am quite familiar and quite a fan of Dawkins) - See below which hopefully clarifies what I meant

That is probably playing the devils advocate in a more literal sense of the phrase.
I thought we were talking about scientific methodologies?

We are, however my point was to highlight that just because a model explains something does not grant it any form of accuracy or validity.

You have moved the conversation into philosophy, specifically epistemology. That of course leads to one's ontological framework or assumptions.
The argument is that experimentation cannot prove God did it. Neither can experimentation prove God did not. Experimentation cannot solve the philosophical question does God exist so one's ontology may include the assumption that he does (or that he does not).

Not really - as above, a model that explains something is not the be-all and end-all, It's an important part, don't get me wrong, but it's missing a key step - being that each aspect that the model is built on needs to be isolated and tested to confirm it is as close to an accurate representation of reality as we are currently able to predict (until such time as a better, more accurate model comes along)

Dawkins is keen to argue he does not. I take the view that there are things that we do not understand and scientific study has yet to provide an explanation. It's not "my" knowledge per se but there are models which use the "God did it" premise. They do not tend to be complete, falling over at some point or at the very least leaving unsatisfactory gaps. That is usually when we hear the phrase "mysterious ways".

Which is essentially my critique, I could fill in any infinite number of gaps with an infinite number of God(s) who do or did things - but that does not make an accurate model (as above).

At that point we have moved into faith and that's completely off topic.

not reaaaaaally - the Faith part was used to highlight the shortcomming of your test for knowledge.

To return to the point I was trying to make. One can try to answer a question in a scientific manner that does not necessarily include experimental repetition.

Whilst that is indeed true, ultimately the authority as to whether or not the answer is valid comes from testing the answer. Sometimes that test could be in the form of a thought experiment (such as Galileo and his cannonballs off the side of the Leaning Tower of Pizza) though

[Ulsterkiwi]

We are, however my point was to highlight that just because a model explains something does not grant it any form of accuracy or validity.



Not really - as above, a model that explains something is not the be-all and end-all, It's an important part, don't get me wrong, but it's missing a key step - being that each aspect that the model is built on needs to be isolated and tested to confirm it is as close to an accurate representation of reality as we are currently able to predict (until such time as a better, more accurate model comes along)




Which is essentially my critique, I could fill in any infinite number of gaps with an infinite number of God(s) who do or did things - but that does not make an accurate model (as above).




not reaaaaaally - the Faith part was used to highlight the shortcomming of your test for knowledge.



Whilst that is indeed true, ultimately the authority as to whether or not the answer is valid comes from testing the answer. Sometimes that test could be in the form of a thought experiment (such as Galileo and his cannonballs off the side of the Leaning Tower of Pizza) though

He wasn't the only one talking at cross purposes.

Again people speak of something without really knowing what they speak of. A model is developed through a combination of some or all of observation, description, narrative and experimentation; not the other way around. The testing happens on the way, not at the end. Using the model which results is fine until you try to use it to explain something else, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, time for a new model in that case.
Its not my test for knowledge, its what science uses, and the test stands. The proposed model which includes the assumption God (in whatever form you wish him or her to take) exists will not explain satisfactorily without calling on faith, which is belief without evidence. (That is Dawkin's definition by the way) That is what I was saying and it means the attempt to build the model falls over. So how exactly does that show a shortcoming of "my" test for knowledge. You are creating an argument that does not exist, at least not from my perspective.

And no single component, test or form of evidence is the be-all or end-all is kind of the entire point I was making. To say experimental repetition is the only way to produce evidence is short sighted and unnecessarily restricting. Some evidence tells us more or convinces us more than other others but we seem to be accepting of that when it suits our purposes. The legal system is a case in point.

Another example, which is a bit silly but shows the inherent silliness in dismissing evidence because you do not understand it. Separate someone's head from their body and they die, right? That is patently obvious. Do we really need to repeat that as a controlled experiment multiple times to evidence it? How many times can you kill someone anyway? Do we even need a single iteration of the experiment? Not really because all the observational, descriptive and narrational evidence tells us death will be the result. Feel free to separate your head from your body to test this experimentally!

[Banditbandit]

or seek to educate them... https://go.thetruthaboutvaccines.com/sneak-peek/

To be fair, real science is mechanical and repetitive, the consistency of results and robustness of conclusions thus derived is what makes it science.

Maybe ... read Feyerabend's Against Method .. what makes it science is that people agree it is science ....

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...

No - trhe proof lies in the discourse that surrounds the actions - even Kuhn recognised that ..

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

See .. they all think that piling up a minutiae of facts will lead somewhere ... but they are wrong - stuck in the Popperian world ..

[swbarnett]

A model is developed through a combination of some or all of observation, description, narrative and experimentation;

You missed one - inspiration; those leaps of the lateral thinker that are obvious when worked backwards but others are left wondering how the hell they came up with it.

[Ulsterkiwi]

You missed one - inspiration; those leaps of the lateral thinker that are obvious when worked backwards but others are left wondering how the hell they came up with it.

lol you are quite right! That and a little serendipity! There is a story that Alexander Fleming was a bit sloppy in his technique. The mould appeared because he didn't clean up properly. Its probably just that, a story but sometimes the pieces just slot together.

[bogan]

I didn't say it wasn't, if you check back you will see that I said "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."

The kind of repetition being alluded to by your and Ocean's posts is the idea of the exact same experiment being repeated over and over again to ensure the veracity of results. That is of course the cornerstone underpinning evidence provided by many disciplines. Let me be clear I have no argument with that.
In the specific case of a double blinded stage 3 RCT (a particular form of RCT) there are multiple iterations of the experiment but in different people, so there is no way they can be considered exact repetitions as the conditions change with every patient. A physicist may run an experiment 3 times because they can control things to the extent its the same experiment on each of those 3 occasions. That will give them enough to publish. Medical science cannot do that, hence needing dozens, hundreds and sometimes thousands of different but related experiments to add sufficient weight to any evidence. It is still just that, evidence for consideration, not absolute proof.
You asked specifically about double blinding, I was attempting to answer that question. So, we could get into an argument about semantics, not helpful.

Hence, my general point is there are many valid scientific methods of producing evidence which do not involve experimental repetition. Please step back a little bit and consider that.
With the list I gave in my reply to Ocean I have provided a range of examples of methodological approaches which is by no means exhaustive but all have a place in establishing the evidence which drives medical practice.

A stand out example was the case of Fenoterol, a drug used to treat asthma. A group of scientific researchers suspected that the drug was actually responsible for a number of asthma related deaths. They went to the library and archives, not the laboratory or the wards. Their publication in the Lancet at the end of their study was explosive and if the story had happened in the US and not NZ it would have been made into a movie by now. The drug was removed from use and yet not a single experiment was conducted to reach their scientific conclusion.

Lets take another example. I think we can all agree that Stephen Hawking is a scientist yes? He has written about the concept of models to explain various phenomena. At times those models work well and withstand repetitive experimentation. He also explains however that sometimes a model just cannot adequately explain what is going on. No amount of experimental iterations will change that. The only response is to come up with a new model.
The test therefore for knowledge to stand is not necessarily repeated experiments, rather we need to ask "does this explain what we need explained?"

So, your example was one of experimental repetition, but your point was that experimental repetition isn't required/possible/integral to science? help a guy out here will you, just what are you on about?

Maybe ... read Feyerabend's Against Method .. what makes it science is that people agree it is science ....





No - trhe proof lies in the discourse that surrounds the actions - even Kuhn recognised that ..




See .. they all think that piling up a minutiae of facts will lead somewhere ... but they are wrong - stuck in the Popperian world ..

Nah, that sounds like head shrinking bullshit. What makes it science is the robustness of the method.

Splitting hairs.

Those furry little yappy cunts can fuck right off, not even real dogs.