What Is Science??

[heretic888]

This thread is a continuation of some issues brought up during the 'Discussion of Evolutionary Theory' thread. Enjoy.

 

[heretic888]

For clarity, lets look at a nice definition of the scientific method [...]

Unless you actually cite your source here, we have no reason to treat this other than your own personal definition. Which is all well and good, but isn't something you should expect the rest of the scientific community to be bound by.

My definition of basest version is how strictly you interpret the method.

My definition of science is derived from the work of Thomas Kuhn, in which there are three strands of all good "science":

1) A paradigm or injunction that one can engage to find something out.
2) An illumination or datum that is disclosed by the injunction.
3) Communal verification or rejection of those that have completed steps 1 and 2 themselves.

Anything else added to these three strands is nice and all, but not necessary to be considered "science".

Lets say some traumatic event occurs, someone gets fired from their job. How does this person deal with the situation? What types of emotions? As with all humans, we have alot of data that influences our reaction [...]

Needless to say, many things influence how we react to a unique situation. So, can there -ever- be true reproducibility?

Your example is very weak in many regards:

1) A sample size of n=1, unless in the context of a case study, is a moronically stupid experimental design.
2) Your example seems to be looking for a sort of correlational research between two behavior variables. As such, you shouldn't expect causational "predictions" to be made.
3) Vague, broad, generalized questions will be met with vague, broad, generalized answers. You did not specifically define what it is you're testing, nor what your criteria for testing is.
4) Any organism with a nervous system is influenced by situational factors and past experiences. This is hardly a novelty among human beings.
5) None of the hundreds of psychology research articles I have read sound even vaguely like the example you are using.

If you chose to make general statements, it seems alot less like a science. It would be sort of like Newton stating the Law of Gravity like "stuff falls down most of the time".

I would be interested as to direct citations of peer-reviewed research studies that make general statements such as this in psychology.

Here is a good definition of Theory [...]

Again, unless you cite your source here we have no reason to treat this than anything other than your personal definition.

How do you measure some psycological or social trait?

It depends on whether you're doing qualitative or quantitive research, correlational or experimental, behavioral or cognitive, etcetera ad infinitum.

Lets look at one of my personal examples. Went to the hospital a few years ago with some pain. Doctor asked "On a scale of 1 to 10, how bad is your pain with 10 being the worst". Is this not totally subjective? What feels like an 8? What feels like a 2? Would a 2 for you be a 2 for me? Its needed for the doctor, I understand that, but the "measurement" of pain in this instance is quite subjective. Can you call something that requires answers that are subjective a science?

That's your smoking gun? A survey?? That self-report can be unreliable??

Alert the press, everyone! Self-report can be unreliable!! Hot damn!! I mean, this is totally not something that every 18 year old taking their first day of Psych 101 at a community college learns or anything!!

Honestly, mrhnau, you seriously need to go to your local community college and start forking out the cash for psych classes. Pysch 101 and some kind of Research Methods would probably be the ideal place to start, given your general lack of knowledge concerning the field. Then you can move on to specific fields like social psychology, personality development, biopsychology, evolutionary psychology, behaviorism, and so on.

But, please, don't try to B.S. psychology to those of us that have actually put an intellectual and financial investment in it.

.... and, just for a point of clarification, self-report hasn't been used exclusively as a research methodology in psychology since about 1900. It was largely displaced by behaviorism.

All one can measure is often what someone says. As humans, we have the ability to lie (protection of loved ones, embarassment, forgetting, repression).

Ironically, the only reason we know that so-called "eyewitness reports" are often faulty is due to psychological research.

So, you ask someone "how do you feel" after some traumatic event, will you get an honest answer? Can you? You need a measurable in order to use statistics, so are these measurables often subjective by nature? From personal observations, the way you ask a question or even the time you ask a question can prompt a quite different response. Would you qualify this as a scientific process?

Nope. But, then again, in no way is that how research is actually conducted. What you described sounds more like Rogerian counseling.

What would you define as a consistent measurable and how could you possibly obtain one?

Jane Loevinger's Sentence Completion Test is a very good indicator of personality development in regards to a particular stage model. The principles of stimuli association and reinforcement from behaviorism have fared well in experimentation. Jean Piaget's logico-mathematical tests are good indicators of cognitive reasoning, as are the moral questions used to examine reasoning in Lawrence Kohlberg's stage-developmental moral reasoning paradigm. Howard Gardner has put forward a number of specific criteria concerning his multiple intelligences theory (such as evolutionary history, neurological pathway, specific developmental sequence, and so on). Social psychology has some rather interesting studies regarding conformity and obediance, as well as the useful cognitive dissonance theory. Cognitive psychology has developed useful methodologies for testing memory and perception.

Should I continue??

Notice how I'm drawing upon the specific research of specific theorists here, and not using vague, n=1 examples of "how you feel" after having been fired??

IMHO, it would need to be almost purely biological, since as humans we can not be totally objective (at least IMO). At that point, we start leaving social sciences, and start approaching biology.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but most of the criteria in biology are just as "subjective" as those in psychology. The idea of some pure, pristine "objectivism" is more a fantasy than anything else.

Myth of the Given, they call it.

And no, my experience w/ social sciences is not nil. My exposure to the field has been mostly negative, at least with regard to how I view the field.

In other words, my comment about self-confirming biases and academic narcissism was spot on. Good to know.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Science is an approach to gathering information in what is ideally a testable, methodical, reproducible manner, based not on personal opinion or bias, but on what is empirically measurable (for a bit of a redundancy there).

Boo-yah.

 

[heretic888]

Science is an approach to gathering information in what is ideally a testable, methodical, reproducible manner, based not on personal opinion or bias, but on what is empirically measurable (for a bit of a redundancy there).

Boo-yah.

Truthery!! :bow:

(P.S. I am in complete agreement, provided 'empirical measurements' are taken to mean experiential data of any sort and not merely 'external' or 'physical' phenomena.)

Laterz. :asian:

 

[mrhnau]

Unless you actually cite your source here, we have no reason to treat this other than your own personal definition. Which is all well and good, but isn't something you should expect the rest of the scientific community to be bound by.

My source. It is from a web page I found. If you would like, I could go dig up my sixth grade notes and cite them for you. Since around that point, you should have been made aware of what the scientific method is. As I stated clearly, its not my definition. If you want to quibble over the exact terms, feel free, but I feel its a waste of time here. The spirit of the definition remains. Debate that if you wish.

My definition of science is derived from the work of Thomas Kuhn, in which there are three strands of all good "science":

1) A paradigm or injunction that one can engage to find something out.
2) An illumination or datum that is disclosed by the injunction.
3) Communal verification or rejection of those that have completed steps 1 and 2 themselves.

Anything else added to these three strands is nice and all, but not necessary to be considered "science".

If that definition works for you, thats quite fine. I personally like the one from Fiesty Mouse Will discuss that one later here.

Let me see if I have the definition straight....so, if 1) I want to see if the door is locked. 2) I check and find out that its locked. 3) I confirm that its locked and I tell someone. I'm now engaging in science?

Your example is very weak in many regards:

1) A sample size of n=1, unless in the context of a case study, is a moronically stupid experimental design.
2) Your example seems to be looking for a sort of correlational research between two behavior variables. As such, you shouldn't expect causational "predictions" to be made.
3) Vague, broad, generalized questions will be met with vague, broad, generalized answers. You did not specifically define what it is you're testing, nor what your criteria for testing is.
4) Any organism with a nervous system is influenced by situational factors and past experiences. This is hardly a novelty among human beings.
5) None of the hundreds of psychology research articles I have read sound even vaguely like the example you are using.

1) Wow... as a psychologist, you must never deal with individuals. You must never perceive anyone as an individual. I never realized that someones life was a expiremental design. Great insight.
2) .
3) Take it as you wish. I make a statement you consider general, you chose not to answer it, general or not, rather state it as a "weak example".
4) another great insight. How would your insight possibly be related to my questioning? Saying something like a bug has the complex thought patterns of a man? Not met many bugs or other organisms that tend to lie/deceive as man does.
5) I'm quite sorry my question did not fit w/ what you have read. Obviously my fault.

I would be interested as to direct citations of peer-reviewed research studies that make general statements such as this in psychology.

Yes, you are quite right. Poor ignorant me. I don't have my PhD in psychology. Since you have never read anything like this, it must not exist.
If you want to ignore the question, thats fine. I'm not going to be searching psychology journals in an attempt to find anything. Too busy in my own field.

Again, unless you cite your source here we have no reason to treat this than anything other than your personal definition.

Translation: You don't want to discuss the validity of the statement. Its a great evasion technique. If it was my definition, what would the difference be? If you disagree with the original statement, feel free to discuss.

It depends on whether you're doing qualitative or quantitive research, correlational or experimental, behavioral or cognitive, etcetera ad infinitum.

Yes, I agree. See below

That's your smoking gun? A survey?? That self-report can be unreliable??

Alert the press, everyone! Self-report can be unreliable!! Hot damn!! I mean, this is totally not something that every 18 year old taking their first day of Psych 101 at a community college learns or anything!!

Honestly, mrhnau, you seriously need to go to your local community college and start forking out the cash for psych classes. Pysch 101 and some kind of Research Methods would probably be the ideal place to start, given your general lack of knowledge concerning the field. Then you can move on to specific fields like social psychology, personality development, biopsychology, evolutionary psychology, behaviorism, and so on.

But, please, don't try to B.S. psychology to those of us that have actually put an intellectual and financial investment in it.

.... and, just for a point of clarification, self-report hasn't been used exclusively as a research methodology in psychology since about 1900. It was largely displaced by behaviorism.

thank you for your cordial response, and hence the temperment of my reply. Again, you miss the obvious, so I will spell it out for you. I use an example to make a point, and attempt to generalize it. You obviously missed the generalization. My point is that measurables are not reliable in the field. Then again, I'm not the expert, you are.

Jane Loevinger's Sentence Completion Test is a very good indicator of personality development in regards to a particular stage model. The principles of stimuli association and reinforcement from behaviorism have fared well in experimentation. Jean Piaget's logico-mathematical tests are good indicators of cognitive reasoning, as are the moral questions used to examine reasoning in Lawrence Kohlberg's stage-developmental moral reasoning paradigm. Howard Gardner has put forward a number of specific criteria concerning his multiple intelligences theory (such as evolutionary history, neurological pathway, specific developmental sequence, and so on). Social psychology has some rather interesting studies regarding conformity and obediance, as well as the useful cognitive dissonance theory. Cognitive psychology has developed useful methodologies for testing memory and perception.

Should I continue??

Please do. Explain the measurables these tests obtain and the reliability. What proof exists that these measurables are reliable?

Notice how I'm drawing upon the specific research of specific theorists here, and not using vague, n=1 examples of "how you feel" after having been fired??

Again, I'm glad you never have to deal with individuals...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but most of the criteria in biology are just as "subjective" as those in psychology. The idea of some pure, pristine "objectivism" is more a fantasy than anything else.

Really? Allow me to quote someone you just agreed with.

Science is an approach to gathering information in what is ideally a testable, methodical, reproducible manner, based not on personal opinion or bias, but on what is empirically measurable (for a bit of a redundancy there).

Then how can you agree with this statement that Fiesty Mouse provided?
Based on your definition, then biology would not be a science? Biology does have a certain degree of objectivity. Don't know many animals that lie.

btw, you did not ask for a source from her, since you agreed with it. Curious.

In other words, my comment about self-confirming biases and academic narcissism was spot on. Good to know.

Laterz. :asian:

Again, thanks for the cordial attitude. As an undergrad student, I spent many happy hours discussing psychology with my friends who were in grad school studying psych. Looks like all psychologist are not quite as friendly when discussing their field. I'd hate to have you as a teacher.

You obviously are an expert in the field, as well as in the field of biology since you try to post w/ authority in the field of evolution too. I am obviously no match for your intellectual prowess.

btw, my wife studied psychology for her undergraduate degree, and she agrees that psych is not a science... but I'm sure you don't care. Another psychologist care to chime in? I'd be curious what the consensus is. Don't particularily care for this to be a 1 on 1 discussion. It's clear enough we don't agree heretic.

MrH

 

[arnisador]

I wish I had th etime to particpate more in threads like this, but they move too fast for me!

I like Popper on this issue. Yes, I know there are problems there.

 

[heretic888]

Upon retrospection, I realize I was somewhat rude in my earlier post. For that, I apologize.

Now, on to the discussion...

My source. It is from a web page I found.

Once again, unless we cite our sources then others have no reason to put any credibility in them whatsoever.

If you would like, I could go dig up my sixth grade notes and cite them for you. Since around that point, you should have been made aware of what the scientific method is.

I certainly was.

And, the scientific method as it was taught to me has never entailed being the special property of naturalists and materialists. I was never taught that you're only doing science when you're donning a white labcoat, hunched over a laboratory stool, and experimenting with test tubes and microscopes. I was never taught that science entailed a philosophy of intellectual elitism or academic hubris.

The scientific method, as it was taught to me, involved such ideas as falsifiability, testability, reproducibility, parsimony, peer review, and the important disctinction between correlation and causation (which, in my experience, was only strongly emphasized in psychology).

I was never taught that the social sciences were excluded from any of this (unless you include cultural anthropology, which makes no qualms about being part science, part philosophy). Rather, it has been my experience that those that do make such claims have an academic axe to grind, self-imposed biases to confirm, and a philosophical agenda to push (usually some form of naturalism or material humanism).

What I was taught was that such intellectual territorialism, personal bias, and philosophical presumptions are precisely the sorts of things that science is attempting to overcome. Excluding everything but the "hard sciences" is not an expression of scientific thought, it is the exact antithesis of scientific thought!

If that definition works for you, thats quite fine. I personally like the one from Fiesty Mouse Will discuss that one later here.

If you'll notice, the only significant difference between Feisty Mouse's definition and my own is that I explicitly bring up the idea of peer review, whereas hers is implicit.

Let me see if I have the definition straight....so, if 1) I want to see if the door is locked. 2) I check and find out that its locked. 3) I confirm that its locked and I tell someone.

No, you don't have the definition straight. Please re-read what I actually wrote concerning Thomas Kuhn's ideas.

I'm now engaging in science?

You're attempting to engage in the scientific method, yes. You're not, however, engaging in science as a formal discipline of study.

1) Wow... as a psychologist, you must never deal with individuals. You must never perceive anyone as an individual. I never realized that someones life was a expiremental design. Great insight.

Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

That, in fact, is not at all what I said. You were referring to research paradigms, not treatment modalities. I responded with that context in mind.

And, yes, using a population sample of n=1 and proceeding to draw generalizations from that sample is an exceedingly poor design.

3) Take it as you wish. I make a statement you consider general, you chose not to answer it, general or not, rather state it as a "weak example".

You did not specify what variables you wish to test. That is a vague, sloppy design. That isn't accepted in biology, and it certainly wouldn't be accepted in psychology, either.

4) another great insight. How would your insight possibly be related to my questioning? Saying something like a bug has the complex thought patterns of a man? Not met many bugs or other organisms that tend to lie/deceive as man does.

Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

That, in fact, is not at all what I said. I pointed out that virtually any complex organism is highly influenced by previous experiences as well as the environmental conditions they find themselves in. This is not a human novelty. In fact, behaviorism rests almost exclusively on this theoretical paradigm and has traditionally used animals as their principal research subjects.

At no point did I claim insects had "thought patterns" as "complex" as man (whatever that's supposed to mean).

5) I'm quite sorry my question did not fit w/ what you have read. Obviously my fault.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Ridicule

You were presenting the scenario as an example regarding how psychological research is conducted. I simply replied that it does not conform to any research article that I have ever come across (although, mind you, I have my own particular interests and am not familiar with every sub-discipline out there).

If you have proof to the contrary, then please cite your source. If not, then don't expect your scenario to be taken credibly as a research paradigm.

Yes, you are quite right. Poor ignorant me. I don't have my PhD in psychology. Since you have never read anything like this, it must not exist.

If you're making the claim that such generalized statements are made in psychological research, then the burden of proof is on you. Don't expect others to disprove claims that have zero evidence to support them.

Translation: You don't want to discuss the validity of the statement.

One of the important lessons from psychology that I have learned is to not try to psychoanalyze people you have only bare bones knowledge of --- let alone tell them what they "really mean" when they say something.

If you disagree with the original statement, feel free to discuss.

There are actually two running definitions of a 'theory' that I have come across in science, of which yours was one.

The second definition of a 'theory' refers to a hypothesis which has a large body of supporting evidence and has tested well during a long course of time.

I use an example to make a point, and attempt to generalize it. You obviously missed the generalization. My point is that measurables are not reliable in the field.

Mrhnau, I'm afraid it is you who have missed the point.

You came in with the working assumption that self-report is the principal research paradigm in the field of psychology. This is a myth. A popular myth among those outside the field, mind you, but a myth nonetheless.

Self-report has not been used in such a manner since the days of introspectionism, nearly 100 years ago. The principal research paradigm of psychology throughout the 20th century has been the external behavior variables of stimulus and response measured by the behaviorists. Only since the 1970's, with the so-called "cognitive revolution", has this not been the case.

My point is that variables are measured in a number of different ways in psychology and, furthermore, that different schools are interested in different variables. Self-report is a tiny minority among all of these.

This all comes back to, again, your apparent lack of knowledge concerning research in this field. If you are genuinely interested in knowing the truth of how things are done, then sign up for some classes yourself.

Please do. Explain the measurables these tests obtain and the reliability. What proof exists that these measurables are reliable?

To be perfectly blunt, I'm not a textbook. I'm not going to educate you about every principal theory in psychology. There are people paid to do that, and I'm not one of them.

As a generalization, however, I will say that much of the theoretical framework in psychology research rests on comparative analysis of behavior responses combined with inferential logic. That is probably oversimplifying matters, but there you are.

Based on your definition, then biology would not be a science? Biology does have a certain degree of objectivity.

Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

At no point did I say that biology was not a science.

I was specifically addressing the Myth of the Given (i.e., the fantasy that there is some pregiven "objective reality" sitting out there just waiting for us to observe without interpretation or filtering) and the mistaken idea of some kind of pure, pristine, absolute "objectivism".

Everything human beings do has a heavy dose of subjectivity mixed in with objective "reality". Science is no different, which is why many scientific paradigms rest on inference and not direct observation.

You obviously are an expert in the field, as well as in the field of biology since you try to post w/ authority in the field of evolution too. I am obviously no match for your intellectual prowess.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Ridicule

btw, my wife studied psychology for her undergraduate degree, and she agrees that psych is not a science... but I'm sure you don't care.

Its not that I don't care, its just that I fail to see what relevance the opinions of an anonymous person that "studied psychology" during undergraduate school have to this discussion.

Another psychologist care to chime in?

Feisty Mouse already has.

I'd be curious what the consensus is.

You're kidding, right? Are you actually suggesting that psychologists don't see what they do as science?? Exactly how many psychologists have you actually spoken with???

If you want a little pointer, the fact that the natural sciences use the guidelines for research articles published by the American Psychological Association should give you a general indication as to the place of the field in the minds of others. I did always find it kinda ironic that biology research papers use APA citations and outlines.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[heretic888]

I like Popper on this issue.

Ditto.

 

[arnisador]

I just finished a two day seminar on C.S. Peirce's logic of scientific inquiry. Much fun! I learned, or at least was told, that Popper gave some credit to Peirce for Popper's views, but I'm not sure whwre the attribution occurs.

 

[heretic888]

I just finished a two day seminar on C.S. Peirce's logic of scientific inquiry. Much fun! I learned, or at least was told, that Popper gave some credit to Peirce for Popper's views, but I'm not sure whwre the attribution occurs.

Wikipedia: Charles Peirce

Wikipedia: Karl Popper

From article:

"Popper coined the term critical rationalism to describe his philosophy. This designation is significant, and indicates his rejection of classical empiricism, and of the observationalist-inductivist account of science that had grown out of it. Popper argued strongly against the latter, holding that scientific theories are universal in nature, and can be tested only indirectly, by references to their implications. He also held that scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination in order to solve problems that have arisen in specific historico-cultural settings. Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single genuine counter-instance is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsification lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is and is not genuinely scientific: a theory should be accounted scientific if and only if it is falsifiable. This led him to attack the claims of both psychoanalysis and contemporary Marxism to scientific status, on the basis that the theories enshrined by them are not falsifiable. His scientific work was influenced by his study of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. Popper's falsificationism resembles Charles Peirce's falliblism. In Of Clocks and Clouds (1966), Popper said he wished he had known of Peirce's work earlier."

Laterz. :asian:

 

[arnisador]

Ah, thanks! Now I know where to look!

 

[heretic888]

Upon reviewing some of mrhnau's earlier comments, I am inclined to believe that our differences of opinion stem moreso from philosophical objections, not methodological ones.

One of the general assumptions among certain circles of the scientific community, originating with the positivist philosophy of the liberal Enlightenment, is that only phenomena that can be "seen" with the five physical senses and their extensions (i.e., instruments such as microscopes or teloscopes) are qualified as being appropriate for "scientific" inquiry. Much of this thinking traces back to August Comte, who at one time offered himself as being a potential "pope of positivism". In modern terminology, this school of thought is referred to as "scientism".

As for myself, I am much more in agreement with the work of modern philosophers such as Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper, and Jurgen Habermas. Namely, to me, if a claim can at least hypothetically be falsified by peer review, then it falls under the banner of the scientific method. It matters not in the least if the claim is "naturalistic" or not, only that it is testable. This assertion, unfortunately, challenges many people's general understanding of what does and does not constitute "science".

I am very much in agreement with Habermas that scientism is "bad science", being little more than philosophical materialism dressed up in a scientific guise. I am also in agreement with much of the postmodern writers concerning the fallacies of the Myth of the Given, which naturalism and positivism rest almost exclusively on as a basis for ontological truth. As such, I challenge the assumption that scientific process is in any way purely "objective" or that it involves nothing more than innocently reporting about the "real world".

Personally, I would recommend Ken Wilber's The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion for an indepth discussion of what is and is not "good science". He posits some very useful conclusions that I am very much in agreement with.

Laterz. :asian: