LogFAQs > #888756264

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Scientific Facts are Social Constructs
Dragonblade01 10/19/17 7:22:50 PM #46:	FLUFFYGERM posted... COVxy posted... Again, this doesn't change the fact that those who do science are humans that exist within a community that has different trends, in the same way that things become trending on Facebook. How unbelievably incorrect. Science is science regardless of where it happens. This is because science is based on evidence, tests, reproducibility, and falsifiability. This is why someone can run the same objective science experiment in India that we can in America or Europe or any other part of the world. Facebook trends are in no meaningful way comparable to science or anything to do with science because trends aren't affecting the evidence and tests. Otherwise they wouldn't pass peer review, be circulated, be repeatable, etc. COVxy posted... "Dynamics" has become trendy in my field over the past few years. If you attempt to publish a time-varying analysis, you are going to have a much easier time getting it accepted now than you would have a couple of years ago. Different brain regions often fade into and out of the lime-light, etc... There are clear publication biases at work. A brain region can be associated with a particular faculty because people examining that faculty only look at that brain region. What is your field? You don't seem very smart so I want to make sure you're even credentialed to speak to what science is. I mean you think Facebook trends are somehow in any way related to how science works and how it is practiced around the world. I think you're missing the point. Whether any individual scientist is working on something while eliminating their bias to the best of their ability, whether the concept of the research is objective; the fact that it fundamentally exists within the scope of human influence and is performed by humans necessarily introduces the "social" element. What happens when papers covering certain topics get published and studies covering certain subjects get funded more often for no other reason than the public has taken interest in them (making them a safer investment)? What happens when, as a result of this, later studies try to insert these more appealing components into their methodology? What happens when a team of researchers, inevitably made of real and biased human beings, gets into conflict over how to present their material? What happens when journalists who report on studies and thereby create controversy, hurting the chances of similar research being funded in the future? Our social world influencing our scientific world isn't a question of intention. It's one of unavoidability. --- PSN: kazukifafner <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:888756264] in Scientific... [t:75894203]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>Again, this doesn't change the fact that those who do science are humans that exist within a community that has different trends, in the same way that things become trending on Facebook. </quote> How unbelievably incorrect. Science is science regardless of where it happens. This is because science is based on evidence, tests, reproducibility, and falsifiability. This is why someone can run the same objective science experiment in India that we can in America or Europe or any other part of the world. Facebook trends are in no meaningful way comparable to science or anything to do with science because trends aren't affecting the evidence and tests. Otherwise they wouldn't pass peer review, be circulated, be repeatable, etc. <cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>"Dynamics" has become trendy in my field over the past few years. If you attempt to publish a time-varying analysis, you are going to have a much easier time getting it accepted now than you would have a couple of years ago. Different brain regions often fade into and out of the lime-light, etc... There are clear publication biases at work. A brain region can be associated with a particular faculty because people examining that faculty only look at that brain region.</quote> What is your field? You don't seem very smart so I want to make sure you're even credentialed to speak to what science is. I mean you think Facebook trends are somehow in any way related to how science works and how it is practiced around the world.</quote> I think you're missing the point. Whether any individual scientist is working on something while eliminating their bias to the best of their ability, whether the concept of the research is objective; the fact that it fundamentally exists within the scope of human influence and is performed by humans necessarily introduces the "social" element. What happens when papers covering certain topics get published and studies covering certain subjects get funded more often for no other reason than the public has taken interest in them (making them a safer investment)? What happens when, as a result of this, later studies try to insert these more appealing components into their methodology? What happens when a team of researchers, inevitably made of real and biased human beings, gets into conflict over how to present their material? What happens when journalists who report on studies and thereby create controversy, hurting the chances of similar research being funded in the future? Our social world influencing our scientific world isn't a question of intention. It's one of unavoidability. --- PSN: kazukifafner</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1