A scientist must go where the evidence leads
blogs.scientificamerican.com
A scientist must go where the evidence leads
1–10 of 103 posts
Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads
#2In my mind any perversion of this truth undermines the very credibility of the scientific discipline. For if our scientific leaders are swayed by forces other than facts, how can we be surprised when public opinion turns on science? One of my favorite quotes that resonates with this piece is by John Maynard Keynes:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
EDIT: to address the possibility that the Keynes quote is apocryphal, here is another (also possibly apocryphal!) quote I enjoy:
"In God we trust, all others bring data" - W. Edwards Deming
Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads
#3What's the subtext of this column?
Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads
#4In my mind any perversion of this truth undermines the very credibility of the scientific discipline. For if our scientific leaders are swayed by forces other than facts, how can we be surprised when public opinion turns on science? One of my favorite quotes that resonates with this piece is by John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" EDIT: to address the possibility that t…
Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads
#5Was there a point to this essay?
You can figure out the ingredients to a soup two ways: taste it and guess based on experience or use fractional distillation too separate and identify the compounds. What a poor analogy.
Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads
#6I think a better way to state this is:
If you're not going where the evidence leads then you are not a scientist.
Too often we're using the wrong words, and that further complicates an always complex process (i.e., human communication). Other words that are also often misused are: leader and journalist.
Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads
#7Was there a point to this essay? You can figure out the ingredients to a soup two ways: taste it and guess based on experience or use fractional distillation too separate and identify the compounds. What a poor analogy.
It's an analogy for the second law of thermodynamics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics. The point is that it's “challenging” and that complex events “evade a straightforward explanation”. That “challenge” is our intuitive experience of the directional arrow of entropy. A similar analogy would be to consider the difficulty of un-cracking an egg. Also, imagine comparing one bowl of soup to another bowl which was made just from tasting (or distilling) the first. Intuitively these are not likely to taste the same, otherwise a notable episode of Seinfeld would be invalidated.
Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads
#8What if the evidence is deemed offensive by a mob because they don’t like the scientific findings?
Or what if the scientist has personal beliefs or opinions that are disagreeable to some?
And what if the evidence is politically toxic?
Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads
#9What's the subtext of this column?
Probably the politicization of science?
Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads
#10[deleted]