| |
BGonline.org Forums
Timothy
Posted By: Timothy Chow In Response To: Timothy (Matt Cohn-Geier)
Date: Sunday, 1 July 2012, at 6:53 p.m.
The first part of what you say is true. Science unfolds messily and progress is made despite the failure of scientists to adhere to their own stated principles. Chuck already reviewed how messily the GR/Mercury story unfolded. We praise Semmelweis for his fanatical advocacy of hand-washing despite the rather thin evidence he had at the time. It would be trivial to recite a hundred other examples.
But does this mean that we should just ignore scientific procedures? That the FDA should give retrospective medical studies just as much weight as prospective, triple-blind medical studies? The truth of a claim doesn't depend on the order in which we gather facts. But the degree of confidence we have in a claim, which is an entirely different matter, does depend on how the data are collected. Progress in science occurs despite unscientific procedures, not because of them.
As I said elsewhere, when evidence is overwhelming, no fancy statistical tests are needed. You can draw the obvious conclusions without them. Only if we're at the edge, where the evidence is marginal, are sensitive tests needed. And in those cases, care has to be taken not to introduce biases, or else you'll just get meaningless results. Just open the pages of Skeptical Inquirer to find dozens of examples.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.