Scientific Thinking
 

In response to the 'runs on water thread' which is starting to get derailed into the methodology of science, i though i'd start a new thread for that.

In my opinion science as a whole is incredibly intolerant of anything new and shiny that doesn't conform to current methods of thinking. There is an Aura of 'we are teh scientist, therefore we are better than you' which unfortunatly permeates a significant proportion of mainstream science. Whilst it may not be so overt, there is definatly the undertone.

For instance, i've read and seen so many cases where someone is talking about travelling faster than the speed of light or something of the like and the knee jerk reaction is 'Einstien said you can't so screw you' without much serious thought.

My opinions originally germinated in the realm of psychology (of which i'm assembling my virtual hazmat suit to enter) which is so desperate to be considered a science its almost amusing. Here if you do anything that isn't referenced, notorised, backed up with endless studies then your a crackpot/humanist end of discussion.

I once read someone comparing the upper eschelons of the scientific community to a street gang, where the only difference is one uses words and the others uses knives.


Of course feel free to discuss, but if you present an opinion that isn't my own, your wrong:thumbsup:

I haven't had the same experience with science as you have. I don't perceive a "better than you" attitude among scientists. I have seen scientists frustrated when people make scientific claims without any evidence.

Regarding your "Einstein" example, that does sound like lazy thinking - relying on an argument from authority. However, I may have acted similarly to the people you describe at one time or another. When I engage in the same argument over and over again without any logical resolution, I'm sometimes unwilling to do it again unless there is something new to talk about.

Regarding psychology, I find it difficult to paint the field of psychology with such a broad brush. I don't see a field desperate to be considered a science. I do see a field with a diversity of perspectives - some more scientific than others. I don't see a problem with requiring evidence.

Finally, what are the "upper echelons of the scientific community"? How are they like a street gang?

I feel that 'real' scientists are always willing to investigate and seek out the truth. I'm not quick to dismiss a water->2H2 + O2 machine or device, but I want to know how they did it (which sometimes patents or corporate interests understandably get in the way). But that is what the peer-review process is there for, and the way these stories should come out.

It is just that there are a lot of people willing to use their 'scientific facts' or research to further their agenda or to make them money.

I was getting hungry and wanted to round off my post then.:)

AFAIKR, the discussion was that the community spent such a long time debating who to accept into their great societies and communities, and where one bad word from a big kahuna could essentially end your career (i've seen that one happen to a friend of my fathers), alongside all the terratorial bias about who does what and when e.t.c

This was then compared to a street gang who went through initiation rituals, if you want to end someones career (i.e. life) you can use a knife instead of words, plus duking it out with other street gangs over who has the rights to what places.

He concluded that there were very few differences in base behaviours, only the way and the enviroment they were expressed in.

I'll see if i can find the book its from, i'm hardly doing it any justice with my description.

In regards to the 'Einstein said you can't' What they mean is (I hope): Einstein put forth a proof saying that you can't go faster than the speed of light. Unless you have an argument of some merit against his proof, any discussion about traveling beyond the speed of light is moot."

You run into the same thing when people want to discuss alternate hypothesis to the theory of evolution. As it stands now, evolution has a mountain of evidence pointing toward it being true. If you want to act like you have a legitimate alternative theory, then you need to have good contradictory evidence (not that there isn't any, it's just a requirement) or you're wasting everyone's time.

Thank you. You said it more articulately than I did.

I think certain types of knowledge have more intrinsic value than other types of knowledge, especially when a discussion of the natural laws of the Universe are on the line. There is great value in personal experience and belief, but they are fallible and personal. They can't be extended to apply to all things, and they can't be repeatedly tested in a controlled way.

Science, on the other hand, is only valid when it is observable and repeatable in a controlled manner. For this reason, I hold it's 'worth' above anecdotes and beliefs of others, when they come head-to-head.

For the things that science cannot address due to their natural inobservability (supernatural occurrences, etc..), one's personal beliefs are probably the best bet. But in things that can be measured and quantified, science has no equal.

If someone approached me with something which ran orthogonal to current scientific theory, it'd better be a scientifically and naturalistically valid assertion. Someone who thinks they know 'better' than tested and re-tested scientific hypotheses is hovering very close to dangerous arrogance, and would be well-served to provide copious VERIFIABLE claims.

Many great scientific revelations came out of non-scientific philosophy, such as Einstein's 'mind-games' of "riding the wave of light" and "the compass". Until he was able to demonstrate them with sound scientific argument, however, they were just that - mind games.

As you suggest, I don't think that such behaviors are unique to scientists. I think what you describe are weaknesses of all people, regardless of their chosen professions.

Science is a difficult club to get into for a hypothesis because theories are supposed to be reliable. If it was easy for a hypothesis to become theory, then the theory would be flimsy due to not being tested enough to be reliable.

The conservative scientific thinking that you dislike so much is in place for one simple reason: It works.

Scientific thought is by it's very nature conservative - science tends to build on what came before. Science tends to be skeptical of claims that the laws that underpin our understanding of the universe are rubbish, and likewise skeptical of claims of vast new theories.

Imagine a science adhering to your view - that it should be quick to embrace every new theory that comes along. That doesn't get you the science of Newton and Einstein, it gets you the science of Chopra and Yogi. I know which one I'd prefer. My point is, science *does* accept new things - but it requires a very high burden of proof. Several hundred years ago, mankind learned that the universe is governed not by spirits, wishful thinking, and magic, but by physics. We started developing what's now known as the scientific method. We trained scientists to think critically, to question, to hypothesize experiment. The fact that people want to throw that all away makes me both sad and angry.

Now, even though science is by it's nature conservative, and resists new theories, new theories *do* happen. Paradigm shifts occur. Sometimes people come along and fundamentally change our view of the universe. When they do, we give them fancy names like "Newton", "Rutherford", "Einstein", "Watson", and "Crick". But even these revolutions look more like evolution - high school physics is still mostly stuff that Newton would recognize. We don't have to calculate relativistic effects for the trajectory of the bullet that the hunter fires from his gun at the monkey as it drops from the tree branch. Netwonian physics is a good approximation for pretty much all earthly phenomena. They take relativity into account for things like the GPS satellites, though. Science builds upon science, and it bloody works. *That's* why we trust it.

To make an example close to psychology, which you are apparently interested in:

Just like the 'cars powered by H2O' article, I have a grand new theory for psychology. Instead of mental disorders being caused by chemical imbalances in the brain, or whatever it is you old fuddy-duddy 'scientific' psychologists think, I believe that mental disorders are caused by demons...er...no, make that 'thetans'. Yes, thetans. They're psychic life-forms that feed off the energy of people's brains. By using special techniques, I can measure the 'thetans' in people, and cleanse them of them. As I'm sure you can see, this will revolutionize the field of phsychiatry. Are you ready to invest in my enterprise? Would you like to make a donation so I can do more research? How about taking a training course so you too can treat your patients with this amazing new technique? First, how about you let me hook you up to my e-meter, and then we can talk about cleansing *your* thetans! For a small fee, of course...

Does this sound familiar? It should - I basically lifted the above from the scientologists.

Any time someone expounds on some grand new theory that topples all we know of existing science, we *should* be skeptical - not to the point where we ignore what they say, but we should say "fine, prove it!". In pretty much every case, 'they' fail to do so, no matter what it is - ghosts, esp, Qi, homeopathy, scientology, cars-running-on-water, perpetual motion machines, etc, etc. I'm not aware of a single theory that starts out by violating all known laws of science, and later turns out to be proved true.

On a slightly different tangent - psychology as a field *is* trying to be more scientific - more rigorous, more disciplined, etc. Just like all the social sciences, it's *really hard* to follow the scientific method when people (and especially people's brains) are involved. Hard, but not impossible. And the benefits of following science instead of bullshit should be pretty clear by now.

False. Einstein put forth a THEORY that backed up not transcending the speed of light. That is different. A good scientist will always accept the possibility of the unknown. Even if it is tinged with doubt.

No, actually, true. E=MC^2 is a mathematical proof. Relativity is a theory.

Do you accept the possibility that I have the ability to lift myself telepathically and fly around? And survive soley on sunshine, and that I'm 1000 years old? Or, if I were to claim these things, would you have somewhat more than a 'tinge' of doubt?

ok so maybe this is not the best thread to raise the question because i am unclear as to what it's about...but anyway:

where does this tendency to defend "Science" always come down to an opposition between "Science" (some Unified (and thereby drained of all content) notion of Science as if the contemporary sciences provide a single coherent account of the world and our modes of being in it (um....)) vs. "Loopy Shit"?

in any number of particular scientific fields there are types of work being done by particular sub-communities that has quite radical philosophical implications--implications that extend to upending much of what happens in the realms of normal science within the wider fields (o think maybe complex dynamical systems theory in the bigger context of cognitive neuro-science or cognitive science, whatever that is as a field)....if you defend "Science" against "Loopy Shit" you duck problems of the conservative-to-reactionary nature of many fields of scientific investigation which often follows from the institutional spaces within which they happen. there are any number of examples that i or anyone else could mention.

in history of science-type debates, this is pretty banal, the topic: basically it's a version of the debates that surrounded thomas kuhn's history of scientific revolutions. it comes back over and over when sociologists of historians of philosophers or anyone sociologizes scientific work.

fact is that scientific work involves particular communities which are shaped socially in basic ways by the contexts within which they operate. there is no "Science" in general--there are particular disciplines, each of which is made up of networks and modes of social legitimation and social reproduction. it is not obvious that agents in scientific area 1, sub-group/field A know or need to know anything at all about what is happening in discipline 4.
or even if there is a single coherent meta-discourse.

Agreed. I know of "scientists" who work in the same building, who work on the same problem, who have no idea what the other person is doing. Each researcher approaches the problem from a different perspective and isn't interested in what the other person is doing.

For example?

Whether Einstein actually issued such a proof is beside the point I was trying to make which is why I qualified it with "(I hope)". What I was trying to say by example (although it may have been a bad one) is that when you choose to put forth a theory (for whatever reason) that is contrary to the current understanding, you need to provide compelling evidence that the current understanding is wrong or needs to be modified. Scientific theories aren't made up and thrown around all willy-nilly like. I believe this is where a lot of the misunderstanding originates.

If I may attempt another example which I have touched on before - I don't care if you believe it or not, there is in fact a large volume of sound evidence which indicates evolution a reliable, solid theory. I believe that no decent scientist would outright say it is impossible that evolutionary theory is flat out wrong. That doesn't give you permission to make the claim that it is,nor does it make the argument against it any more or less valid. What it means is that if you are going to present an alternative theory then you also need to present evidence that supports your theory, demonstrate how evidence being used to support evolution does not actually support it or produce evidence that contradicts the current understanding of the theory. If you are going to change minds you need to do one of those three things.

When a person is referenced as an authority on a subject it is because they contributed a great deal of knowledge to the current understanding and referencing them is much more practical in a conversation that reiterating their arguments. If you want to question or call into doubt their work you should at least be familiar with it and prepared to address it. If you run across any scientist who doesn't wish to help you further your understanding or doesn't want to address a legitimate arguments against the current understandings it isn't because they're an elitist scientist. It's because they're either an idiot, an asshole or both.

sapiens: i was thinking of complex dynamic systems theory in cognitive neuroscience/cognitive science in particular, but there are others in other areas as well--i'm just kinda fascinated with the processes bundled around notions of emergence and the difficulties they present for conventional modes of representation. there are other areas in physics and/or cosmology that i've got a dilletante's understanding of that would probably qualify as well.

I would doubt it, obviously. But that doesn't mean it's utterly impossible. I accept that possibility under the strictest sense of "I don't KNOW, factually, that it is not the case", though obviously it is not likely based on what my current knowledge tells me. The funny thing about knowledge and fact is that they are both pretty fluid. It was FACT for a very long time that the earth was flat, was it not? During that time, few if any scientists argued the point because it was simply known to be true... as true as 1+1=2, and we now know it was not true at all.



E=Mc^2 is a mathematical equation that specifies the conversion of energy into mass (or vice versa). c in this equation equates to the speed of light, but doesn't proffer proof that nothing can transcend it, or even that c, being a constant, is truly constant. It is constant in so much as our ability to view it's speed from our perspective... which is part of the "Special Theory of Relativity". People have already been able to slow the speed of light in laboratory settings. That would make it NOT a constant. Also, quantum mechanics could make this more or less true down the road.

Regardless, E=Mc^2 does not prove that nothing can be faster than c. It's a conversion specification.

My Lady is a scientist. She is fascinated with the mind/matter hookup and investigates how concrete substances that our bodies manufacture impact less concrete things like our moods. Specifically she works in the field of psychiatry.
If I have some Loopy Shit thought she is able to ground me rather quickly, and does so without being an asshole. She also demonstrates in day-to-day life the value of the Scientific Method and how it is a powerful tool with many applications. Debate vs diatribe or decree.
Her work has been cutting edge for the last decade, and she constantly learns new things. A new field of research which cuts across her field of study was brought to her attention a couple of weeks ago when she was giving a talk. Result - she now has a new collaborator in her research who is as excited about what she can bring as she is excited about his work.
Scientific thinking in action - with a net gain for all of us.
I am a Loopy Shit artist type who loves the idea of More Going On Than We Know. I am quite happy to have a genuine scientist ground me when I get a bit "floaty" in my uneducated and flabby thinking.
The people I meet who work with her do not seem to be desperate to be considered scientists. They are too busy working with exciting, concrete questions and results in a very important field. One which will be exploding for the next couple of generations in its import and its influence.
My .02 cents

Some good replies, certainly a couple of things have been said i hadn't necessarily considered.

But your definatly right about psychiatry Kramus, i don't even want to begin to go there...

<threadjack>
Not really. At LEAST since there has been anything resembling modern science (The Greeks around 4th century BC?) we have known the world is a sphere, and at no point in time have scholars in societies descended from that one reverted to accept a 'flat earth' model.

Also, societies such as some of the South American Indians and the Egyptians demonstrated far too sophisticated knowledge of astronomy and planetary movements to have believed in a flat earth, either.

So no, at no point was it a generally accepted FACT that the earth was flat. It is a pretty pervasive myth, though.

A better example probably would have been aether, but even that was only a theory, and was dismissed once more sophisticated ones that fit reality were presented. The development of increasingly sophisticated models for the makeup of matter is a pretty good testament to 'Science's ability to adapt to new information and data.
</threadjack>

You'll have to excuse me. I'm lazy, and sometimes I don't bother explaining things that I think people already know or are able to figure out by themselves. It's a sort of short-hand, but I shouldn't do it.

You're right that E=MC^2 is a conversion factor, however if we combine it with special relativity it does create a situation where nothing is able to accelerate past light. In particular, we know (or it has been theorized and tested, if you want to get quite specific) that an object's mass increases relative to it's velocity. Running the numbers indicates that the speed of light becomes a practical limit, largely because of said conversion factor. I suppose in the strictest sense this might not make it a proof -- mathematics isn't really my forte.

You're right that the speed of light is altered. In fact, you may find in your reading that relativity already accounts for this by stating that the speed of light is constant in a vaccuum and not in all situations.

I don't claim to be an expert in any of this, but this is how I understand it. Ask me about cosmology and I'll tell you anything you want to know.

Regardless of which specific theorem we're discussing, the scientific method is a very sound er.. method for dealing with a very specific set of questions. It does very well in answering questions about the physical world, which is why it's so widely accepted today. It's been my experience in the past that people who take issue with 'scientists' do so due to a lack of understanding of how the method works and how and when it should be applied.

Martian,

Now it seems as if we are agreeing, but from different angles. I don't take issue with scientists at all (in fact, once I finish my degree, I'll be one). The scientific method is, well... the best method we have. There just needs to be an understanding that what we see as truth today may not be truth tomorrow, not because the truth changes, but because our understanding of minutia and influences change and grow over time.

Science demands evidence. Based on known values of energy into and out of a water electrolysis/HHO combustion system, it cannot power a car because it does not produce more power than is put into it. If someone has proof of "over unity" energy, then they have to construct a working system that demonstrates it. At that point, this new source of energy will be tested, theorized, and researched until we find out what it is and how to harness it. At that time it is no longer free energy because we know where it comes from. However, time and time again, people claiming to have done the impossible and found free energy have been proven to have made fraudulent claims. Because of this, skepticism and careful analysis are necessary in approaching such fringe topics.

Well that's a given. If our understanding never grew it would mean we already knew everything. I'm not so arrogant as to think that.

I think I can characterize some of the previous posters as saying that

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

I wish I could remember which philosopher came up with that. Perhaps one of you can help.

Carl Sagan.

I agree with this, and would add that those who view Science and Scientists as some sort of elite club or gang that cannot be joined should consider the possibility that he or she was denied membership simply because he or she is a poor practitioner of science.


On a side note, we should not be using psychology and psychiatry interchangeably. They are NOT the same. A psychiatrist is a medical doctor and is legally able to prescribe drugs. A psychologist is not. Psychiatry is considered a "hard science" while psychology is considered a "soft science".

How do you use the terms "hard" and "soft"? Is the ability to prescribe drugs a testament to the greater scientific virtue of psychiatry? Is this akin to the hierarchy below?

Math is better that physics
Physics is better them chem
Chem is better than bio
Bio is better than psych
Psych is at the bottom

hard and soft are pretty static terms for sciences. Physics is a hard science. Biology is a soft science. Chemistry is a hard science. *shrug* It's just a term. It's not a matter of better or worse.

this is not true of patents. a patent requires the method to become public knowledge. the patent itself is just the claim to being the 1st and the "owner" of such a method for such a time. after 20 years it becomes general domain except under certain circumstances. having said that i haven´t studied patent law for several years so someone may want to rectify any inaccuracies in what i´ve said

:sad:

I disagree. The terms are used differently by different people. In the history of those terms "hard" has been associated with "good", "more scientific", and "more rigorous while "soft" has been associated with "bad", "less rigorous" and "less "scientific". Personally, I think that the distinction is more about political jabs between fields than any real assessment of the field's scientific value. I find it particularly inapplicable when comparing MDs and PhDs. I've interacted with many MDs who seemed to have only a limited understanding of the scientific method. I've also interacted with PhDs in sociology, anthropology, poli sci, and psychology who employed the scientific method in their work everyday.

You can't really compare an MD with a PhD... they are both doctorate level degrees in totally different things. It's like comparing a PhD in Physics to a PhD in Social Sciences. Just because you've gone to school for a long time doesn't make you anything comparatively to someone else.

Also, Wiki entry. It's pretty accurate as compared to what I've always believed to be the difference and what it seems others I know feel the difference is.

"Soft" sciences aren't bad and hard aren't good. But, like the link above mentions, it seems that there's a common sense application of the terms. Physics is a hard science because labs are built, lasers a fired, and things are scrutinized. Biology is a soft science because much of it is guesswork, much akin to an MD making decisions base don observation with no real "proof" of the ailment. It's why people are misdiagnosed so often. It doesn't mean biology or medicine are bad, it simply means that determining concrete proof through the scientific method is not as easy. That is, of course, changing a lot these days, primarily due to genetics moving to the forefront and labwork becoming more rigorous and tests being made available that are better able to determine the actual problem rather than guessing the problem based on several possible symptoms.

Psychology has studies and tests just like any other science. Psychologists work with real minds, real emotions, and real behaviors. They often make real progress and see real healing and real mental health as a result of applying techniques which were discovered using the scientific method.

I see use of "hard" and "soft" as being virtually meaningless. Science is science. Those who understand and explore science are scientists be you a neurosurgeon, an aeronautical engineer, or a marriage and family therapist.

I'm going to have to disagree with you Will. Personally I think Psychology and Psychiatry are bunk. Here's why...

Every mind is different. This is both from the aspect of physiological chemical makeup to the aspect of beliefs, feelings and cultural/environmental differences. To suspect that x + y = z in anything more than a tiny portion of the world's population makes very little sense logically. Sure, there are some things that brain science has down pat, such as areas of the brain that perform certain functions and specific brain chemicals that regulate emotions and moods. The larger picture, however, is just that... larger. Far too large for modern psychology to be anything more than a whim. Much like "modern" medicine was 100 years ago. In another century or so, I think that will change drastically. For now it's a few notches higher on the science pyramid than phrenology.

Sure, I can compare them. I can also compare the methods used by a PhD in physics to the methods used by a Phd in a social science.
I don't understand what you mean.


I think that you place too much faith in the greater "proof" offered by "hard" sciences. I also think that your description of hard science versus soft science reflects many of the statements about the distinction between hard and soft that I made above. Independent of your wiki reference, I stand by my statement that the "hard" versus "soft" distinction is not useful.

On a side note, other than therapists, do any people in the world actually consider therapists to be scientists? I'm not being a dick, that thought simply never crossed my mind. It's like saying the meter maid is a scientist of coin operated theory. Therapists certainly help people, but so do teachers. Teachers aren't scientists either, though they need to both teach science and occasionally apply the scientific theory.

therapist != scientist

Well, obviously you CAN. I can compare turds to flying pigs. It doesn't make it a useful comparison. I would think there'd be a higher level of contrast than comparison. But this is pretty much the stereotype from which came the saying "apples to oranges".


Hard sciences tend to work in theories and proofs. Soft sciences tend to work simply in theories. At least from my perception. There are certainly "proofs" in biology, but they seem much more fluid. There are a lot of things we don't understand about, say, subatomic mechanics. There are far FEWER things we understand about genetics (to this day).

Your statement regarding phrenology and a science pyramid reflects the hard/soft characterization I made earlier. Your statements generally seem to reflect a limited understanding of modern psychiatry and psychology.

I would say that therapist does not necessarily equal scientist. Also, MD does not necessarily equal scientist.

If they both employ the scientific method, or purport to, we can compare them.

Again, I think that your hard/soft distinction doesn't work. Theories and proofs versus "simply theories"? Independent of how you could possible measure "how much we understand" in one field versus another, the amount of knowledge amassed by field is independent of the methods used to acquire knowledge.


A different topic: This thread is about scientific thinking. How do people define scientific thinking or the scientific method?

Xepherys answer pretty much covers the hard and soft question. As for the other, I'd say that due to the greater education necessary to become an MD, that yes, psychiatry tends to hold a greater scientific virtue than psychology.

What is "greater education"? What kind of education do you think is required to get each degree? How can "greater education", regardless of what it means, be a measurement of scientific virtue?

Again, I'm wondering what people think the scientific method or scientific thinking is.

Re "hard" science - anything you measure in an objective way to build on a knowledge base fits into that realm. The bio-sciences are so complex that there will have to be one heck of a lot of measurements made in order to quantify things as rigorously as, say, theoretical physics. However, if you look at a science such as geology or meteorology, which are solid sciences with "hard" applications you can see how they still are very fuzzy. We just don't know enough to say this earthquake or that hurricane will occur/act/be expressed in an objectively foreseeable manner.
I live with a Phd/Md who comments from time to time how that dual training impacts her more global, considered approach to both research and patient care. If you are willing to put 20 years into a post-secondary education I'm willing to bet you will learn to cover a lot of bases.
Whether you feel the psych sciences are bunk or not, they definitely provide quantifiable help for a lot of people who are in terrible distress. And being able to zero in on genetic markers and determine ever-more efficacious management tools for people in distress is a real science. One person responds to a course of treatment differently than another - this is more a case of complex structure differences inside the body. Different reactions mean we need to learn more, not that the science behind the treatment is invalid or weak. These innate differences between people are exacerbated by environmental factors - Nurture and Nature both having an effect.
BTW, I never knew there was an inducible class of genes which express themselves differently depending upon experience and environment. Probably obvious to some, not to me. Apparently it is a huge field of study with awesome possibilities.

I'm going to cut you off here. I spent 4 years of my life studying psychology, and Sapien a lot more. My mother has her own private practice. While I appreciate that you may be an expert on many things, you seem to be a bit out of your element on this one.

Therein lies your error; not all psychologists are therapists. Research pyschologists absolutely follow the scientific method, and endure just as much rigor as a theoretical physicist. Therapy is applied psychology, and focuses on using sound psychological theory to solve contemporary problems.

Applied physicists do the same thing.

In my field, there are computer scientists and there are programmers. Computer scientists draw from the science of Mathematics, Formal Logic and Communication Theory and use the scientific method to arrive at new, more efficient algorithms. Progammers, on the other hand, are applied scientists, and use their knowledge of the science to solve problems. They're no more scientists than applied physicists or therapists.

Nice way of addressing his arguments there :no:

Actually, you're providing an EXCELLENT example of that Aura of 'we are teh scientist, therefore we are better than you' that Stevie667 was talking about :thumbsup:

I appreciate the distinctions you made above. Thanks.
Will: It does sound a bit like an argument from authority.


---------------
I'm heading back to the question I posted earlier:
I think that some of the fundamental ingredients of the scientific method are
1. Determinism: The universe is orderly. Events have meaningful, systematic causes
2. Empiricism: Events in the world can be best understood via observation.
3. Falsifiability: A good account of an event should generate testable hypotheses.

A bit of an aside: A theory is not “just a theory” or “simply a theory”. It’s not a “best guess”. Theories are tools. Tools employed by scientists to understand their domain of inquiry. A good theory accounts for and organizes existing knowledge and generates testable hypotheses and predictions, leading us to new domains of knowledge.

The wiki explanation of the scientific method doesn’t do to bad of a job describing the scientific method, though I’ve only skimmed it.

Given the above, scientific virtue or merit of a domain of knowledge is not determined by how many years required to get a degree in the field or even the content of the particular field, but rather the extent to which the scientific method was employed in discovering that knowledge.

I agree entirely with you sapiens, with the caveat that science actually requires naturalism, rather than the broader concept (as I see it) of determinism.

Not only does the universe have to be orderly and the events systematic, but they must be of a natural (rather than supernatural) origin.

Going back over the OP once again I was struck by something
that was interesting.

I can see the dynamics of the split between Psychiatry/Psychology.
The study of 'us', has never fit easily into any hard or soft
category. Some of those well steeped and versed
in this knowledge continue to feel more comfortable keeping
the science part of psychology,
and the emotional part of it seperate.

Psychiatrists are more known to have studied brain chemistry in depth,
Psychologists deal with the blended path of science and emotion,and so on..

As to what Sapiens asks of us....I will spend some more time thinking
about that.

Evidence:

Psychology
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychology
It's as much a science as biology, chemistry, or physics.

As for "bunk", give this a read:
http://www.allfreeessays.net/student...A_Science.html

there are a number of issues on the table at this point and things are blurry because of that.

hard vs soft science seems to me a goofball non-issue. maybe this is because i am trained as a "social scientist" and have a quirk that makes me interested in the sociology of knowledge--so "hard" vs "soft"--or erect vs. flaccid, which comes to the same thing---seems to me mostly something that comes up in drunken imbroglios in graduate-student heavy bars between, say, a physicist and a biologist or either of them and a sociologist or historian. apart from too many beverages, what generally ends up leading our imaginary (and vague as to number) characters down this path to dullness is a sense of legitimacy or--more often--real or imagined threats to legitimacy. so it's an aesthetic question, whether one wants to validate counting things or modelling them by imagining it to be more erect a relation to the world than the relatively flaccid approach of someone who looks at bio-systems or, worse, how human beings think or, much much worse, how groups of human beings think and act. or the other way round.

it hardly matters.
this assumptions that accompany the separation of disciplines just make an already unfortunate state of affairs even more unfortunate by making it more than just dull in itself, but meta-dull, that it dull when it is repeated in conversations about the separation of disciplines.

there's another interesting set of questions that could come out of sapiens attempt to define scientific method. i have to go do something, so will get back to it maybe.

I don't think Xeph disputed the fact that it can be considered a science, especially with a definition of science like the one from your essay:

"1. systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc. 2. a branch of knowledge, esp. one that systematizes facts, principles, and methods 3. skill or technique"

He simply claimed that the systematized knowledge as of yet is lacking. That there is still a lot of "bunk" or empty talk.

In this sense, phrenology too, is a science.

Phrenology never generated any testable hypotheses that I know of. At least none that were properly confirmed.

Thanks for expounding rb...

You forgot sociology

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png

I used greater in the mathematical sense. I had the impression that more education (of a more rigorous type) was required to become an MD than to become a psychologist. A few minutes of googling has shown me, however, that while that may have once been the case, it no longer is necessarily true.

I retract my previous statement.

Yes, that's what I was thinking of (though Randall Munroe wasn't the first to think of it).

Will, I will just add this sample set of equations where science.x = hard science and science.y = psychiatry (and probably other soft sciences):

science.x + theory = work for outcome
science.x + practice = consistency

science.y + theory = work for outcome
science.y + practice = work for outcome

Assume that in 'science.y + practice', practice is the prescription of medication. How often will a psychiatrist prescribe a medication only to have an unexpected (or possibly bad) outcome and then have to try something else... and then maybe something else until something "works"? This process is repeated with each new patient. In 'science.y + theory' some building blocks are created, but there is no certainty how each patient will react to new medications (this does not include the chemistry behind pharmaceuticals ('hard') and the biochemistry of the interaction ('soft').

Now let's look at 'science.x + practice'. Once 'science.x + theory' is performed and an outcome assessed, 'science.x + practice' can be repeated with limited change or failure. Bridges have been built more or less the same for millenia (beginning with simple aqueducts in Roman times I believe) and they always work pretty much the same. You don't make a bridge the same way just to have one spontaneously disintegrate. It doesn't happen. That's the 'hard' vs. 'soft' argument AND the anti-psych argument rolled into one.


The scientific method, I believe, is well defined as:


1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)


As for scientific thinking, I'll go back to an earlier post. I believe it is forward theoretical thinking, combined with acceptance of existing knowledge where it makes logical sense in its application, combined finally with an apt amount of understanding that you don't understand everything.

The idea that the abstract is purer or greater owes much to religion, and is now mostly a quaint prejudice.

Math is less general than linguistics and philosophy. But so what? We need the signified as much as we need a structure of significations. Without either, nothing is communicated.

I'm not a psychiatrist. Technically, I'm not even a psychologist (as I'm not licensed). What I do know is that solid and verified systems of diagnosis and treatment exist for each of these sciences.

What you seem to be assuming is that psychiatry is a guessing game. Well, from a perspective it is, but from that same perspective so are physics and biology, so I don't understand why you're isolating psychology and psychiatry.

Using your aqueduct argument (which is funny, because on a different forum I have a lively discussion going on about aqueducts right now...), what about building an aqueduct through mountains? What about building an aqueduct over a desert? What about building one that needs to go uphill? What about constructing an aqueduct that has to survive freezing temperatures in the winter? You see, science is about establishing systems, but it's also about accounting for the myriad of variables in the equation that exist in any applied science. Just as it's actually much more complex than one might think to build an aqueduct, it's more difficult than one might think to make an accurate diagnosis and then choose an effective treatment. One person might have had sexual abuse as a child just as one aqueduct may have to be built on a difficult environment. The difference between the two in their respective fields is academic. They are variables to be taken into account when using the verified scientific systems which are established and continually refined.

What I would suggest doing is asking questions instead of presuming that a science isn't viable, reliable, or unsystematic. I may only have my BA, but several TFPers are extremely knowledgeable in the area of psychology, including Sapiens.

Will, what I'm saying is that once an aqueduct is built to withstand freezing temperatures, the ability to do so becomes a known. It can be duplicated.

Once a medication is 'known' to help manic depression, it still may or may not work in any given patient. It may also make things worse.

From this perspective psychiatry (and to a lesser degree psychology, since medication is not involved) is a guessing game. Or rather, it is in a constant state of theory. Physics is in theory until a general proof is made. Psychiatry is in theory for each new patient. That's why I'm isolating them.

Also, I don't believe it's not viable. It's been around long enough to be established. I also don't believe it is without a system. Lots of things have working systems. That doesn't make them a) science or b) reliable. I'm also not blasting on psych for shits and giggles. I do believe it helps many people. I'm just trying to point out, from the original topic of this thread, that the thinking behind it, while scientific at it's base, is all about theory and not about proofs. Proofs only exist on a person to person basis. That's part of why it would be a 'soft' science and part of why it's questionable as a fundamental rather than a foundation of guesswork.

I agree that psychology/psychiatry is a soft science, but due to the dynamic nature of the human body and mind. I disagree that physics is a hard science because it can be "proven." Nothing in physics can be proven- ever. Not even mathematics can be proven as the foundations of math state that it is in itself true. Physics has models that can be demonstrated to be accurate to the workings of the universe- again you can't prove them, just demonstrate their accuracy.

These models can be falsified- given new conditions. For instance, Newtonian verses Einsteinian mechanics. Einstein's model of the universe were shown accurate- Newton was wrong. But this didn't stop the egg heads at NASA from putting Sir Isaac Newton in the driver's seat when we went to the moon. Newtonian models are still very accurate- and unarguably much simpler than Einsteinian models- given that the conditions are not relativistic (speeds beyond 10%c).

Psychology, Psychiatry, etc, have so many conditions (some even unknown), which is why we get these medical guessing games (making shows like House, MD so entertaining). While psychiatric medicine may be a guessing game now, the varying conditions are no different than one whom tries to use Newtonian mechanics to describe what happens on a vessel moving at roughly 30,000 kilometers per second.

just as a proof is a simple procedure shaped by particular rules and based on particular axioms which cannot be demonstrated from within it, so notions of causation or regularity are frame-contingent. like hain said above, when you go past applications into conceptual underpinnings, things get murky and strange in almost any science.

there is nothing magic about a proof.
there is nothing magic about experiment.
both have a circular structure logically in that characteristics of the axioms recur through the proof, and frame-characteristics repeat through experiments.
made general, this distinction is the basis for the notion of paradigm in thomas kuhn's work on scientific revolutions--and he outlines several examples/parables of "normal science"--predicated on the confirmation-through-repetition of the prevailing community consensus--results in anomalies being classified as error--until an alternate explanation is developed (if it is) that refigures the underlying frames which enable information to be grouped, regularities inferred and "normal science" to resume its confirmation-through-repetition functions.

people have trouble with new shit. so in a general sense, it's not quite as The Dude tells us in Scripture: the "problem" is not that he is not privy to new shit--in a general sense, our collective affection for repetition, for the same, obstructs the making-coherent of new shit--unless it can be processed as a variant of what "we" already know. so in a way, there is no new shit. new shit is a variant of the old. until it isn't.

paradigms in kuhn are institutional ideologies, basically: you see similar problems in relation to ideologies all over the place, where-ever you look.
but thinking ideology is curiously enough a matter for the soft-to-flaccid sciences, and not something that the manly men who deal in formal languages will mess with.

such is the religious appeal of number, unexamined. guy is right, above.

But what about duplicating an aqueduct capable of withstanding freezing temperatures when only limestone is available? Or what about duplicating an aqueduct capable of withstanding freezing temperatures when it moves close to the border of an enemy? Clearly, it's not as simple as just one problem. There are a myriad of variables involved in planning to build, building, and reproducing an aqueduct. No two aqueducts are exactly the same, just as no two minds are exactly the same. That also goes for neurologists.
Just like one method of making the aqueduct stronger may be to widen the base for one project, but using that same technique on a different project would fail because it's being built on an area that has groundwater and the weight would make it sink.
That's just it: it's not a guessing game at all. When you get your BA, they don't just hand you a copy of the DSM4 and say "good luck". There are systems which are established and have far reaching applications.

I'll use a common example: Ritalin. Everyone loves to dump on Ritalin, but most who do aren't aware of it's success rate. They aren't aware of any facts or figures about Ritalin. I've read hundreds of articles about Ritalin (because a family member was going to be taking it). All of the criticisms were unsupported and cited no studies. In point of fact, Ritalin enjoys a relatively high success rate (comparable to drugs given for physical ailments by medical doctors). While I don't have the data with me at work, I'll see if I can dig it up when I get home. Sapiens probably has access to a lot of information on it, too.

BTW,
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...a-news-comment

In other words, be aware that there is a lot of misinformation that's publicly accepted, and you have to watch out for it.
It's science if it follows the scientific method, which it does. It's also a science in a semantic sense as I demonstrated by quoting two well known and accepted dictionaries. Reliable? I'm still waiting to see any figures. Can you demonstrate that psychology and psychiatry aren't reliable?

I feel that you are missing my point. When a patient has an issue with depression, there are many possible medications that may or may not work. The Psychiatrist listens to the patient, makes some decisions and prescribes what they see as the best possible medication. It may or may not work.

An engineer needs to build an aqueduct. He looks at the site and materials available, draws up plans, and then builds it. It works. Let's take it up to a modern serious engineering task. Skyscrapers. There is no room for failure in the construction of a skyscraper. But once plans are drawn up and construction begins and then ends, it has to ALREADY work. They can't look at it a few months after completion and say, "I don't think this grade of steel is working for these support beams. Next week we'll remove them and put some stronger alloy beams in their place."

The physics, the chemistry and the engineering all have to basically take place preemptively to the task, and be dead accurate the first time around before construction begins. The psychiatrist makes an educated guess, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't, they make another guess. Do you see the difference?

The flipside: "A doctor listens to the patient, makes some decisions and prescribes what they see as the best possible medication. It may or may not work."

Can you demonstrate that psychology and psychiatry have a lower success rate? Is that even a fair comparison?
There is no difference. The engineer makes guesses based on the science and precedent just like the psychologist.

Can you demonstrate that psychology and psychiatry have a lower success rate?

I was going to make the exact point that xepherys did: in engineering, one must show that one's product will work before going into production. One can waste time, money, and at its worst, lives in even in the simplest of tasks. The experience of those before set up acceptable standards that will work.

The same can be said for psych'. My opinion follows. It can either be the young age of serious psych' science and research or the complexity of the body and brain, but decisions made even under the most careful scrutiny cannot be guaranteed yet in psych' science. This is why I do not perceive it to be an "exact science". Exact can be debated, but like I said earlier- Newtonian mechanics worked damned fine to get men to the moon.

How specifically does psycholog/psychiatry not measure up to the same success rate or exactness of other sciences? I have yet to see evidence.

I believe very firmly that psychology and psychiatry enjoy less than favorable reputations which are not deserved as they're not based in fact but rather hearsay, rumor, and innuendo. After spending 4 years of my life devoted to developing my understanding of the science of psychology, I see no reason to believe it compares unfavorably to any other science. All I see here is more of the same unverified claims.

Please, if you have evidence of some kind, present it. Until then you are presenting unverified claims which carry little weight.

While a single personal experience proves nothing: a friend's brother clearly had serious issues, whom was diagnosed as ADHD despite the family insisting the doctor consider it to be a bipolar disorder due to the family's history of bipolar members. Now, I can't say if the family took the little hellion in for a second opinion, but he was diagnosed later to be bipolar and not ADHD.

There is a difference as physics and engineering have been around long enough that there have been objective standards invented, leading to detailed rubrics that future engineers and scientists must adhere to and promptly they will receive successful results. Application of psych' science is not yet 100% effective. Give it time and I bet it won't be like that.

How would you like us to verify it outside of personal experience? We are not experts in the field, as it is obvious, and therefore would not be able to provide adequate results. All I know is that I've had to meet with "professionals" that were useless in figuring out why I act and think the way I did. I'll then mention the horrid medical treatment my father has received that twice in my life had nearly killed him but was "not negligence" of his attending.

I have yet to have any experience that proves medicine and psych' are exact.

Yes it is opinion, but usually those come from personal experiences.

By "family doctor" do you mean psychologist, psychiatrist, or medical doctor? A medical doctor is no more qualified to make a psychological diagnosis than a psychologist is to make a medical diagnosis.
Psychology's roots are in philosophy which could possibly predate physics, but that's immaterial. The age of a science does not necessarily correlate with it's effectiveness. Neuroscience saw it's beginning in ancient Egypt, but it only really has become useful in the past few hundred years.

Again, demonstrate why psychology/psychiatry is not as effective as another science. I'm starting to sound like a broken record.

Again, I lump psychiatry and psychology as another form of medicine, and I watched every episode of House, MD. He nearly killed the patients 4 times before having an epiphany. Like most of my decisions, I base them off of TV.

I think the problem is we still know very little about the human brain and how the mind works. They can't even agree on the complete set of functions and purposes of sleep; no one really knows yet. Then we get to depression and other mental disorders. There is no surgical procedure, no immunization, no highly effective drug treatment. We are still learning about this realm of human health and biology.

And those Egyptians had some pretty damned big Pyramids, built by means we don't even understand fully today. I'd say far more advanced than their dabbling in neuroscience.


I agree with this statement entirely.

And Will, you have to realize, your profession is way harder than mine.

Arguing from personal experience and presenting that evidence as a blanket study of an entire field is a fallacy.

Maybe I should put it this way: I had a shit math teacher in 8th grade. Seriously. He should have been teaching preschool math, not AP Algebra. Eventually it got so bad that I and a good friend of mine essentially took over teaching the class. I'm not making this up.

Based on this experience, all math teachers are incapable of teaching math.

Actually, I don't work in the field of psychology. I just happen to have gotten my degree in that area. I work as an administrator for a non-profit organization.

This is turning into, "My big book is better than your big book." My way of looking at it is that when following the regulated rules for engineering, my stuff will not break. If it does, meaning if I am wrong, I am wrong and to blame.

When you follow the regulated rules of psych'/medicine, people still can get worse/sick. This is why doctors can be wrong but not negligent/blameworthy. By following the rules and regulations of this science, it pointed to a certain conclusion- one that anyone else in this profession would have made.

In any applied science there is the element of the unknown variable. This includes architecture. If you build a beautiful building, triple checking your maths and verifying it with all the diagnostic tools at your disposal, and it fails due to an unknowable variable (like groundwater making the surface unstable), how is this any different than a psychologist using a proven method on a patient but seeing it fail because something in the behavioral pattern of the patient goes unknown?

Had the architect ordered ground samples testing moisture and checked subterranean conditions, this would not have happened. Someone's ass is grass / Someone is going to be blamed with reckless negligence.


EDIT: I am not an architect, but I had a similar conversation with a colleague at my school about the Tacoma Bridge, and her professor stressed to her that "Someone's ass was held responsible" for not considering the natural frequency of the bridge.

Since we are failing to provide examples that are to your liking, I propose the opposite. In science, one deals with theory and proof. Currently, I believe it is your theory that psych is as effective as other sciences. Until you prove otherwise, I consider you incorrect.

Burden of proof fallacy. You made the initial claim, therefore it's your burden of proof.

Also, as Hain noted, architecture/engineering of buildings isn't really the same. If a doctor or psychiatrist misdiagnose, they are often not negligent. If a company builds a skyscraper and it crashes out of the blue killing people, they are ALWAYS at fault. There aren't really unknown variables these days when constructing a building. You can do ground xray testing and verify the solidity of the ground, take core samples to verify it's material makeup and other such tests. You cannot do an MRI of the brain and look at symptoms and be assured of making a correct diagnosis. They aren't remotely the same.

Understand that I believe psych is a very difficult field. I understand the amount of education and effort that go into it. I'm not belittling a psychiatrist for going through those motions. I just don't believe there's "a science to it". There may be underlying science that supports it, but the whole is not scientific.

How so? We are talking science. Science is either crap, theory or fact. Currently you are stating a theory, I am making statements of fact, at least from the engineering side. What statement of fact have you provided to defend your argument?

As an aside, Will, I hope there are no hard feeling here. I live for this type of debate... either both sides eventually agree to disagree or someone learns something. Either way, it's always a worthwhile expedition as long as both sides play nicely. :)

I've provided more than you. I cited a LA Times article about the legitimacy of Ritalin and how those against Ritalin basically are talking out of their asses.
I've taken the military to task a number of times. No worries.

I disagree with your characterization of science. You seem to be using theory colloquially. In science, theory is not less than fact. Even if you are not intending a hierarchy, theory is not distinct from facts. I mentioned this above.

From your posts, it doesn't seem like you understand what "science" or "scientific" means. (At least in the way any scientist I know that uses those terms). If psychologists employ the scientific method, then the results they obtain employing the scientific method are by definition scientific. I discussed this above as well.

Definition of science as listed on Merriam-Webster:

1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science


Definition of theory as listed on the same:

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

My conclusion from the above information is that science > theory. Speculation or analysis of one thing related to another is not the same as knowing something factually. That's why theory begets knowledge (science) and not the other way around.

To be sure, the human mind is considerably more complex that a skyscraper. However, considering the greater complexity of the mind versus the skyscraper or even considering a comparison of what we know about building a skyscraper versus what we know about the mind does not offer any heuristic value in the assignment of scientific merit.

Generally, I don't rely on merriam-webster if I'm trying to define terms in a specialized area of knowledge, but even with the colloquial definition offered you can see at least the "the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, etc." In the definition of "science" above, theory is what creates that system of knowledge described in definition 3. Even that does not adequately cover the role of theory in science. I refer again to my description of theory and the scientific method above.

Xeph, "theory" in science has a common usage meaning "an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena" or something to that effect. In other words, all of science is theory. There is no fact. What you probably meant to say is "hypothesis".

Because they are both sciences? Because they use methods? Can you compare, with any accurate variables, an MD to a JD? Law uses methods. I don't consider law to be science.

I agree that a degree does not equal anything other than satisfactory course completion. PhD, MD, JD, MS, BA... it's all just letters attached to a piece of paper. Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot even using degrees in this argument at all. I think that argument was being used to justify the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist and maybe got a bit out of context.

I'm not making an argument based on the principles themselves of psych, but rather the objectivity of the whole as opposed to other sciences. Perhaps neither of us are "experts" on that as a whole as I don't believe any of us here have been properly educated on the majority of each science separately.


First of all, and maybe it's just semantics, but the scientific method is what it is, there are pretty well agreed-upon steps, like what I listed above. It's what's been taught in secondary schools for decades and what's been taught at the university level, at least in the engineering and most recently physics programs I've been in. While you may have extrapolated those "fundamental ingredients" there are still very defined steps that are taken in a defined order. That is the only definition of the scientific method.

Also, a theory is "just a theory" in light of it not being fact. The theory is generally built on existing facts or other strong theories. A great example of that is string theory which is a sidestep of quantum theory. Both are important, both have a lot of work being done on them (well, not so much string theory these days), but both are "just theories". They are not fact. There is little or no proven data supporting that majority of the claims of either. Theory < Fact... arguing otherwise seems rather ridiculous.

Also, "1. Determinism: The universe is orderly. Events have meaningful, systematic causes" isn't based in full reality. You have to take it with the grain of salt that we only perceive a subsection of the universe, both physically and spatially. Quantum mechanics both proves and disproves determinism depending on the study, scientist, paper or test you read about.


So, anytime the scientific method is put to use, the result is a part of some science? This seems absurd to me. The scientific method is a method that can be applied to other things, including application. I could use the scientific method to determine what shirt I might wear today. It doesn't make my clothing decision science. If you believe it does, than your definition of science is wildly broad and pretty much insulting to scientists.

Despite my vehement arguing in this thread, I've also stated that I don't think psych is a "bad" thing. I just believe it operates on hypothesis far more often than fact, and therefore it's not a "hard" science. This whole thing devolved from the topic of "hard" vs. "soft" sciences.

Uhm... what?

Let me just quote the following, because it pretty much sums it up. From yet another Wikipedia entry:

Generally when a scientific law is established, it is so done out of fact. The law of inertia, the law of universal gravitation, et cetera... these are facts. They may not be wholly understood, but they are universally recognized as indisputable and are wholly repeatable ad infinitum. I hate to keep referencing Wikipedia, but it's generally a decent source.

Lastly, I would like to say that it is my opinion that in psychiatry, there is far greater use of empirical method than scientific method. Perhaps the two are being confused? The Oxford English Dictionary states that an empiric is "one who, either in medicine or in other branches of science, relies solely upon observation and experiment"... that pretty much sums up psychiatry. Perhaps it's a hybrid of empirical and scientific method?

EDIT: Okay, perhaps SOLELY is a bit strong. I can see it being a hybrid of empirical and scientific, but there are many, MANY unknown variables patient to patient. There are virtually no unknown variables (approaching zero, where it should be) in building a building.

Nice try xepherys, but you cant reason with the unreasonable. You cant make those who are always right, wrong, and you certainly cant bestow knowledge upon those with unlimited ego. It aint happening & it never will. :)

*sigh*

Apparently the upper echelons are the people in soft science. At least at the TFP. I've really tried not to be on the offensive, but when I get told what "theory" generally means in science, like I'd have no clue myself, I get a bit miffed. Still love ya Will... just saying...

Perhaps the difference between hard and soft science is proven here. "Hard" scientists know science... "soft" scientists want to grow up to be "hard" scientists someday? :p I'm just kidding. I promise!

For the longest time, Newtonian physics was LAW. Now? It's outdated and simplistic compared to what has been developed since. What, then, is a law that can be broken by progress? Why, it's a theory. Like the theory of relativity and the theory of gravity; they are considered factual, but that could eventually change. And that's the wonderful part of science; it has no ego. If old science is proven wrong, new science takes it's place and science as a whole improves. It always takes steps forward and, so long as it's left out of the hands of fundamentalists, never takes steps back.

From wiki:
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis[, but in] science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.

That sounds dangerously close to the description I posted: "an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena"

Gee Will, its almost like you paraphrased wiki..........Na, I know you'd never do that, but so many of your posts sound very familiar.......almost like you paraphrased me. :)

Theory IS a model based on observation, but it is not yet fact. Theory graduates to fact once it has been widely established as such.

Also, The basics of Newtonian physics, specifically regarding the laws of motion are, in fact, still laws. They are exactly as applicable today as they were at their birth. Can you show me a link stating that the laws of motion, or specifically the law of inertia that I posted, has been broken, changed or otherwise made obsolete? An object at rest continues to be at rest until energy is expended against it. When did this stop being true?

EDIT: In the face of specificity, let's replace "Can you show me a link stating that the laws of motion..." with, "Can you prove that the laws of motion...".

Still tilting at windmills? That must be frustrating.

I Still Love you Will. One day you may wake up & smell reality. :) :hearts:

Hmmm, I must say that this is the most apt use of the phrase I may have ever seen. Whatever issues I may take with your chosen course of studies, your vocabulary never ceases to delight! :)

Except for the 492 "serious problems".

"FDA statistics show that between 600,000 and 700,000 people (70% of them children or adolescents) are being treated with Ritalin. Between 1980 and 1987, the latest period for which statistics are available, the FDA received 492 complaints of serious problems resulting from the drug. The agency said this level of complaints indicates the drug is safe."

Newton's Laws of Motion are simply consequences of quantum theory. Quantum theory is where the real "laws" would come from, only it's theory. Thus, the axioms presented by Newton are now outdated. And that's a good thing. If I'm ever lucky enough to formulate a hypothesis that stands up to the scientific method and becomes a theory, I hope that eventually a more perfect theory will be formulated and science will advance.

I particularly love using it on TFP.

I appreciate that, but I'd like to see the follow up investigations into these complaints before I assume that they are symptomatic of anything but phantom problems.

"My son has become lethargic", for example, may have nothing to do with Ritalin, but rather diet. "My son had an allergic reaction" may simply mean he was never tested for allergies to medication. You know how I discovered I was allergic to Codeine? I was given it as a child. And you can bet my mother complained. I'm not saying their all wrong, but it's better not to assume they're all legitimate.

Since quantum theory is just that, a theory, and the laws of motions are... wait for it... laws, I think it's too early to say that the Laws of Motion have been superseded by quantum theory.

When GM puts out a new body style for the Corvette, it it obsolete as soon as a designer takes pen to paper and doodles a new body style? What about when engineers make a clay mockup? What about when the concept version comes out? Personally, I would say that the first is not obsolete until you can buy the second.

When Quantum Mechanics becomes Quantum Law, perhaps Newton's shall be superceded. Even then, it is never no longer law. It is simply law that has been added to. It's not replaced.

Ugh. I lost a long post. I really need to write my posts in word first.

1. Fact != Truth. There is always doubt.

2. Laws are not indisputable. There is always doubt and always the possibility of falsification no matter how small.

3. Theories in a scientific sense are not less than facts. They are different from facts. It is not ridiculous. Theories in a conversational, colloquial sense are less than facts, but I'm not talking about the colloquial definition.

4. The scientific method applied to the investigation of natural phenomena presumably leads to scientific knowledge. Yes?

5. There is a epistemological framework that supports the scientific method. In my reference to determinism, empiricism, and falsifiability, I was speaking to that framework.

6. Independent of our limited perception of the universe, there is an assumption of determinism in the effort to identify the underlying causes of phenomena in the physical universe.

6. You could employ the scientific method to investigate clothing preferences. Your decision to wear boxers versus briefs may not be scientific, but the investigation of the decision-making processes that underlies clothing choice may be. It's not an insult to scientists.

That's it for now.

492 out of the lowball 600 000 estimate is still less than one in a thousand users. Given that just about any drug has the potential to cause 'serious problems,' I'd say that's pretty damn good.

Figure 600 000 out of the entire US population (~300 million) is one in five hundred. Out of those one in five hundred, one in a thousand may have serious issues. So the actual statistic is one in five hundred thousand. If you live in a medium sized city, there may be one person who has a serious adverse reaction to ritalin. Compared to some drugs, that's damn near miraculous.

A law can be disproved (or in this case replaced) by a theory.

Edit: I'm glad to have Sapiens and Martian in this. I felt like i was taking crazy pills for a moment there. And yes, pun intended.

The laws of motion aren't disproved, precisely. It would be more accurate to say that they are a less accurate model. Quantum theory is only really practical when dealing with really small stuff. It has repercussions involving big stuff, but for the most part, when dealing with real-world applications Newton is close enough.