The difficult thing about science is eliminating our own bias. In the "cargo cult" link Feynman talks about how we can do that for ourselves. But of course there are problems with our own biases that we can't see for ourselves.

Sometimes we hold onto ideas that others would rightfully let go, because we appreciate them for their beauty. Or because of monetary motivations. Or prestige.

But an idea's beauty does not equate to it's being true. How rich it could make us if others believe it, or how famous we might become are also nothing to do with whether the idea accurately reflects reality.

In such cases the cure is peer review. Where other scientists, who are not vested in the idea the same way, can re create the experiments and confirm or disprove the idea. Because even when scientISTS are wrong, or even insist on being wrong, it is the scientific method which will out the truth.

http://dinosaurpalaeo.wordpress.com/201 ... ng-denial/

But in order to check whether your claims are justified it is necessary to present all the data. And as Feynman says in the cargo cult link, to bend over backwards to present the ideas which need to be addressed. Not just what you think confirms your ideas about how nature works, but also what might be wrong with this picture.

Ben Goldacre on bad science in medicine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4MhbkWJzKk

Epidemiology studies.
http://www.dump.com/scientificstudies/


Richard Feynman's thoughts on "Cargo Cult Science" narrated.

http://youtu.be/yvfAtIJbatg?t=5m17s

The whole thing is worth listening to, but the part i'm pointing out goes from 5:17 to 9:44.

Thanks for the words of wisdom. I have often pondered the inherent confusion when people confuse science and scientists. Science is objective and rational, scientists are not. It's inherent in the human condition to be subjective and to have biases that we will always struggle to identify and work through.

When scientists get emotionally agitated upon having their claims contested by competing claims, it shows that they have become too emotionally involved in their research. Instead of realizing that this attachment will cloud their judgment and findings, they may argue back, even verbally attack "the competition." I am reminded of Steady State Theory advocates who responded malignantly and with scorn, contempt, and ridicule, when Big Bang cosmology was introduced as an alternate explanation for the origin of the universe, and all because to them it sounded too much like religion.

Of course, as you already stated, we all have this tendency, to get emotionally attached to our ideas. That is why philosophical, political, economic, and religious conversations have such a tendency to get heated.

In such cases the cure is peer review. Where other scientists, who are not vested in the idea the same way, can re create the experiments and confirm or disprove the idea. Because even when scientISTS are wrong, or even insist on being wrong, it is the scientific method which will out the truth.

This is a bit quixotic and a bit naive, particularly when there is now acknowledgement that peer review needs to be scrutinized and perhaps revamped.

Also, the scientific method justifying the scientific method is circular reasoning. Let's not ignore that.

Additionally, philosophers of science and science itself is fully aware that the fallacy of affirming the consequent is inherent in science.

Lastly, science, throughout history, has been a handmaiden to various institutional influences.
Science has and always will be a handmaiden.

This is a bit quixotic and a bit naive, particularly when there is now acknowledgement that peer review needs to be scrutinized and perhaps revamped.

What method, other than having other people repeat what you've done to either confirm or disagree with your results, do you recommend?

Also, the scientific method justifying the scientific method is circular reasoning. Let's not ignore that.

What are you referring to here?

Additionally, philosophers of science and science itself is fully aware that the fallacy of affirming the consequent is inherent in science.

And no amount of investigation can ever affirm a real connection of causality?

Lastly, science, throughout history, has been a handmaiden to various institutional influences.

Scientists can be employed by all kinds of people. Including the people who wish to slant research results to make it seem like the evidence is objectivly in favor of whatever it is they are trying to justify.

I would point you to my first post in which i said in such cases peer review helps to sort out what is fact, and what is Paid For Opinion masquerading as objective science.

Science has and always will be a handmaiden

So we should probably throw darts at a huge wall full of words to determine causality.

What method, other than having other people repeat what you've done to either confirm or disagree with your results, do you recommend?

There is plenty of stuff to read about this now, my friend. Google it.
Not trying to be a smarty pants. Really, google it.
It's not necessarily "method" that's at issue.

What are you referring to here?

Circular reasoning is circular reasoning, Johnson.
You wrote:

Because even when scientISTS are wrong, or even insist on being wrong, it is the scientific method which will out the truth

.

Science justifying science is itself circular reasoning. There's no way around that.
I'm not saying as a result we should all drop our telescopes and go to church.
If a current paradigm is examining itself, then it is a paradigm justifying itself.
Most often, breakthroughs occur on the outskirts of the dominant paradigm. The "mavericks" who break with conventional thought. Einstein is a perfect example.

And no amount of investigation can ever affirm a real connection of causality?

Didn't say that at all.
But keep in mind our connections with reality are always in a state of flux and secondary causality is what we are examining.
Investigation is continuous and ongoing. Affirmation is subject to future data that often changes, sometimes in astounding ways, what we previously affirmed.

Scientists can be employed by all kinds of people. Including the people who wish to slant research results to make it seem like the evidence is objectivly in favor of whatever it is they are trying to justify.

Excellent. This is something I would say myself. So that means you are on the right track

So we should probably throw darts at a huge wall full of words to determine causality.

That is ridiculous and you know it.

The same spirit of rigorous inquiry and testing should also apply to the "proofs" of history, though the methods will tend to be more qualitative. In general, we don't seem to believe that we need to be even more aware of biases intruding when we reconstruct the past, than we do when trying to consciously apply the scientific method. Sorry if this gets us off-track.

DWill wrote:The same spirit of rigorous inquiry and testing should also apply to the "proofs" of history, though the methods will tend to be more qualitative. In general, we don't seem to believe that we need to be even more aware of biases intruding when we reconstruct the past, than we do when trying to consciously apply the scientific method. Sorry if this gets us off-track.

It's way off track here.

Attaining "proofs of history" is an entirely different ballgame.
There is a quantitative element as well. As we go back further in history, quantitative proofs become more difficult to come by.

Science justifying science is itself circular reasoning. There's no way around that.

The predictions lend the justification. When an idea makes a false prediction, we know we're not on the right track. Most new hypotheses, as I understand it, are failures. Only a few survive repeated predictive attempts. The circularity is in the inductive process. What can we use to justify inductive reasoning other than inductive reasoning? This is a philosophical issue. While the problem of induction is thorny from an erudite perspective, there is no issue in practical life. Inductively, you know that jumping off the top of a skyscraper will kill you.

There is plenty of stuff to read about this now, my friend. Google it.
Not trying to be a smarty pants. Really, google it.
It's not necessarily "method" that's at issue.

I really googled it. I found nothing. Why not give a straight answer?

But keep in mind our connections with reality are always in a state of flux and secondary causality is what we are examining.

Who says it's secondary causation that we're examining? Secondary to what? Why not tertiary causation? Calling causation "secondary" is a distinction without a difference. It is meaningless.

Peer review is a process. What's important about peer review is not that it catches all possible shoddy claims, or that it has an impeccable record for producing only the best quality work.

What's important is that peer review is the process by which scientific research can be validated or invalidated. It forces a scientist, whether honest or dishonest to produce their work for others to inspect and attempt to find the faults.

Sometimes people aren't smart enough to find the faults. Sometimes people are too busy to really work hard on that particular review. Sometimes people are just out and out dishonest and will vouch for what is obviously fraud... but when other people get the chance to review what was otherwise passed through sloppily, lazily, or fraudulantly, the issues can be found. And then you don't want to be the scientist who reviewed that research and gave it a gold star. Your reputation and standing in the community is at stake.

http://www.sixtysymbols.com/videos/peer ... sticks.htm

As is often pointed out, science is conducted by humans. Peer review is how we try to minimize the types of schenanigans that humans are apt to get up to. When a bad paper like the one above gets through the initial run of peer review it's not a bad thing. Because then when the bad paper is exposed for being bad the whole community is reminded to step their game up.