file.newsgroup.med.58778 Maven / Gradle / Ivy
From: [email protected] (Russell Turpin)
Subject: Re: Science and Methodology
-*----
In article [email protected] (Lee Lady) writes:
> The difference between a Nobel Prize level scientist and a mediocre
> scientist does not lie in the quality of their empirical methodology.
> It depends on the quality of their THINKING.
>
> It really bothers me that so many graduate students seem to believe that
> they are doing science merely because they are conducting empirical
> studies. ...
>
> And I'm especially offended by Russell Turpin's repeated assertion that
> science amounts to nothing more than avoiding mistakes. Simply avoiding
> mistakes doesn't get you anywhere.
I think that Lee Lady and I are talking at cross purposes.
Above, Lady seems concerned with the contrast between great
science that makes big advances in our knowledge and mediocre
science that makes smaller steps. In most of this thread, I have
been concerned with the difference between what is science and
what is not.
Lee Lady is correct when she asserts that the difference between
Einstein and the average post-doc physicist is the quality of
their thought. But what is the difference between Einstein and a
genius who would be a great scientist but whose great thoughts
are scientifically screwy? (Some would give Velikovsky or
Korzybski as examples. If you don't like these, choose your
own.) I say it is the same as the difference between the mediocre
physicist and the mediocre proponent of qi. Both Einstein and
the mediocre physcists have disciplined their work from the
cumulative knowledge of how previous researchers went wrong.
Both Velikovsky and the mediocre proponent of qi have failed to
do this.
Let me approach this from a second direction. When one is asked
to review a paper for a journal or conference, there are many
kinds of criticism that one can make. One kind of criticism is
that the work is just wrong or misinformed. Another kind of
criticism is that the work, while technically correct, is either
not important or not interesting. The first difference is the
one that I have been pointing to. The second difference is the
one that Lee Lady seems to be discussing.
> If good empirical research were done and showed that there is some merit
> to homeopathic remedies, this would certainly be valuable information.
> But it would still not mean that homeopathy qualifies as a science. This
> is where you and I disagree with Turpin.
I have often pointed out that for homeopathy to be considered
scientific, what is needed is a test of its theoretical claims,
not just of some of its proposed remedies. Similarly, I suspect
that traditional Chinese medicine has many remedies that work;
what it lacks (as one example) is any experiment that tests the
presence of qi.
> ... In order to have science, one must have a theoretical
> structure that makes sense, not a mere collection of empirically
> validated random hypotheses.
Certainly a "theoretical structure that makes sense" is the goal.
In areas where we do not yet have this, I see nothing wrong with
forming and testing smaller hypotheses. Let's face it: we cannot
always wait for an Einstein to come along and make everything
clear for us. Sometimes those of us who are not Einstein have to
plug along and make small amounts of progress as best we can.
Russell