On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 01:07:19 -0700, Michael Smith wrote: >I wonder if "scientists" are people too.
Ah! I presume that this statement means that you don't consider yourself a scientist and have not experienced the insights, understandings, and attitudes that such a role/state/pattern of living entails. Yes, Virginia, er., Michael, "scientists" are people too. They are like, pardon the influence of the recent World Cup final game, soccer players/footballers, in that they tend to be highly skilled people who after years of dedicated practice and education operate at high level in a variety of areas that most ordinary people without such experience cannot achieve. That being said, scientists and the system they operate within are not perfect, nowhere near the blissful state of operation in heaven, and are likely to make errors and attempt to create means of dealing with those errors. Y'know, like that moment in the final game of the World Cup when De Jong went flying feet first into the chest of Xabi Alonso in what seemed like a scene from Shaolin Soccer. I loved it when he only got a yellow card after possibly cracking the guy's sternum. Yes, scientists are people, like footbaalers are like people, but with fewer opportunities to massage a person's heart with their toes. >I hope the implication of the author of the article isn't that science >can address all issues, which it clearly can't... Ah, irony! I love it when it comes so think one can cut it with a knife. Quoting from the article: |Research results not consistent with your world view? Then you're |likely to believe science can't supply all the answers and |When presented with unwelcome scientific evidence, it seems, |in a desperate attempt to retain some consistency in their world view, |people would rather conclude that science in general is broken. |This is an interesting finding. But I'm not sure it makes me very happy. >especially the social sciences which just aren't on par with the >physical sciences. This is a curious statement because it assumes that there is a common metric that one can use to compare the achievements in different domains of the sciences. I wonder which metric(s) Prof. Smith is using as the basis for this? Can he enlighten us? -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu >--Mike On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Christopher D. Green <chri...@yorku.ca> wrote: > > > Here is a description of an interesting study that might be of use in a > critical thinking course (or cognition, or social psych, or methods). > Apparently when you confront people with evidence that runs contrary to > their pre-existing beliefs, they not only argue that science cannot address > the question, they also often generalize that opinion of science to a wide > range of other topics as well. > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/03/confirmation-bias-scientific-evidence --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3549 or send a blank email to leave-3549-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
