{Edited in Wed. 8:49 AM: Title is sarcasm. Science isn't based on Faith.} The problem is more with journalists and ignorance in the general population than with science itself. If people understood a few things, unscrupulous Journalists, scientists, and lawyers couldn't get away with publishing {any} study results as science.
1. Correlation is not proof of causation. A study that finds 3 out of 12 kids who were given immunizations that contained mercury hasn't proved that the immunization caused Autism. Maybe they all had something else in common. Maybe the "scinetists" advertised their study with the title "Autism study" so parents with autistic kids signed up. Maybe they chose the children with autism on purpose. Maybe it was just a coincidence. But journalists will still publish an article saying that scientists have found a possible link between mercury in immunizations and autism. When in reality nothing has been found.

2. Sample size: Patterns become clearer and more accurate the bigger the sample. if one of 12 kids was seven feet tall the study will show that one in 12 kids is 7 feet tall.

3. Double Blind. The biases of the scientist can affect the results of a study. it is important to design a study where, for example, the person administering the pill doesn't know if it is the test drug or a plescebo, and the person receiving the pill also doesn't know.

4. Were other factors eliminated? For example a study finds that viewing pornagraphy causes cancer, but doesn't take into account that half of the participants were smokers.

5.Are the results replicable? To make sure that any one scientist isn't fiddling with the results other scientists need to be able to perform the same experiments and get the same results, over and over.

Untill a finding meets all of the above criteria it isn't considered science it's just a preliminary finding. So whenever you read an article that says "Study shows" it's wiser not to believe it and not to present the finding as more than preliminary. Unless it meets the above criteria. The journalist probably isn't going to tell you.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2015 10:49AM by xdman.

No, science isn't based on faith. At all. Ever.

That's the case whether studies "contradict" each other or not, whether journalists accurately report or not, whether other people dishonestly use "scientific studies" to further their own agenda or not.

If the public had a better understanding of science and the scientific method, the journalists who write the kind of stuff you're referring to wouldn't make a living. And politicians who claim "science backs up my irrational belief" wouldn't get elected. Sadly, that's not the case. :(

Human beings are emotional, irrational creatures particularly bad at comprehending probability (even after formal training, the meanings of real statistics can be unintuitive).

Science "reporting" is generally based on sensationalism.

What the average non-scientist thinks of as "science" is typically this sensationalism and their response to it. This is essentially equivalent to faith.

But a scientific study can be. And the "Scientist" might use a flawed method to get the results s/he wants. And what I was trying to say was that there are ways that Scientits have to weed out these flawed findings. Bad science is usually preliminary findings, but bad preliminary findings do not hold up. Like an idiot I posted this without making sure I made myself clear. Like I got to my stop and I hit post and it was a big mistake.

xdman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 2. Sample size: Patterns become clearer and more
> accurate the bigger the sample. if one of 12 kids
> was seven feet tall the study will show that one
> in 12 kids is 7 feet tall.

This is wrong. It is one of the most repeated fallacies out
there. The important thing in sampling is getting a RANDOM
sample--one where everyone in the target population has an
equal chance of being chosen to be in the sample.

This is not easy. A large sample which is not a RANDOM sample
can be (and often is) skewed. So sample SIZE is not as
important as RANDOMNESS in choosing the sample. The classic
example is the poll conducted by the magazine "Literary Digest"
in 1936, In a presidential election poll "Literary Digest" had
a sample size of almost 2.4 MILLION people. It predicted that
Alf Landon would defeat Franklin D. Roosevelt 57% to 43%. In
the actual election Roosevelt won the election 62% to 38%.

What went wrong was that the sample, though gigantic, was not
randomly chosen.

When it comes to statistical sampling, size isn't the important
thing.

Thank you. I meant to say that I am not a scientist and that these are some things that I could think of to watch for in a study.

posted in the wrong place

OTOH, using chosen samples can be useful if you know what you are doing. One can also test a number of things at the same time.

. . . that are variously advanced to explain targeted physical phenomena--with the determination of the best theories hinging on how well they are used to identify, organize and utilize known facts in a process of empirical observation, replication, experimnetation and falsification whose purpose it is to account for a given physical phenomenon.

If your post is meant to be serious, I have to say it is one of the most ignorant I have ever seen on RfM when it comes to claiming to understand science (and I've been frequenting this board for years).

Please consider submitting your "thoughts" for a pending LDS Sunday School lesson.



Edited 12 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2015 11:27PM by steve benson.

My apologies. I know I did a bad job communicating my sarcasm. On the other hand, it looks like you read through your own post 12 times. I should have at least re-read mine before posting.

I can't help but think you didn't read my whole post?

I had this identical lesson in Elders Quorum right before I left the Cult.
The motive was to place trust in Bible and BoM bullshit instead of science.

scientific evidence is reproducable.

is religion reproducable ?

May I (as a chemist, and previously employed by a clinical trials company) clarify what the OP was trying to say? The OP was actually trying to point out that reporters frequently go for the sensational, which is the antithesis of real science. News outlets get more coverage if they are the first to report on the findings of this or that study, and almost invariably try to paint the results as some major breakthrough in medicine, cosmology, etc. As a result, they frequently jump the gun and put words in the researchers' mouths that the researchers never intended. It makes for better headlines.

Part of the blame rests on the general public as well. In all fairness, they expect results if the science is publicly funded. But in any case sensational news always gets people talking.

In fact science is rarely sensational. It glacial pace can really try the patience of laypeople. They want fast answers, and when such answers are not forthcoming they seek out other avenues that do promise rapid results, like the latest quack cancer cure or reference to some Biblical explanation of the cosmos. Then the scientists are tasked by society to explain why the non-scientific solutions are wrong. When it takes more than two sentences to refute the claims, most people lose patience and charge the scientists with deliberate obfuscation.

That, IMO, is what xdman was trying to say. Perhaps he chose an unfortunate title for his post. No, science is not based on faith. Science is based on patience.

Perhaps he didn't need your help and simply preferred to flame out on his own. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2015 01:40AM by steve benson.

Science is embracing of all fact with a diligence on discovering more fact. It is the study of how everything known relates to every other thing known. The thing with scientists is that get really excited when a known thing is proved wrong as that means erroneous information has been ruled out and they are getting closer to purer truth.

Religion is picking and choosing facts that may support your preconceived notion and ignoring anything that doesn't support it. And they are NEVER WRONG. This is not faith. This is arrogant stupidity or stupid arrogance--your choice. Well, I guess in some religions that actually is faith. Not to mention any names, but the initials of one of those type religions is the Mormons.

. . . around it, step back and proudly declare, "Bull's Eye!"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2015 01:48AM by steve benson.

Yes . . . the Hugh Nibley Memorial Archery Range.

I trained as a nurse. During my last yeat we were instructed about the role of research nurse, of which there are many. We had already been taught in first year how to 'read between the lines' of research and glean the information that is available by ommission. Our first research lesson started with the announcement:

"You can prove anything you want with the correct research"

Our first example, a study funded by coca-cola, which found that coca-cola is scientifically proven to treat dehydration. It is therefore scientifically proven as a hangover cure.

The OP is correct when he talks about journalists reporting scientific findings - they do print the sensational and not the actual figures, neither do they talk about the sponsor of the research or the goal the researchers had when they set out to prove their experiments.

I would imagine some pharma companies have friendly journos they give results to so they can get the story they want in print. Money talks.

Ok I did a bad job with this one. I need to avoid sarcasm that doesn't translate, or clearly label it. I ran out of time composing this and shouldn't have posted it until I had more time to make it coherent. I meant to say that studies can be flawed and so can contradic each other, or can be used unenthically to get media attention and cloud issues, but those contradictions are resolved as studies are replicated or the flaws in the study are exposed.

The title was trying to poke fun at reasoning of some posters in this thread http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1590166

Thanks to slskipper and AnonUk who understood and articulated what I was trying to say.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2015 11:35AM by xdman.

nobody should dignify your post with an intelligent answer.

>Ok I did a bad job with this one.
You did but acknowledging it is the first step toward the reality.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2015 10:24AM by quinlansolo.

quinlansolo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nobody should dignify your post with an
> intelligent answer.

Don't worry. You didn't.


>
> >Ok I did a bad job with this one.
> You did but acknowledging it is the first step
> toward the reality.

Thanks, Dad. Aren't you a little old to be calling things retarded?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2015 03:05PM by xdman.

The Scientific Method operates with a hypthesis, testing, a conclusion based on the testing that is really a new hypothesis awaiting new testing and modification.

That's a whole lot different than "When the brethern have spoken, the thinking is done."

But then, we have to have faith in ourselves.

"Science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything" as I once heard in a Youtube video.