| |
|
What MC said:
"I agree that some of the big figures in the history of science have indeed fudged data to make it fit a pet theory. But that's not really a criticism of scientific method, is it? The falsification of results by Newton was wrong because it was unscientific."
Not so much a criticism of doing experiments, it’s more that the manner in which these experiments are documented and reported perpetuates the myth that the process is a lot more objective than it actually is.
Rather than instances like that of Newton being isolated aberrations, by unhinged or unethical individuals, Sheldrake argues that the very process is a kind of make-believe.
Again, from MC's post:
"… there are reasons that scientific reports are written up like that. It's good to present experimental data separately from the conclusions that you draw from it because a) this helps to foster a more objective mindset, and b) it makes it easier for the guys who'll come along and re-interpret your findings. What is wrong with this? How should scientists write reports instead?"
The point being made is that this style of presentation gives the impression that the conclusions stem from the experimental data when it tends more often to be the other way round - the hypothesis that the experiments were designed to test generally comes first.
In recent years there has been more conscious recognition of this process, he says, with an increasing tendency for hypotheses to be mentioned in the introduction to papers, but the same conventions of using the passive voice and passionless prose remain.
What goes on in laboratories is a lot more pragmatic than this style of reporting suggests. For instance, the way in which competitors in a given research field will try lots of different approaches - to creating cold fusion or whatever – but will likely switch to the one that works best. Careers and professional reputations are at stake, and people are at pains to present an idealised image of themselves and the methods they use.
Sheldrake’s plea is for a reporting method free from these conventions, which more accurately documents the thought processes that go towards making scientific discoveries.
He also quotes from a book by Broad & Wade on fraud and deceit in science:
“If scientists were allowed to express themselves naturally in describing their experiments and theories, the myth of a single, universal scientific method would probably vanish instantly.”
I’m inclined to agree with these arguments. Perhaps if scientific progress was decoupled slightly more from the forces of ego, vanity and deception (including self-deception), the boundaries of discovery would unfurl a bit more rapidly. |
|
|
