Talk:Science

I think making this a redirect to some article arguing against scientific standards of evidence does the word or topic "science" so much disrespect this place could simply become a laughingstock if it stays up. If WS can't actually generate a competent article on the topic "science", what can it ever be expected to do? Human 07:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Don't do science, and thus yourselves, a disservice by skirting what science is by automatically redirecting to an opinion-tainted article. I know you said that you don't want to re-create other fine articles on such topics, but if you do not have some kind of opinion-neutral standpoint on articles such as this, how do you expect people who are on the fence about how they feel to take you as anything more than conceded?Gooniepunk2005 19:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try to put together a reasonable short overview, and I'll keep the redirect as a see also or something. Human 00:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You did a very, very nice job, Human, especially pointing out the cyclical redundancies. How about telling us how "patients reporting on the pain relief they experience due to a given treatment" differs from anecdotal evidence. Because it seems to me that this is anecdotal evidence with the proper controls to make it scientific. P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 01:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you like it. Re, your question, it's different in that patients are given standardized forms to fill out before, during, and after treatment, asking them to rate their pain levels on a numeric scale (at least I've seen one like that). This is also often combined with external clinical observations, such as range of motion of body parts, for instance. It's subjective, obviously, but it is controlled as well as possible. Anecdotal evidence lacks the "before" survey, basically. Oh, also, if the pain thing is being run as a study (not just part of treatment), there will be a placebo, and n should be large enough to allow accounting for the equivalent of "spontaneous remission". Again, anecdotal evidence lacks either of those. Anyway, I'm going back to basking in the glow of your nice compliment :) Human 00:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, with the medical. So, are you saying that there is a cut-off point, where it can't be said to be science any more? For example, if 10 people independently report seeing a large cat in a given park on the same day, yet give different descriptions of the cat, are you saying that it is not scientifically feasible to conclude that there is a high likelihood that there was at least one cat in the park? I would say that such a conclusion is scientific, yet based purely on anecdotal evidence. If you do not think it is scientific, would it be scientific if there were more people? If all the descriptions were very similar? P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 03:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(UI) Your example is a police matter, not a scientific one. If the descriptions are "different", how different are they? One black, one spotted, one striped, one golden? My response in that case would be, poor example. If they merely differed on the perceived, say, height or length of the cat, I'd call the local zoo and dispatch a patrol car. I know you are trying to lead me somewhere, of course. "Anecdotal evidence" is potentially part of the first step. "Observation". Fine, I don't care what people think they see/hear/feel. The question is, can a hypothesis then be assembled that explains the observations without contradicting any other strongly supported hypotheses (or that also re-explains what those strong hypotheses explain)? Oh, and please don't "quote" me elsewhere ("But as Human just said in the Science article, all empirical evidence gathering with hypotheses is science"[1]), I was just writing an article for you and your site, don't use my name with an interpretation of what I typed in an article to try to make a point elsewhere. Human 04:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, actually I am not trying to lead you anywhere, except to lead you to say that anecdotal evidence can be scientific evidence. I have no desire to quote you anywhere. I think you are pushing this into a discussion of paranormal things, but I am merely interested in the blanket rejection of anecdotal evidence as not scientific. I have already figured out for myself that it is not true, and there is little or no difference in our positions on the way it should be controlled. I just wanted to find out if there were something I am missing, and apparently there is not. In the example, the hypothesis would be "there is a cat loose" (If reports merely differed on the perceived, say, height or length of the cat). That is a proper scientific hypothesis, perhaps even a theory, supported entirely on anecdotal evidence. So unless you have further objections, I rest my case (; P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 04:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Even calling it "anecdotal evidence" is misusing the term "evidence". The reported anecdote ("I saw a lion in Central Park last night") is an observation - step one. Corroborating anecdotes (so did eleven other people) lead us to think there might be something to the observations - an actual phenomena that underlies the observations. The scientific evidence is what we get after forming a hypothesis ("there was a lion in Central Park last night") and coming up with an experimental protocol to test the hypothesis, and also to explain the occurrence of the event. So we comb the park with highly trained lion-sniffing dogs, and in parallel, perhaps we call the local zoos and circuses to see if they might have mislaid a lion or two. Not finding a lion in the park, and having no reports of missing lions casts great doubt on the initial observations, and while it does not cast them as being 100% false, does send us in search of other hypothesis (someone's large, tan colored dog got loose?). Anyway, the scientific evidence is what is gathered with prior intent to observe, not what is reported after the fact. So when ghosthunters wire up a house on their show, they are trying to generate "scientific" evidence in reponse to the anecdotal observations that caused the "hosts" to call them in. Human 00:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So science absolutely requires a controlled environment, and no amount of controls on anecdotal evidence (comparison of descriptions, making sure people did not talk to each other etc.) can be called scientific? P^uR^{ple scissor}ʇɐןʞ 02:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)