Scientist A: "I performed X experiment and found Y". Scientist B: "I performed the same experiment as A and also found Y." These are anecdotes, but that's not the point. Is the methodology sound? Do the conclusions follow from the observations? Do they help explain anything?2/6
-
-
Show this thread
-
We don't trust science because it's not based on anecdotes. We trust it because scientific theories are grounded in a standard methodology that allows for corrective mechanisms. 3/6
Show this thread -
This is why the wonder of science lies in its competency in explaining things, not in "objective truths". Facts inform explanations, but they are not the goal. Anecdotes that don't provide good explanations are not worthless or meaningless, they're just not very informative. 4/6
Show this thread -
Again, this may seem pedantic, but my point is this: If you hear a bunch of anecdotal reports, instead of immediately dismissing them, ask yourself "what can explain the experiences reported in these anecdotes?". That's what an open but non-naive mind looks like. 5/6
Show this thread -
Likewise, when learning of a scientific finding, don't accept it as objective truth because it's "not an anecdote". Instead, pay attention to the explanation, and contemplate the quality of that explanation. Don't form a new belief, but let the explanation be informative. 6/6
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.