The plural of anecdote *is* data. It's kind of a pedantic point I'm making, but it's annoying when people refuse to entertain something simply because it's based on a collection of anecdotes. What are scientists doing when they publish? They're reporting their experience. 1/6
-
Show this thread
-
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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow 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
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow 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
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow 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
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likesShow 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
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist
well said. economics, psychology, political science, and sociology are not sciences, so why are they called social sciences?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chagmed
I can't tell if you're endorsing that point of view or questioning it. I imagine one answer would be that the social sciences are "soft science", although I have yet to hear a comprehensive and precise criteria for distinguishing "hard" from "soft" science.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist
um... you can't distinguish soft and hard eh?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Hey now, you promised you wouldn't bring this up in public. "Maybe I was too quick to delete those spam emails about erection enhancement. One of them might just be from a misunderstood scientific genius." - Mark Corrigan
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.