Research and Motivation (theology)

[Random]

The job of the scientific empiricist is to conduct experiments and collect data. Upon being impartially arranged in order, reports should then be passed to the professional Philosopher(s) of Science whose task it is to determine what the results imply, and what the results tell us about "reality". This, I believe, is how it should be; but not presently how it is, unfortunately.

[Storm]

bump.

[Sunstone]

The truth or falsity of a claim in not affected by whether the author of the claim is biased for or against it.

[Panda]

It might invalidate there conclusions however the data will still be valid, unless it has been faked.

[The Voice of Reason]

The reason that scientific papers (which delineate the process and findings) are peer reviewed is to identify this very type of thing.

Once a scientific paper is published, it is subjected to peer review, and then (if it passes the smell test) it is accepted into the general realm of knowledge.

Even after a study has reached that level of acceptance, it is ALWAYS subject to being refuted by further research.

That is why science is a "self correcting" endeavor. Science actually polices itself extremely well in such circumstances.

[wednesday]

I don't think you would have found that article if it wasn't generally found to be accurate.

Scientists are always biased, they're trying to prove something so they're always trying to justify themselves. Only a small number of published articles are researching new fields. You can also bet your bottom dollar that he didn't work alone.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Storm

If a scientist shows bias, does that invalidate their research?

I don't think it should.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Random

The job of the scientific empiricist is to conduct experiments and collect data. Upon being impartially arranged in order, reports should then be passed to the professional Philosopher(s) of Science whose task it is to determine what the results imply, and what the results tell us about "reality". This, I believe, is how it should be; but not presently how it is, unfortunately.

OK. I think a philosopher of science would wet his or herself with laughter if you asked them to take some lab data and determine what the results imply. They would be looking at something encoded in a language completely foreign to them. Respected peer reviewers often send work back to researchers because there are concepts in new and changing fields that they have no real grasp of. They only people equipped to interpret science are the people working in the field.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

I don't think it should.

Care to elaborate?