Can be personal or external but what is something (you believe/see reflected so strongly in reality) AND (!(OR) the world of ideas)

AND but not OR

Please stick to that which you are confident about and holds to at least the spirit of the question

  • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    6 days ago

    I’ll take a stab at this.

    The Scientific Method, as I was taught it from middle school to college:

    1. Observe a phenomenon.
    2. Raise a question about said phenomenon.
    3. Research the topic in question.
    4. Form a hypothesis as to the nature of the phenomenon.
    5. design an experiment to test that hypothesis against a control.
    6. Analyze the data yielded by experiment.
    7. Repeat the experiment to verify it isn’t a fluke.
    8. Publish all of the above in sufficient detail that other scientists may examine your work for flawed methodology and repeat your experiments to further verify it isn’t a fluke.
    9. Conclude whether your hypothesis is or is not supported by experimental evidence.

    THIS WORKS

    What is being done all over the world right now:

    1. Get hired by a multinational corporation traded on the Dow Jones.
    2. Be assigned a fact to prove, probably about an existing product.
    3. Research the topic in question.
    4. Design an experiment that will support the fact you’re looking to prove.
    5. Use a very small sample size.
    6. Conclude something wishy-washy like “there’s a statistically significant correlation”.
    7. Publish a densely written paper with a very convoluted title in some obscure sketchy journal somewhere.
    8. Cite that paper in your own press releases with headlines that blow the conclusion way out of proportion.
    9. No one ever follows up on any of this, the experiment is never really peer reviewed, or is reviewed by others engaged in similar nonsense, and the public only ever reads the headline.
    • folaht@lemmy.ml
      1·
      2 days ago

      Yeah, so I have a problem with #1 and #2 as to what we were taught.
      Because what usually happens is…

      1. Observe a phenomenon
      2. Wonder how that works
      3. Search for information on wikipedia
      4. Gain knowledge

      You don’t need to raise questions then.
      The only time you raise questions is when there’s a lack of knowledge on the thing
      and I think it’s more often the case that your theory starts when there IS knowledge,
      it’s just that you think it’s either externally wrong (that’s not how the balls fall when I drop them from the leaning tower of Pisa)
      or internally wrong (This author is saying balls and objects in general fall due to air pressure, but in another book the author says balloons float due to air pressure, huh?!?)

    • that_one_guy@lemmy.ml
      1·
      6 days ago

      Ah okay. I was under the impression that the above poster was critical of the scientific method itself. But if we’re talking about the corruption of the method by corporations and capitalists then I wholly agree that the system is broken.