|
I also read that article and thought it was very poor, FATPad. The intro paragraph is a direct quote from the New Scientist article.
There is a lot of "bad science" out there. What I mean is, there are a lot of studies that are published that don't use proper control groups or perform a poor statistical analysis, especially in the social sciences. Many times, overgeneralized conclusions are drawn.
This is different than tentative hypotheses presented for peer review in a journal. A researcher publishes and argues best for their case. One would hope they would present the best arguments against it or point out it's weaknesses but this is often not so.
Fortunately, science as a system of coming to understand the world works. The system depends heavily on peer review and everything one ever publishes is forever scrutinized. The success of science is just so staggeringly clear it does not need to be expounded upon.
Despite poor research methods by many scientists and the inherent flaws of any one individual, the overall philosophy and method of science has been spectacularly successful.
What has been more so?
__________________
skype = "adultdatelink"
|