A Scientists' Guide to Research and the Debate of Evidence

[CT-1138 3,179]

With the internet such an easily accessible commodity, there is no excuse for making a comment in a debate and then not be able to produce evidence for it. If you are making a hearsay comment or stating speculation, say so. Speculation shouldn't ever be part of your scientific process. There are facts, there is educated speculation that can be made from the evidence in accordance with the facts, and then there is pure speculation. The last one is never permitted to be passed as any form of fact in the world of science. If you need help distinguishing if a person is attempting to represent their own speculation as a known fact, and has not produced evidence for it, or produces questionably reputable sources, then consult Dr. Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detector Kit: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html This is a helpful tool for any person wishing to conduct debates while still adhering to the scientific process. Evidence in your argument is vital. However, not all evidence is created equal and you must be wary of your sources.

 

Sourcing
Sourcing your argument is important. It not only helps provide evidence for your statement, but allows others to understand what you are stating in a debate. Sources and evidence should be provided as much as possible, as you will find in any real life project. However, you should also be wary of what evidence is being used and what the source of this evidence is.

Primary Sources
These would be the evidence themselves. In paleontology, this will include the fossils themselves along with photographs or other first-hand recordings of the fossils. Primary sources are THE source. There is no source that can be produced that is more accurate than the primary source. It is the most accurate source you will ever use. Unfortunately, primary sources are also the rarest. Because of this, there are other sources that can be helpful to use.

 

Secondary Sources

-Secondary Scholarly: These are the next best thing to the primary source. Documentation such as published, peer-reviewed papers and/or books are scholarly sources. They’re trustful to use due to their small margin of human bias injected. However, that does not mean that the source lacks bias completely, and therefore you should be mindful in using this type of source. The advantage of Secondary sources is the fact that they’re far more common than a Primary source. These will likely be the sources you use the most when not using a primary source.

 

-Secondary Popular: These are still very useful; however often lack the detail and depth of a scholarly source. References such as National Geographic Magazine (or other popular educational magazines, pamphlets, etc.), blog posts, TV documentaries, non-peer reviewed papers, or other such popular sources. While these can be helpful and are advantaged by their frequency, however are severely disadvantaged by their susceptibility to bias and inaccuracy. Use of these sources must be made with scrutiny. Do not always trust to heart these particular sources. It is always a good idea that if using a popular source, you link to multiple in the same topic in order to present clearer and far more accurate evidence than merely using a single popular article susceptible to inaccuracy, bias, and other restricting qualities.

 

If you are met with skepticism on your statements, do not fret. Skepticism is a pillar of science. General musings and word of mouth are never scientifically recognized, and never will be. Such are the workings of science. Scientific knowledge is based entirely on documentation, giving that up would lead to the entire decay of the scientific process. Scientists don't go chasing Krakens unless there's a body of a giant squid to show them a plausibility. Science deals with cold, hard, proof, not in idle speculation.

 

If you feel yourself getting flustered, take a break. Step away from the debate in order to gain a level head. Don’t force yourself to continue while angry or frustrated and risk saying or doing something you’ll regret. Do what you need to cool down. Get a drink of water, grab a snack. Then come back with a clear mind ready to continue the debate in civil manner. A scientist uses their knowledge for the betterment of humanity, not to be hoarded and have people be told that they should go off and learn it themselves. Within that lies greed and selfishness and is the very reason why so much scientific knowledge available to the world hasn't expanded beyond the journal and into the public where it belongs.

[Scootalove 10,684]

It is always important to back up your argument with evidence, and I've got to say that I agree with the importance of having sources to back up the argument fully.

[NomDeSpite 452]

There's a huge problem with this essay: you're claiming that evidence is important (and it certainly is) and then the tendency of your post is to rely on people who value their own Establishment presuppositions more than they value evidence.

 

The fact that you posted an article written by Michael Shermer gives you away as a defender of the obsolete intellectual status quo, the Establishment's worldview (i.e. anthropogenic global warming, mechanistic medicine, naturalistic-materialism, Keynesian economics, Boasnian/egalitarian anthropology, the Whig Theory Of History, fossil fuel-theory of the origins of petroleum, and so on). That's what Shermer does; he snickers at people who believe in "weird things", even when there are good reasons to believe in "weird things", and even though its absolutely clear that the Established knowledge does not work. People around the world, especially in the Western world, behave on the assumption that the current status quo does work; which is why much of the world is in a state of despair.

 

Thomas Gold of Cornell University is notorious for his radical ideas, but he has been right often enough that other scientists listen to what he has to say. Gold proposes, for example, that oil is not a fossil fuel at all but the by-product of a deep, hot biosphere (microorganisms living at unexpected depths within the crust). Hardly any earth scientists with whom I have spoken think Gold is right, yet they do not consider him a crank. Watch out for a pattern of fringe thinking that consistently ignores or distorts data.

More like "watch out for Michael Shermer's Appeal To Popularity Fallacy". Gold is "fringe" and "radical"; "hardly any scientists I've talked to agree with him, therefore he's wrong!"

 

Since you mention Carl Sagan, I'll point out that both he and Michael Shermer have been harsh critics of Immanuel Velikovsky's catastrophic theory of the solar system, yet Velikovsky has passed the 10 canons of the "Baloney Detection Kit" with ease. Even many of his critics say it's remarkable how many of his predictions came true. This hasn't stopped Shermer from dismissing Velikovsky as a "pseudo-scientist" because he believed in an unusual theory. And when Sagan attempted to refute Velikovsky, he argued that "Velikovsky was wrong because the probability of a comet striking the earth is really really low". Nevermind the realms of empirical evidence that Velikovsky documented in his books "Worlds In Collision" and "Earth In Upheaval" in favor of global catastrophe. Velikovsky is wrong because A Priori probability theory says he is.

 

A scientist uses their knowledge for the betterment of humanity

Then what does that make the scientists who developed nuclear weapons and other nifty methods of ending all life on Earth?

Edited January 25, 2014 by NomDeSpite