Politics and science; is science being corrupted? (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, February 13, 2010, 19:01 (5193 days ago) @ David Turell

A webcomic will illustrate what I'm getting at: 
> > http://xkcd.com/435/
> > 
> > It jokes, but its pertinent.
> 
> 
> > 
> > I think your time spent in the trenches of working in what IS grouped in the social sciences category has kinda jaded your view here. You recognize rightly that it is often a battle of mentors, but I think its naive to think that you can take the social aspect out of a social science. 
> 
> The real problem is biased peer review, where one small group defines their favorite paradigm. You haven't studied cardiology as i have. EKG's are hard science; vessel flow rate formulas are hard science; the extent of a coronary infract is hard scienced; ejection fraction of the left ventricle is hard science. Probably why I liked it and become a cardiologist.-I'm glad you took the joke for what its worth, I've always loved that one. -Your point about your specialty coincides with my own view that I tend to prefer surgeons to internal medicine... surgeons can actually FIX something. In this I'M jaded by having worked at a teaching hospital and sometime getting to listen in on differentials. No offense, but it often seems like doctors only have a slightly better idea of what's going on than the patient. -I disagree just a bit on describing anything in medicine (outside of infectious disease) as a "hard science." But maybe trying to use you as an example misses the point. The kinds of things you reference were all borrowed from engineering; flow rates, etc. all essentially the study of hydraulics. Let me try this: All cardiologists have to agree on certain explanations and on a central framework, yes? Are you suggesting that they always agree? If two cardiologists disagree on a diagnosis, what method can you use in order to definitively prove one correct? Or are these usually resolved as a battle of persuasion? -In math/comp sci, I write out my proof, the other guy reads it. If my proof has no flaws--that's the end of the debate, and vice-versa. In physics they have the extra step of experimenting to see if the mathematical description accurately represents reality. In that article I posted the other day, there is a mathematical proof of how using purely random selection improves the quality of information in the example of network routing. There was a bit of heat at first, but by the end of the day the grad student's idea was accepted [because there was no choice. There was nothing to debate. That's the difference between a "hard" science and a "soft" science. Outside of descriptive items, how many things in medicine are like that? -My point about peer review is still something to consider; you'll *never* get rid of bias. In soft sciences you have no definitive method to show you the right answer, and that's why bias can exist (and will always exist.) And wrong ideas will always be purged--journalists do a good job of that, and especially nowadays, there's the internet.-[EDIT]-And self-appointed gadflys.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"