The Scientific Method.

[LazyGun]

Not really a question as such, but in light of Naomis recent thread, I thought some might find this excerpt from David McCraneys book "You are now less dumb" an interesting read;

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/04/all_hail_the_scientific_method/

[naomi24]

Jim, You have done precisely the same as the people you criticise. Therefore it is not a logical fallacy. It's a fact.

[naomi24]

Zacs, nor me. ;o)

[jim360]

Something can be a fact while being a logical fallacy. I made mistakes in the past, and certainly will again. But that in no way affect my points, and your continued attempts to bring it back to me are pointless.

The most powerful anti-drugs message I'll ever receive was from a drug addict telling me not to do what he did.

[naomi24]

Jim, what on earth are you talking about? Look, the simple fact is you do not apply your pointed criticism of others to yourself - so you have no room to preach.

[chrisgel]

In my experience it seems that many people (maybe the majority) are reluctant to say "I don't know" when confronted with things they can't explain. They will have pet theories on a wide range of subjects, ghosts, mediums, aliens etc. etc.
They will even trot out anecdotal accounts to support their theories whilst ignoring evidence that contradicts them.
This is not a criticism by the way because I am as guilty as anyone of doing this.
It just seems that we are always looking for answers and will invent one to fit what we think we know.
The scientific method has been proved to be the best way to get at the truth of things and when it can get no further it says "We don't know". This doesn't mean we will never know, just that at this moment in time we don't.
I am not very scientifically literate but am a keen observer of the progress science makes and can only say that the results of the scientific method speak for themselves when one looks back on the progress of the last 200 years compared with the previous thousands.

[jim360]

I do apply it to myself, Naomi, most of the time. More often than most, hopefully, but like everyone else I am nowhere near perfect. I do, at least, try to get it right much of the time. That I got it wrong once (at least) does not change the fact either that I do use, or try to use, the scientific method most of the time, or that my argument in favour of scientific method is in general correct. Now move on and find a better argument, your constant use of tu quoque does you no credit.

[naomi24]

jim, //your constant use of tu quoque does you no credit.//

It’s clear from your post that you know exactly what I’m saying, and attempting to discredit me in such a way is disingenuous.

Most of us rely upon the scientific method most of the time – but those of us who do occasionally question its conclusions admit it. We don’t hold it up as a shining example, criticise others for not doing the same – and then surreptitiously do our own thing. This, frankly, is doing you no credit.

[jim360]

How many times do I have to admit that I make mistakes before you start noticing and move on?

It matters not. In the end, let other scientists be my judge. As far as I know, you are not one of them.

[naomi24]

Jim, Leave it. You've said enough. I have moved on. Let those who want to get back to the OP.

[Old_Geezer]

I too do not feel less dumb Zacs, but there again I didn't think that was likely. However I am now better informed. I now know not to leave my electric fan running any more; and that David McRaney has a rather insulting writing style, which I assume must reflect how he treats folk he meets.