The scientific method drives scientists to be their worst critics - to spend most of their time trying to disprove their own theories before releasing them for peer review and intelligent challenges.

The scientific method drives scientists to be their worst critics - to spend most of their time trying to disprove their own theories

No wonder they're so neurotic!

Science is a hoax-- only Jesus is the answer!

it's really, really, really, shall we say unfair, to post something like that without a warning

or a fast forward option !!!

LoL

it's really, really, really, shall we say unfair, to post something like that without a warning

or a fast forward option !!!

LoL

Well, admittedly it is a derail (amongst other things!). But I was getting tired of so much of the bipartisan bickering here -- and thought we needed to lighten up a bit-- if only for a few minutes!

    This seed has nothing to do with partisan matters.    By intent, actually.

This seed has nothing to do with partisan matters.

Oops.......see 1.2.4

Not a concern.   I was simply noting that this is about critical thinking.   Critical thinking should apply to politics (and religion) but it does not seem to.    Works for me to discuss the lack of critical thinking in politics.   I just don't want to bring Kavanaugh, et. al. into this seed.

Popper and falsifiability are things which need to be taught at the high school level if not before despite other aspects of Popper's philosophy of science being far too advanced for that.

It's kind of amazing that science got as far as it did without falsifiability given how fundamental it is to the scientific method, and how recent an innovation the concept of falsifiability really is.   Its merit was still being debated well into the 1960s and even more recently in certain contexts.

In addition, kids should understand that the path to truth is based on objective analysis of evidence.   Basically follow the evidence to where it leads - not where you want it to lead.  Falsifiability enables one to keep human bias in check by actively challenging one's hypotheses and theories.

This is of course the exact opposite of the human tendency to confirm what one desires.   The scientific method is likely the best discipline we have today for mitigating confirmation bias.   If only this could be extended to politics and religion.

 Basically follow the evidence to where it leads - not where you want it to lead. 

Yep.

Confirmation bias , is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.  It is a type of   cognitive bias   and a systematic error of   inductive reasoning.

People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a   biased   way. 

People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. (link)

Of course some people want to cling to their biases.

Falsifiability enables one to keep human bias in check by actively challenging one's hypotheses and theories.

Assuming, of course, that people wish to keep their biases in check. (lol?)

Of course some people want to cling to their biases.

Many people claim to want freedom-- but do they? At first true freedom can be scary . . . 

Tired of Clinging

by  Richard Bach  ( Jul 07, 2008 )

Once there lived a village of creatures along the bottom of a great crystal river. The current of the river swept silently over them all - young and old, rich and poor, good and evil, the current going its own way, knowing only its own crystal self.

Each creature in its own manner clung tightly to the twigs and rocks at the river bottom, for clinging was their way of life, and resisting the current what each had learned from birth.

But one creature said at last, 'I am tired of clinging. Though I cannot see it with my eyes, I trust that the current knows where it is going. I shall let go, and let it take me where it will. Clinging, I shall die of boredom.'

The other creatures laughed and said, 'Fool! Let go, and that current you worship will throw you tumbled and smashed across the rocks, and you shall die quicker than boredom!'

But the one heeded them not, and taking a breath did let go, and at once was tumbled and smashed by the current across the rocks.

Yet in time, as the creature refused to cling again, the current lifted him free from the bottom, and he was bruised and hurt no more.

And the creatures downstream, to whom he was a stranger, cried, 'See a miracle! A creature like ourselves, yet he flies! See the Messiah, come to save us all!'

And the one carried in the current said, 'I am no more Messiah than you. The river delights to lift us free, if only we dare let go. Our true work is this voyage, this adventure.'

But they cried the more, 'Saviour!' all the while clinging to the rocks, and when they looked again he was gone, and they were left alone making legends of a Saviour.

-- Richard Bach, from "Illusions"

Exactly.   Things like confirmation bias and the philosophical underpinnings of science can be taught with fairly simple and clear contrasting examples.    It's the mindset and the basic methodological approach which are important.   One doesn't need to have studied symbolic logic or even the philosophy of science to do that.

.

If only this could be extended to politics and religion.

I think it does if the political and religious affiliation of scientists is any hint.    Only 6% of scientists are Republicans.

Political affiliation can predict how people will react to false information about threats

Studies show that conservatives believe untrue warnings more than liberals do

How liberal or conservative a person is predicts how likely they are to believe information about potential hazards, a new UCLA-led study has found.

The study, which will be published in the journal Psychological Science, found that people who hold more socially conservative views were significantly more likely than people with liberal beliefs to find false information about threats credible.

The researchers, led by UCLA anthropology professor Daniel Fessler, began their work long before revelations regarding the proliferation and possible impact of fake news, but their findings might help explain why profit-driven efforts to spread misinformation aimed at conservatives were more successful than equally untrue reports aimed at liberals during the 2016 presidential election. False, inflammatory stories that were designed to appeal to a liberal audience didn't generate the massive numbers of clicks or shares required to be lucrative via online ad networks. Some conservative content, however, did

sciencedaily

 Things like confirmation bias and the philosophical underpinnings of science can be taught with fairly simple and clear contrasting examples.    It's the mindset and the basic methodological approach which are important.   One doesn't need to have studied symbolic logic or even the philosophy of science to do that.

What role, if any, do you see for Intuition in Science?

Intuition (and imagination in general) is very much a part of science.   But before the intuition is deemed valid it must be objectively found to be supported by the evidence.   That is the key difference between the scientific method and other forms of coming to conclusions.   The scientific method allows for imagination upfront but bad imagination is eventually weeded out through formal, objective methods.

What role, if any, do you see for Intuition in Science?

If intuition weren't important than we could probably automate scientific discovery.