Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7473701" data-attributes="member: 16814">Yes, you can conduct experiment by observing phenomena.&nbsp; You must have a theory and observe to falsify, and, as you note, such experiments have less power.&nbsp; Still, there are things you can only observe, but thise are also often areas where we have limited knowledge.The common problem is to gather a data set, do analysis, discover a correlation, and deckare this as science.&nbsp; It is not.&nbsp; You must form a theory and test it against newly gather data.&nbsp; Then you've done science.&nbsp; There's a large set of current study that skips the experiment and relies on stats on the original collection.&nbsp; Not science.A further issue is the creation of computer models and testing the model.&nbsp; This can be a useful tool to narrow down where to look for more data, but it is not science.&nbsp; Model output is not valid data.&nbsp; Most egregious in this area are doing stats on stats, like many if the fMRI studies.&nbsp; fMRI is a statistical model by itself; doing statistical comparisions of statistical models is turtles, all the way down.&nbsp;[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. Collection and cataloguing of data cannot be science by itself, else baseball scorekeepers are engaged in science.&nbsp; Collection of data is necessary to science, but it is not sufficient.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7473701, member: 16814"] Yes, you can conduct experiment by observing phenomena. You must have a theory and observe to falsify, and, as you note, such experiments have less power. Still, there are things you can only observe, but thise are also often areas where we have limited knowledge. The common problem is to gather a data set, do analysis, discover a correlation, and deckare this as science. It is not. You must form a theory and test it against newly gather data. Then you've done science. There's a large set of current study that skips the experiment and relies on stats on the original collection. Not science. A further issue is the creation of computer models and testing the model. This can be a useful tool to narrow down where to look for more data, but it is not science. Model output is not valid data. Most egregious in this area are doing stats on stats, like many if the fMRI studies. fMRI is a statistical model by itself; doing statistical comparisions of statistical models is turtles, all the way down. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. Collection and cataloguing of data cannot be science by itself, else baseball scorekeepers are engaged in science. Collection of data is necessary to science, but it is not sufficient. [/QUOTE]

Verification