What
should science do with claims that are implausible by our understanding
of reality obtained through science? In a recent lengthy discussion
with an individual who seems to be more open to the research produced by
parapsychology proponents than I am, I came to the conclusion that we
are at odds regarding how to handle claims that are far removed from what is known about reality.
A few years ago, Steven Novella analyzed this situation and came up with criteria for a claim to be accepted as probably true in an area new to science. Below is his statement:
Previously I have argued, along the lines of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” that any claims for a new phenomenon (not just psi or paranormal, but anything new to science), in order to be accepted as probably true, should meet several criteria. The studies showing evidence for this new phenomenon should show:
1- A statistically significant effect
2- The effect size should also be significant, meaning that it is well beyond the range of statistical and methodological “noise” that studies in that field are likely to generate. (This differs by field – electrons are more predictable and quantifiable than the subjective experiences of people, for example.)
3- The results should be reproducible. Once you develop a study design, anyone who accurately reproduces the study protocol should get similar results.
The above is a minimum – it’s enough to be taken seriously and to justify further research, but also is no guarantee of being correct. It’s also nice if there are plausible theories to explain the new phenomenon, and if these theories are compatible with existing theories and knowledge about how the world works. Such theories should have implications that go beyond the initial phenomenon, and should be no more complex than is necessary to explain all data.
http://theness.com/
This approach seems reasonable to me. What do you think?
A few years ago, Steven Novella analyzed this situation and came up with criteria for a claim to be accepted as probably true in an area new to science. Below is his statement:
Previously I have argued, along the lines of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” that any claims for a new phenomenon (not just psi or paranormal, but anything new to science), in order to be accepted as probably true, should meet several criteria. The studies showing evidence for this new phenomenon should show:
1- A statistically significant effect
2- The effect size should also be significant, meaning that it is well beyond the range of statistical and methodological “noise” that studies in that field are likely to generate. (This differs by field – electrons are more predictable and quantifiable than the subjective experiences of people, for example.)
3- The results should be reproducible. Once you develop a study design, anyone who accurately reproduces the study protocol should get similar results.
The above is a minimum – it’s enough to be taken seriously and to justify further research, but also is no guarantee of being correct. It’s also nice if there are plausible theories to explain the new phenomenon, and if these theories are compatible with existing theories and knowledge about how the world works. Such theories should have implications that go beyond the initial phenomenon, and should be no more complex than is necessary to explain all data.
http://theness.com/
This approach seems reasonable to me. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment