Thread: Anti-Logic?????

Originally Posted by seeker28

I am a skeptic. Of theology and beliefs, as well as statements based on science. I want to see the science, to see the studies, the experiments. Because bad science (done according to faulty methods) can say some pretty crazy things. When someone makes a statement based upon science I want refrences to back it up. I want to look for myself whether it is based on reasonably good science or bad science.

I love science, logic and truth. However, I also recognize that there are things that are hard to explain with logic and science alone. I take a middle path. Science is valid, and so can be theology.

There's no such thing as bad science. There is only logical truth and illogical beliefs. I do not believe the problem falls in the concept of logic, but the gullibility and lack of reason in someone listening to illogical beliefs passed off as "science". Many people will try to say they are the messengers of science, but never show you real studies, just semi-logical drivel. You have to use reason to find out who is a liar and who is telling the truth. In that sense, abstract thought is beneficial, but does not negate the obvious benefits of logic.

Originally Posted by Ethereal_Apprentice

There's no such thing as bad science. There is only logical truth and illogical beliefs. I do not believe the problem falls in the concept of logic, but the gullibility and lack of reason in someone listening to illogical beliefs passed off as "science". Many people will try to say they are the messengers of science, but never show you real studies, just semi-logical drivel. You have to use reason to find out who is a liar and who is telling the truth. In that sense, abstract thought is beneficial, but does not negate the obvious benefits of logic.

Examples of bad science:

1. A study based upon too small a sample. For example, you want to find out how common genital warts is. You ask 10 people if they have it. 3 say yes they have genital warts, 7 say no. Saying 33.33% of people have genital warts would be accurate according to your sample, but would not reflect that only 1.5% of Americans have it. Why were the results of your study off? You didn't ask enough people.

2. A study involving a sub-group of a population, but the results are said to apply to the whole population. Such as studying only people in prison, but applying the results to a whole nation. A doctor friend of mine is fond of saying that 1/3 of people who get tatoos catch hepatitis during the tatoo. However, his assertion is based upon an old study of people who get tatoos in prison from other prisoners. People who get a tatoo by a professional under sterile circumstances don't have a 1/3 infection rate!

3. A study done by researchers who fail to follow good protocols. Many studies are called "double blind," especially medical studies, meaning both the researchers and the subjects do no know who will be reciving the substance or therapy being studied. For example, the researchers will not know which patients are recieving a placebo and which recieve actual medicine. A double blind study is an example of good scientific methods. If the researcher was to know that patient A was getting an anti-cancer drug, while patient B was not, the researcher might unconcously over emphasize the progress of patient A while under emphasizing patient B's progress. This is why ALL reputable medical studies are double-blind!

Originally Posted by seeker28

Examples of bad science:

1. A study based upon too small a sample. For example, you want to find out how common genital warts is. You ask 10 people if they have it. 3 say yes they have genital warts, 7 say no. Saying 33.33% of people have genital warts would be accurate according to your sample, but would not reflect that only 1.5% of Americans have it. Why were the results of your study off? You didn't ask enough people.

2. A study involving a sub-group of a population, but the results are said to apply to the whole population. Such as studying only people in prison, but applying the results to a whole nation. A doctor friend of mine is fond of saying that 1/3 of people who get tatoos catch hepatitis during the tatoo. However, his assertion is based upon an old study of people who get tatoos in prison from other prisoners. People who get a tatoo by a professional under sterile circumstances don't have a 1/3 infection rate!

3. A study done by researchers who fail to follow good protocols. Many studies are called "double blind," especially medical studies, meaning both the researchers and the subjects do no know who will be reciving the substance or therapy being studied. For example, the researchers will not know which patients are recieving a placebo and which recieve actual medicine. A double blind study is an example of good scientific methods. If the researcher was to know that patient A was getting an anti-cancer drug, while patient B was not, the researcher might unconcously over emphasize the progress of patient A while under emphasizing patient B's progress. This is why ALL reputable medical studies are double-blind!

These are examples of misleading, not bad, scientific statements/studies.

In #1, it would be accurate to say 33% of people have genital warts, according to the sample. It would not be accurate that 33% of all people have genital warts. If someone does not use reason to find out that the 33% applies only to the sample of 10 people, it is their own fault. There is no error in the science.

In #2, the doctor was obviously leaving out the fact that the study was done on prison inmates. If he added that the study was done on prison inmates, he would no longer be misleading people. There is no error in the science.

In #3, of course tests may have errors, but tests are to be examined for their authenticity, rather then viewed as immediate and unrejectable proof of the subject. If there was an element effecting the study to make it inaccurate, it needs to be found and removed. In that method, all or most inaccuracies will be eventually removed, leaving pure scientific truth.

Again, do not completely rely on others for logic, reason and science. Use your own brain for your own studies and for observing the studies of others. Remember, people can try to mislead you, but the only one that allows you to be mislead is yourself.

I have only one thing to say... shouldn't this be moved to philosophy? Or extended discussion?

A weak post, I know.

No, we need a witch hunt section to move this thread into.

Seriously, there has never been one person on these boards who rejects logic or science. This is prejudice in it's most basic form. Ridiculing people who's beliefs differ that your own.

Originally Posted by Ethereal_Apprentice

These are examples of misleading, not bad, scientific statements/studies.

In #1, it would be accurate to say 33% of people have genital warts, according to the sample. It would not be accurate that 33% of all people have genital warts. If someone does not use reason to find out that the 33% applies only to the sample of 10 people, it is their own fault. There is no error in the science.

In #2, the doctor was obviously leaving out the fact that the study was done on prison inmates. If he added that the study was done on prison inmates, he would no longer be misleading people. There is no error in the science.

In #3, of course tests may have errors, but tests are to be examined for their authenticity, rather then viewed as immediate and unrejectable proof of the subject. If there was an element effecting the study to make it inaccurate, it needs to be found and removed. In that method, all or most inaccuracies will be eventually removed, leaving pure scientific truth.

Again, do not completely rely on others for logic, reason and science. Use your own brain for your own studies and for observing the studies of others. Remember, people can try to mislead you, but the only one that allows you to be mislead is yourself.

I completely agree with these statements. Especially with the fact that SCIENCE does not error, PEOPLE error. As in: biases, misleading information, leaving out information. If a study was done to exact specifications with a completely non-biased researcher that reported each and every fact, it would be perfect. If a study was done with a biased researcher that left out the facts, that is a misleading study. The science behind it is still the same.