"Unscientific?" Let's be honest.

[d00df00d]

Y'all are missing the point.

I'm not saying we all need to become scientists. I'm saying that statements like "oh, it's not scientific" are a dodge for when people know they can't back up what they're saying. That's it. Let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[SteveSRT8]

It's somewhat the nature of a forum to do exactly that!

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I'm not saying we all need to become scientists. I'm saying that statements like "oh, it's not scientific" are a dodge for when people know they can't back up what they're saying. That's it.


Except that that's not it. You framed the "it's not scientific" bit into being a negative thing, then said that we should all strive for better. I think that's why the replies number so many.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
Early on, these methods were truly "unscientific" in the classic sense of the scientific method, and they would have failed any form of "peer reviewed" assessment of "being scientific". Yet the success is impossible to ignore.


But, even these guys did employ at least some portions of the scientific method. They didn't randomly throw engine and fuel modifications at the car in one fell swoop and then try to figure out what worked and what didn't. Things they tried were certainly based on anecdotal evidence, of course, but they were well reasoned. For example, getting more fuel and air to burn will provide more power, but tossing on a K&N won't get 100 hp added, either.

 

[cp3]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
This original post's conclusions are unscientific

.

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
When push comes to shove, we ALL care about evidence. Let's act like it. If we really care about whether what we're saying matches with reality, we should strive for the highest possible standards of evidence, not make excuses to be happy with low ones.



What are the highest possible standards of evidence? And who decides when how much evidence is enough? Sorry but I'm with the folks who have said it's just an internet forum. Take it all with a grain of salt, use what you want and let the rest roll off.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I'm not saying we all need to become scientists. I'm saying that statements like "oh, it's not scientific" are a dodge for when people know they can't back up what they're saying. That's it.


Except that that's not it. You framed the "it's not scientific" bit into being a negative thing, then said that we should all strive for better. I think that's why the replies number so many.

Point taken. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Loobed
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
In GOD I trust, all others bring data.


Is this a violation of BITOG rules?



Quote Ronald Reagan "Trust, but verify".

 

[mechtech2]

dood -
You are right on.

To be simplistic, think of humans using fire for thousands of years with no 'scientific' proof that it works!
[and umpteen jillion other paradigms]

 

[d00df00d]

The process of making fire is repeatable and demonstrable. Early fire-using humans may not have known what fire actually is, but they certainly had ample "scientific proof" that they could make it.

 

[andyd]

I am an MMO believer. My findings are purely anecdotal. Why I believe is the mystery. I do like the smell. Methyl salicylate . Liniment for cars

 

[PandaBear]

Scientific means the result need to be repeatable and objective. No "I feel it", no "it worked once", no "you don't know 100% of what you said so I must be right".

Unfortunately the people on both sides hijacked the term and make it political and emotional.

 

[eljefino]

I think it's a nice disclaimer with properly used.

I put Auto RX in, hoping it would clean my rings. It didn't. But I didn't pull my pistons, measure the gunk (somehow), put my engine back together without fixing it, run the ARX per directions, then take it apart 1500 miles later. So I was unscientific.

Although unstuck rings were listed as a benefit in the sales literature, anecdotes on my specific saturn say the rings aren't all that springy, and lose some springiness over time. I don't have a ring-spring-ometer, nor practical experience with other springy rings, so I can't say "yes it's absolutely positively true". I need to be pragmatic, fix the issue instead of putzing around, and will leave the science to others. I will be a good observer, when possible, with well focused photos and as many facts as I can remember if I find something interesting I want help with.

It is absolutely positively true I once got 46.9 MPG, and I defy anyone to correct my math.

 

[Tom NJ]

Nothing wrong with observations, theories, assumptions, associations, speculation, and anecdotal evidence, so long as one understands that any conclusions drawn there from may be wrong. Reader beware.

Science is simply a logical methodology for determining truth. The methodology requires that variables be controlled and results are consistently repeatable. Any variations from the methodology may lead to untrue conclusions.

Tom NJ

 

[BoBruno]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Scientific means the result need to be repeatable and objective. No "I feel it", no "it worked once", no "you don't know 100% of what you said so I must be right".

Unfortunately the people on both sides hijacked the term and make it political and emotional.


Well said!

 

[A1BadPizzaGuy]

In my view, information is always important and useful. As far as I'm concerned, information refers to everything; facts, opinions, thoughts, feelings, and importantly, experience. While much of this does not necessarily constitute anything reliable, repeatable, testable, or objective, at the very least they are ideas. All ideas came from somewhere and arose for some reason. One must be careful in how seriously to consider some ideas, but that is where it is important to have an ability to think clearly and critically. This doesn't specifically fit within the realm of peer reviewed science, but what you do with information and how you understand it carries more importance than whether that information was first found 'scientifically.'

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Rant time. This was triggered by a recent thread, but it has been stewing for a long time and isn't aimed at anyone in particular.

I'm sure we've all seen an exchange between two people that goes something like this:

Person A: "Hey, I think XYZ."
Person B: "Yeah? Why do you think that?"
Person A: "Well, it's not really scientific, but..."

Let's get real. That last line is synonymous with one of the following:

1. "Well, I don't really have anything to back up what I'm saying, but..."
2. "Well, my evidence isn't anything that I could reasonably expect someone else to believe, but..."
3. "Well, I would much prefer if you just accept what I'm saying without question, but..."

Intentional or not, the use of the word "(un)scientific" is a way to try to flip the script by insinuating that only haters and snooty intellectuals insist on evidence before believing things. It's a pretense that is painfully easy to see through.

The demand for evidence is not some exotic thing that only matters to scientists and condescending Ivory Tower types. It's the most basic first step in finding things out about the world or exchanging knowledge between people. Science just takes it to the next level. That's another story...

When push comes to shove, we ALL care about evidence. Let's act like it. If we really care about whether what we're saying matches with reality, we should strive for the highest possible standards of evidence, not make excuses to be happy with low ones.


+1

 

[Cujet]

To make matters worse, what oil works for me in South Florida, probably won't work for you in Alaska. This kind of stuff is based squarely in the "anecdotal evidence" category. And it requires local knowledge.

 

[kender]

May I mambo dogface to the banana patch?