Hi I would put it a little stronger than Christopher.
Science strives for complete objectivity. Science provides mechanisms to identify and correct lack of objectivity (e.g., publication, replication, double blind studies, statistical tests, ...). Science thereby provides pathways to an accurate (i.e., objective) understanding of the natural world, including human behavior and experience. But the paths are often long and circuitous, which is perhaps why so many people prefer quick albeit fallible alternatives (e.g., revelation, tradition / culture, intuition, anecdotal evidence, political pundits, ...). I think we need to be cautious as scientists about giving an unduly pessimistic view of our enterprise. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [email protected] >>> "Christopher D. Green" <[email protected]> 13-Aug-09 8:21:11 AM >>> michael sylvester wrote: > > > If scientific findings represent flawless objectivity,why do need > replications? No one of significance ever said that "scientific findings represent flawless objectivity." What they (should have) said is that the scientific approach is our best bet of finding out what is really going on in the world. Observation is still subject to all of the criticisms that were heaped upon it by Idealists from Plato on down to the present day (we make errors, we can be deceived, our predispositions sometimes overwhelm our senses, etc.). Replication helps us to catch some of those flaws. Science is not particularly efficient, and it is certainly not perfect. It is merely better than everything else we have tried. Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 [email protected] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ========================== --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
