Opinions are not Science.

[Bubba]

At the risk of attracting much scorn, and being aware of my lowly lepton status, I think this post is needed.

 

Your opinion is not science. I am very new to this forum, but the amount of times I’ve already read, "I think....", "I don't think....", "I don't agree with...." is astonishing. Last time I checked this was a science forum, where people discuss, and hopefully learn about, science. Saying that you don't believe in relativity, or that the universe just "ends" are perfectly fine thing to say but unfortunately have nothing to do with science.

 

Science is about making observations of nature in order to understand how the universe works. There are some things which, like it or not, are facts.

 

This is not to say that we should ignore everything that we do not have direct evidence for. The scientific process goes like this (roughly): Make observation. Hypothesize theory that explains observation. Test hypothesis as rigorously as possible. If we cannot disprove the hypothesis it is accepted as a possible valid model for nature.

 

An example is string theory. String theory is a model of nature that explains observed features of the universe. It has not yet acquired any real evidence, and cannot yet be tested, hence it is not science. It is however well worth discussing because is has been formulated following a scientific method and can still be shown to be true in the future. However saying "I believe in string theory therefore Bubba is an idiot" is not following a scientific method, it is only your opinion.

[Lance]

I would prefer somebody to say "I think" rather than "I know" when the person is not 100% sure.

[BobbyJoeCool]

opinions are not science, but if everyone knew everything, then what would be under discussion? And what about theoretical sciences, things that are not proven either way (such as the nature of the universe?)

 

Every good theory starts with a question that hasn't been answered. A hypothosis is formulated, and then tested. The data from the test will either agree or disagree with the hypothosis (sometimes is neutral), but it nearly always poses another question.

 

Besides, when someone doesn't really know what their talking about (or left a detail out for some reason), they might say "I think this is true." And then when an expert comes along, they can point out the falicies in their theories, so that they can make better theories.

[Bubba]

they might say "I think this is true." And then when an expert comes along, they can point out the falicies in their theories, so that they can make better theories.

 

 

My apologies, upon rereading I see that my point was not clear. It was not my intention to talk about people who are quoteing ideas that they are not compleatly certain about. As you point out it is better that they say "I think... is true" and are then corrected, after all trying to explain physical principles in your own words is one of the best ways to really understand them.

 

My comments were directed at members who claim things, often against the accepted theory, without any regard to justifying them.

[CPL.Luke]

if you direct your attention to old threads you'll discover that most of the ones who didn't bother to support themselves are usually banned

[blike]

Everyone should read this thread!

[Ophiolite]

Your opinion is not science.

I think you are right.

[Pangloss]

Or put another way, opinions are not facts. If you're going to claim that something is the case, you should be prepared to back it up. After all, why should anyone take your word for it?

 

We had a case like this on the Politics board recently, where a member got pretty incensed at being constantly reminded to back up his claims, saying that he felt that they were "common sense". It's fine to state an opinion on something -- everyone has opinions that are based on gut reactions, instinct, a "general feel for things", and so forth, and those things have value as well, so long as they are given in the proper context. But statements of fact should always be supported, or at least the poster should be ready to support them if asked. It's just that simple.

 

A couple of points:

1) If you come in late to a discussion, be aware that some points of fact may not be stipulated because they were stipulated, say, in an earlier thread, or earlier in the same (long) thread. The polite thing to do is to ask nicely for further support, and if you are the repsonder, politely point to earlier discussions, or if you don't know where they are, either provide the support again, or at least politely suggest keywords for the newcomer to use in a search.

 

2) Nobody expects APA format references from academic journals. Post what you have. We'll weigh in on the value of the reference. Just understand that references have relative value based on where the reference is coming from, who wrote it, and what their agenda may be. This is true in any critical investigation, whether it be science, politics, or whatever.

 

3) Attack the credibility of the reference, not the poster for posting it.

 

4) Don't be offended by criticism of the reference.

 

5) Understand the difference between primary sources and media stories. Journalists make mistakes all the time -- they're the first to admit it. Source quality looks something like this:

 

Credible:

1) Original research from respected source

2) Analytical product from unknown but not immediately discreditable source

3) News story on one of the above from a respected/mainstream news source

4) Opinion piece from a known source (with the slant stipulated and understood) (not useful for all purposes, but sometimes applicable, e.g. when the writer is admitting something that normally goes against their slant)

 

Not Credible:

1) "Studies" and "Reports" from special interest groups and agenda-based organizations (e.g. "A Report on the State of Freedom in America" by the ACLU) (factual information in such sources can be credible only if supported by external information)

2) Articles from obviously biased sources (e.g. "The president was complicit in a massive conspiracy to allow 9/11 to take place" from FromtheWilderness.com or 911truth.org)

3) Opinion pieces that are not supported by facts (e.g. George Will says on TV that 53% of Americans are baseball fans, but no evidence can be found to support the assertion)

 

We should make a FAQ or something.

[CPL.Luke]

2) Nobody expects APA format references from academic journals. Post what you have. We'll weigh in on the value of the reference. Just understand that references have relative value based on where the reference is coming from, who wrote it, and what their agenda may be. This is true in any critical investigation, whether it be science, politics, or whatever.

 

this is usually true, unless its something like trying to argue a massive conspiracy theory, then people will ask for professional research material

[Bubba]

Pangloss, i agree with thee, whole heartedly. What wisdom you organisms have *sigh*

 

It is never an easy subject to comment on as it is of great importance to science, and other areas as you mention