Oh Teh Noes! Scientist Sees What He Wants To See In Experiments

[roo_ster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/education/12harvard.html?_r=1&ref=science

Harvard egghead "expert on morality" has been put on leave during an investigation of his experiments.

The scientist in question did research on what he described as a biological origin of morality.  A universal "moral grammar" similar to Chomsky's idea of a "universal grammar" WRT language.

This particular member of the reality-based community seemed to feel that reality needed a little help, a nudge, or such to get the right answer.

Do read the article.  This paragon of scientism used such scintillating methodology as watching monkeys on videotape and interpreting the results ad confirming his hypothesis.

[Iain]

I highly doubt this is the droid smoking gun you are looking for.

[roo_ster]

I highly doubt this is the droid smoking gun you are looking for.

Smoking gun?  Most likley, just another in the thousands of examples of experimental bias over the last 100 years.  Or folks talking about doing science when they are actually doing advocacy or cloaking wishful thinking in the garb of science.

Plus...monkeys!  And grad students acting all serious trying to figure out what they are thinking.  Its like MST3000 meets Planet of the Apes.

Although, I do hope Hauser isn't the one making the Chomsky-Hauser comparison.  It would be like basing one's science on Marx's "scientific materialism."  Once he's gone and his cult of personality is diminished, Chomsky's work will be an embarrassment to those all caught up in it nowadays.

[MechAg94]

The real question to me is how much research money do those people have that they can spend it on stuff like this?

[makattak]

The real question to me is how much research money do those people have that they can spend it on stuff like this?

None. I'm sure it's OUR research money.

[Iain]

The real question to me is how much research money do those people have that they can spend it on stuff like this?

Are we going to have a Palin laughing at fruit fly research moment?

[Firethorn]

Smoking gun?  Most likley, just another in the thousands of examples of experimental bias over the last 100 years.  Or folks talking about doing science when they are actually doing advocacy or cloaking wishful thinking in the garb of science.

It takes effort to make an impartial study.  Even then people get it wrong.

This sounds particularly egregious though.

[AZRedhawk44]

Most likley, just another in the thousands of examples of experimental bias over the last 100 years since forever.  Or folks talking about doing science when they are actually doing advocacy or cloaking wishful thinking in the garb of science.

My family does not have the most vast of ancient book libraries, but we do have a set of encyclopedias that are over 125 years old.

Always fun to read through them, especially the sections regarding African or Asian topics.  The Anglo-Christian-centric judgementalist viewpoint dripped from the pages.  My parents have the books right now, or else I would cite the publisher and year, and quote some paragraphs for you.

But, mankind has been writing that way ever since mankind could write, whether on scientific topics, metaphysical, or fiction.  The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Torah, The Baghavad Gita, The Tale of Genji, The teachings of Confucius, Plato's writings, or the various research projects commissioned by the Catholic Church in the last 1000 years.

And the current Church of Globular Warming/Cooling/Stasis/Doomsday writes in exactly the same way.

It makes perfect sense that someone seeking validation of a pet theory would succumb to the hubris of creative interpretation of results.

[lee n. field]

And the current Church of Globular Warming/Cooling/Stasis/Doomsday writes in exactly the same way.

I sat in on a Junior High class last year, and listened to a couple of them give little speeches.

One girl gave her's on global warming.  What was interesting to me is that she used explicitly religious language, without her even realizing it.  "Global warming unbelievers."

--"lee n. field, global warming|cooling|'climate change' infidel"

[Iain]

Ah right yes. This wasn't predictable, or intended. Ignore the fact that actually the system has worked in this case, even if somewhat late and potentially painfully for Harvard.

Palin knew exactly what she was doing when she sneered at fruit fly research. It plays so brilliantly to so many.

[tyme]

ITT: objectivists* crucify scientist for misinterpreting fuzzy results.  Maybe it was intentional.  Maybe it wasn't.  I don't see any particular reason to believe that he intentionally misinterpreted his video data rather than unintentionally misinterpreting the videos.  I blame the journal.  This is a kind of problem that peer review is supposed to catch.

*Not just in the sense that objective reality exists, but that scientists will naturally arrive at an accurate model (at least for their domain of interest) of objective reality through sensory examination of the world.  IOW, scientists do not make unintentional mistakes in interpretation of data; they are like Heinlein's trained observers in Stranger.

[roo_ster]

ITT: objectivists* crucify scientist for misinterpreting fuzzy results.  Maybe it was intentional.  Maybe it wasn't.  I don't see any particular reason to believe that he intentionally misinterpreted his video data rather than unintentionally misinterpreting the videos.  I blame the journal.  This is a kind of problem that peer review is supposed to catch.

*Not just in the sense that objective reality exists, but that scientists will naturally arrive at an accurate model (at least for their domain of interest) of objective reality through sensory examination of the world.  IOW, scientists do not make unintentional mistakes in interpretation of data; they are like Heinlein's trained observers in Stranger.

I don't think peer review would have helped in this case.  The methodology is so ate up (watching monkeys on videotape to determine the monkeys' inner thoughts/emotions) that anyone who did not immediately raise their hand and call, "Penn & Teller!" on them is part of the problem.  Any "peer" is likely someone who is fine with such an experiment.

[Iain]

Any "peer" is likely someone who is fine with such an experiment.

Ah yes, the ivory tower gambit.

[kgbsquirrel]

Someone taught this to me back in the 6th grade, perhaps all these professors and professional scientists should go sit in on some middle school general lab science for a refresher.

The Scientific Method
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

It would seem as if the highlighted portion, if not step 4 in it's entirety has fallen by the wayside. Or, has the hypothetico-deductive model been officially discarded in recent years and nobody has bothered to tell the non-scientist?

[MicroBalrog]

Are we going to have a Palin laughing at fruit fly research moment?

Why shouldn't we laugh at the state funding fruit fly research?

[Nitrogen]

This is why science is peer reviewed.

[Iain]

Why shouldn't we laugh at the state funding fruit fly research?

Yes, yes, state funded anything is evil.

The quote was:

You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.

Fruit flies have had nothing to do with genetic research ever. Not really important genetic research. And even if she was talking about the olive fruit fly as some claim, then that is a pest that is presently colonising Californian olive plantations. I kid you not, on either type of fruit fly.

Can argue that she was talking about pork barrel, her exact words though were "really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good". Foolishness.

[MicroBalrog]

We cannot argue that she was talking about pork, because it's 100% certain she was talking about pork.

Because she explicitly said, in her speech:

"Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway?]/i]  […] You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not."

Fruit fly research (in Paris or in Washington, but especially in Paris) has very little to do with the public good as envisioned by the crafters of the Constitution. The American government was not envisioned as machine by which money is dispensed to project that appear shiny to someone.

[Perd Hapley]

Let me see:

The scientific community spanks Hauser for malpractice.

roo_ster laughs at scientist getting spanked by his peers for malpractice.

Self-appointed defenders of science (SADS) act as if roo_ster et al are attacking science itself.


Are the SADS also accusing Harvard and the journals of attacking science? 


Confused.

[Hawkmoon]

Ah right yes. This wasn't predictable, or intended. Ignore the fact that actually the system has worked in this case, even if somewhat late and potentially painfully for Harvard.

No, the system hasn't worked in this case, not if there are questions being asked that Hahvahd is sweeping under the rug. The system works when ANY piece of scientific research is fully open for per review, and the experimental criteria are clearly set out so independent researchers can duplicate the experiments to see if their results confirm or refute the conclusions drawn by the original researcher(s).