tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17889588.post2127525351182412564..comments2024-03-13T07:14:55.283+01:00Comments on chem-bla-ics: Trust has no place in scienceEgon Willighagenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07470952136305035540noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17889588.post-4992612287572816602010-12-16T15:11:13.086+01:002010-12-16T15:11:13.086+01:00Ben, please read my follow up, which comments on y...Ben, please read my follow up, which comments on your (incorrect) argument:<br /><br />http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/2010/12/trust-has-no-place-in-science-2.htmlEgon Willighagenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07470952136305035540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17889588.post-84680119798067690202010-12-16T15:04:12.199+01:002010-12-16T15:04:12.199+01:00As a biologist, if I go around trying to verify ev...As a biologist, if I go around trying to verify everything the chemists tell me (via their publications and databases) I will get nowhere. <br /><br />Trust has a very important place in science.Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17889588.post-39233868597986838722010-12-08T20:42:16.851+01:002010-12-08T20:42:16.851+01:00Saml, assuming things is a step in the right direc...Saml, assuming things is a step in the right direction, perhaps, but not quite what I mean. Assuming things still suffers that you do not have control.<br /><br />One important difference is that you can 'test' if an assumption is true, but you cannot test if something is trustworthy.<br /><br />But this is not about semantics and not about definitions, this is about having a choice, and making that choice or not. And as a scientist you should not settle for something which you have trust to be correct. That leaves you *without* a choice.<br /><br />Moreover, if you choose not to cross-check facts, and choose to blindly trust them (actually, if you have to trust them, you already seem to have mixed feelings about them, otherwise you'd know they'd be true), that is is your choice then, and you can defend that choice if challenged. You will not be able to hide behind 'but I trusted that source'; that is *not* a valid, scholarly argument. Trust has no role there.<br /><br />If others are using 'assume' something much like other would use 'trust', then they are equally wrong. You do not assume something to be right in science, you actively pose it to be true. That is part of your scientific argumentation.<br /><br />No, just 'assuming' things is not the goal I am setting out.Egon Willighagenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07470952136305035540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17889588.post-6297294800674007102010-12-08T19:53:30.259+01:002010-12-08T19:53:30.259+01:00This is about definitions. If I understand you cor...This is about definitions. If I understand you correctly, you basically want to go from _trusting_ things, to only _assuming_ things, right?<br /><br />Problem is that, as long as you - in your daily life - act on these _assumptions_ as if they were true, you are basically using the word "assumption" in the same way as others use the word "trust".<br /><br />So, in case this is not the definition of "trust" you are referring to, you will have to declare your definition of trust before dismissing it as inappropriate.samlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14542659368967180296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17889588.post-38870855126880148022010-12-06T13:47:03.887+01:002010-12-06T13:47:03.887+01:00Myles, of course, scholars will have to to 'bu...Myles, of course, scholars will have to to 'build on shoulders' (see one of the linked McPrinciples), but the point is two-fold:<br /><br />1. you make the decision to do so, voluntarily, and you alone are responsible for that<br />2. you must be aware that trust is therefore never required, and you can do perfectly fine without<br /><br />The latter simply refers that you make assumptions: you assume that previous research was done correctly, and this is what you typically write up in your introductory sections of papers. You never write there, well, we trust here that foo did bar... you take responsibility instead.Egon Willighagenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07470952136305035540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17889588.post-88882144584155031752010-12-06T13:24:32.756+01:002010-12-06T13:24:32.756+01:00Taking trust out of science is ideally good, but t...Taking trust out of science is ideally good, but the practicalities of doing so dictate that at some level scientists need to trust that other scientists are doing their job correctly. They should be skeptical of course, but if you trust no one the path to new discoveries is bound to be a very slow and inefficient one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com