S.B. – 2
Honesty in Inquiry
as of 1/25/18
In the scientific approach, there is a high regard for honesty in recording and reporting what happens. This honesty requires a tolerance for change. New experimental evidence leads to revision of conclusions; therefore, scientists must be able to go where the data leads them. Being honest doesn’t by itself make you a great scientist, but falsification of data certainly is harmful to science.
In many university settings, there is a “publish or perish” situation: if one does not do publishable research she/he will not be in the “upper circle” of her/his group, and perhaps promotions will be delayed. In such a case, one might expect that there would be pressure to distort the data from an experiment so that the results would be more favorable for the experimenter. Certainly these and other subtle factors influence scientists and, in evaluating experimental evidence, consideration should be given to such factors. There are, however, a number of factors that work against falsification for personal gain. Below are three of them.
ONE: Fun of the Game: The first of these restraints results from the definition of science, i.e. the study of what is. Later we will go into more detail about this definition. In an experiment one is trying to discover what factor is influencing a given situation. Part of the “fun of the game” is to find out these little segments of “what is.”
TWO: Negative Results: Closely related to the above is the value of negative results. When one uses the premise discussed in number one and even if the experiment turns out the “wrong way,” that is, negative results are obtained, the results are still useful. Negative results, if nothing else, tell us that our hunch about a factor influencing a situation was NOT correct. They indicate a different approach is necessary, i.e. the first attempt was not a correct solution.
THREE: Verification/Replication: As will be pointed out in later sections, in order for an experimental finding to be useful it must be replicable. When Joe Doe’s experiment is replicated by an able scientist, similar results should occur. Joe Doe’s scientific reputation partly rests upon findings that have this replicable feature. If Joe Doe fakes his/her results and others can not replicate the results, Joe Doe’s scientific prestige is reduced.
2-1. The value of a scientific principle is partly judged by its verification by other experimenters.
A. True
B. False
Answer. (A)
2-2. Of the following factors, which are likely to decrease the possibility of the scientist making data come out the way it “should be”?
A. Others will replicate his/her experiments, and his/her reputation partly depends on others obtaining similar results.
B. Finding a part of “what is,” sought as a reinforcer to a scientist.
C. All well-conducted experimental findings are valuable.
Answer. (A, B, & C)
At times, students, and the population as a whole, may be repulsed by the study of the many aspects of scientific inquiry. However, studying science is becoming particularly important to the masses living in today’s world. The way the government keeps the public informed is frequently debated. One notion is that there should be no governmental control, with a “public/consumer be aware” position. The alternative notion is that the government should be a protectorate of people, and government control should be used so the public will be safe from those things of which it is not now aware. In many aspects of life the issue reduces to the fact that the public must be knowledgeable. One cannot blindly accept a position because people say they have “research findings.” Verbal references to having scientific findings have become such a status symbol or a buzz word that one can not take someone’s statement about having scientific findings at face value. Two different T.V ads may state “our toothpaste is best.” How is one to decide between them?
The expression “Talk is cheap” is appropriate for many areas in psychology, as well as in daily life. Wild conjectured solutions to many problems are observed frequently. Everyone is (or tries to be) his/her own psychologist, as well as a psychologist for anyone else who will listen to their advice.
Hopefully this unit on experimental evidence will be a helpful starting point in learning how to inquire into the honesty of supposed evidence and how to evaluate evidence. The method used to evaluate data is the same, whether the data is that of a physics experiment, the usefulness of advertising, comparing techniques of study habits, or deciding on a method for changing the behavior of a murderer.