Some concepts change from time to time. New researches are done which can propose a dramatic change to the existing thesis. What do you do? What is your policy to accept or reject a previous study?
A convincing one wouldn't take much. Otherwise it has to be supported logically.
Classical set theory is a very powerful theory and many results got developed by using classical set theory only.
However, a great control engineer, Prof. Lofti Zadeh was reflecting on one evening about the set theory - either an object is a member of a set A (membership grade 1) or not a member of the set A (membership grade 0), and observed that in real life, we don't live at two extremes and we allow the possibility of membership grade between 0 and 1 also. Concepts like "hot", "cool", "intelligent", "smart", "dull" etc can be defined if we use fuzzy set concept with membership grade between 0 and 1 (membership function).
This formed basis for a great, modern, set theory --> fuzzy set theory.
Likewise, as we evolve, new theories get formed and they give rise to new applications in science, engineering and other fields.
The nature of research is continuous and dynamic. With change in environment and conditions, results and theory change. Such improvements/changes, either change the theory or modify the theory. No alternate, but to accept.
A counterexample is quite enough to falsify an existing theory. A scientific theory is a statement that claims to be true for every input of the variables in which it is built up on. Therefore showing the existence of values of variables of inputs/empirical data for example that make the theory not true is a right way of refuting a theory. Unless one produces a counter empirical or theoretical example, it is very unlikely to say an existing theory is false.
Every discovery has its LIFE TIME of existence and change.
Innovations keep evolving and new discoveries consummate the old ones with better outputs
I agree with Paul , Talib and Barbara,development of science based on changes and discoveries and replacement of theories. We have to accept the changes.
I'm a bit more careful, please take my apologies. Faster than light neutrinos, cold fusion, spectacular genetic modification and cloning - I didn't believe the results, and I'm sure you didn't either offhandedly.
The examples given above (Planck, Heisenberg etc.) are from a very different era of science. Nowadays, we are far more commercialized, I'm afraid. New active pharmaceutical ingredients, technical breakthroughs and such lead to money (directly offered or via funding). In many threads we complain about flawed research with results that cannot be of great value. How many of today's research results can be reproduced, just to make sure they are valid?
In former times researchers tried to falsify theories, which is still important today in the hard sciences. If results obtained this way can be repeatedly verified, it's time to say good bye to the old view on concepts.
BTW. I fully agree with Paul's view (3 hrs ago) on linear models trying to catch up with nonlinear systems. In my Big Book of Questions (BBQ) to RG, there is question on macroeconomics and its nonlinear models (where are they?), which I haven't asked yet. Coming soon.
Dear @Vilemar, I think that scientific discoveries do not need a second thought and I accept them without any reservations when proved.
The experimental journey is what makes me to accept or to be sceptical.
For example: 100 years of searching for gravitational waves are enough to make me wonder about them.
Scientific theories are a bottom up inductive procedure. As such it need a continual modification, such that the theory could be harmonious with scientific data! Thus to change your mind about a previous scientific discovery, it needs a discrepancy of theory and data!
But it needs also the willingness to change scientific opinions about data and theory and to be opened to new developments. This does not mean to accept immature "results" like Michaels examples (neutrino speed, cold fusion ...). Scientists must stay critical but not totally sealed.
Science is always evolving.
A lot more scientific discoveries will be made in the next few centuries, but we may not be able to witness them..
Scientific discovery is a continuously evolving concept and the mind must follow this evolution. I think this is a "conditio sine qua non", i. e. a condition of which you can not do without in the research. He who hesitates is lost (old proverb).
Change is constant, if we stop to change we stop to progress I think scientific discovery is meant for change and planned for change. Hence, as researchers we need to be open minded & receptive to change in order to discover more & more scientific theories / discoveries. E.g. whatever research we have done / are doing, we need to mentally prepared as they might be overruled / overturned by our future research / other researchers in future.
Dear Vilemar! In 3 words, in takes
Time;
Information
and wise intelligent open-mindness (serenity!)
I frequently reject scientific studies because my own research involves studying scientific fraud. Sadly there is rather a lot of this and it is a major detriment to honest scientific endeavour. I have seen some blatant manipulation of lab experiments and deliberate overlooking of major confounders in research that can only result in the work being fatally flawed. That however does not stop it being published.
I agree with the comment of Sundarapandian that 'science is always evolving". It is certainly evolving faster than human honesty and it is pity that so much great science is being polluted by so much dishonest and bad science.
Dear Dr. Vilemar
Change is the law of nature. Some times we may not have a choice at all, but to flow or be carried away with the flood. In India, we are witnessing lot of changes and the old generation find it difficult to accept these rapid changes, but have no choice!
In my research field, I welcome new discoveries, theories, schools of thought etc. My accepting or rejecting depends on the discovery. I will personally prefer to test it before saying yes or no. Without verification by others, the reproducible nature of the discovery can not be discovered. Reproducible results, discoveries etc. either modifying or replacing the existing scientific discoveries/theories are welcome.
Best wishes.
Dear Vilemar,
In order to change my mind I first must have the understanding that science, as many have articulated is ever changing. Science over time evolves, changes, and grows understanding toward a completeness.
Second I must be open. Open to new avenues, paths, and sources of new information. not simply reject out of hand studies because of the address on the envelope, the name of the journal or what university funded and carried out the research. Yes I must be skeptical but not dismissive until after reading and examining such findings.
Third the science must be done well, the methodology logical, the findings consistent with the data gathered.
Last, I must keep my ego in check even when new science "proves" previous findings were in error and I had a role in those previous findings..
Douglas
Skepticism is the main problem in scientific research.
It is not a problem what u don.t know, The problem is what u know as this stops u in changing your mind.
Dear Alexander,
Dear Ahmad,
I do not believe skepticism is a main problem in scientific research and in-fact I believe it is one of the cornerstones of scientific research. I would suggest that peer review is a form of skepticism, research guide lines are also a form of skepticism. Skepticism allows us to critically examine scientific research and I would add is the foundation on which validity stands.
Skepticism is at the heart of why we know place the sun at the center of our solar system, the engineering of the Panama Canal, recycling of more and more plastics, ect.
Most importantly skepticism is why faulty science such as the eugenics movement was discredited, cold fusion has also, and gender binary is now under scrutiny.
Douglas
Any new evidence! "It is not what you know, it is what you can prove,".
What is a scientific discovery: A new idea versus the first evidence for an old idea?
The essential nature of research is dynamic and a work in progress. Most areas of depth and complexity offer opportunities for continuous and reflexive learning, that is definitely not immune to change. An open mind, and sufficiency of evidence (not necessary quantifiable evidence) should ensure acceptance of change, minor or substantial.
searching for something new is the essence of research. It was believed that the sun moved round the earth and then... the reverse was proved. Then again someone may say it is all relative!
Dear @Vilemar, many good responses. For me, it is not a policy to accept or reject a previous study, but to be open for new scientific discoveries, adopt it and go further in research process.
"Only yesterday the practical things of today were decried as impractical, and the theories which will be practical tomorrow will always be branded as valueless games by the practical man of today".
William "Vilim" Feller
We started with classical set theory, but now we have generalizations like Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic, Rough Sets, Fuzzy Rough Sets etc. which have more applications than the classical set theory. Still more research is needed on fuzzy rough sets. I find this research area interesting and also looking into their applications in control systems engineering.
This is true that people take time to fully get convinced of new gadgets and environments etc.,
Example - Change interventions for Implementation of ERP
People want systems that needs to be fast and reliant, but doubt its existence. Even after completing implementation of Enterprise Resource Solutions (high capital intense), we carry out a parallel run (both ERP systems & Legacy systems exists) for almost a year, to reassure and build confidence in the end users to wholesome acceptance of the system
A person who do not accepts scientific knowledge evolution is not a scientist. However science needs evidence and logic to be accepted as new or improved or corrected data or knowledge
Dear Ms. Bettayeb
You made a very strong statement but followed it by a soothening logical one. There have been complaints of plagiarism, false claims, falsified data, stolen data etc. published as personal achievements. If such claims were not challenged, they would have been passed off as new sometimes as sensational discoveries. It is therefore necessary for scientists to be vigilant and scientific in arriving at conclusions or taking decisions. It is possible even for a good scientist to commit unintentional mistakes.
Best wishes and good luck.
Dear Ms. Bettayeb
In some cases, it is not easy to accept new scientific truth (with evidence and logic) when it has significant consequences on philosophy.
regards
Indeed dear Rajeswara, unintentional mistakes could arise, as well as cheating into publications. In my opinion the person who could commits cheating or wrong data, could be discovered in public talks from conferences or workshops since she puts herself in front of panel of international specialists who will ask her on the data and the research. So cheating could be discovered and propagated among peers, as well as false data could be recognized as they couldn't meet with logic and known scientific principles. It is good to publish but it is also better to go in front of peers and discuss face to face ones research, for the sake to be sure with the adequacy of the method or the process of resolution as well as with the data concordance.
Dear Talib, i think that philosophical thoughts who could be merged or not with scientific evidence or vice verse is a thing from the past. Nowadays with pragmatic science and the fast technological progress, scientists do not spent many times to try to solve scientific evidence with some ideologies; If the evidence is there and/or truly experimented, it will be accepted used or improved. After that may be philosophies could be discussed, approved , abandoned or corrected. However, you are right to focus on the schools of philosophical thoughts when theories are reported to be reviewed. Generally new theories are difficult to merge with scientific evidence till their experimentation.
Most of the scientists faced a lot of difficulties to prove their theories .
Albert Einstein work hard until he expressed in the early years after its publication in the early twentieth century, on scientific.
The scientists worked on previous discoveries and they changes in some of these theories.
Some medical discoveries can lead to controversy due to their ethical consequences.
Dear Paul, indeed it is worse that frauds when detected are ignored, especially for human health purpose. It could looks like criminal intentions against people. Ethics in science is primordial, the scientist or researcher should be aware of the research and data used, as well as his/her peers from the scientific communauty. However if science is merged with the market target, many worse things could arise, as the market is a competing area more focused on the marketing benefit rather than ethical or not science.
I think that computed incorrect data couldn't give useful or logical solutions to the problem checked. Computed data follow pure mathematical models and logical reasoning, computers couldn't merge false data with mathematical equations and give right or true resolutions, only errors in equations' computation could arise.
In my opinion i don't know if an ideal statistical model could be used for all questions; Each problem purpose could use the statistical model the more related and suitable to the studied data behavior .
Is scientific research today free from pulls and pushes? What about research conducted by private companies? Is it not true products were introduced in the market in spite of strict regulations and later on withdrawn?
We can always argue for and against any topic but the truth is society moves on accepting and rejecting several things on its forward journey.
Dear Vilemar, no scientist could claims by his her self his her discovery. Research works and their results are frequently discussed, reviewed, corrected, experimented, used and/or reused by international peers or at least by national peers. So if discovery or novelty is there it will be acknowledged by peers first
Thank you dear Paul for the useful information on the novometric theory. Sure that each novelty needs time to be acknowledged, it is in the nature of human kind to be septic with new ideas from the established order in methodologies, logical thinking and practicing. Alternative methods are useful to powder and correlate the adequacy of different models and their useful usage.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Theoretical Physics
- Time