Not Religious? Well then...
- Thread starter 0R0
- Start date
Science is evidence based, so we scientists MUST use terminology such as 'these results strongly suggest', or 'the most likely candidate is'... etc. No scientists worth a grain of salt would make claims such as 'this proves beyond a doubt' or other strong statements, because we all know that it may prove to be false.
What about the philosopher who claimed that 'all swans are white', because the thousands of swans he'd seen in Europe were all white? He subsequently came to Australia and, lo and behold, a black swan! Without visibly observing every sway in existence, the claim can never be proven to be true, only to be false. Evidence can be supported a million times, but it just takes one strong refutation to crush any 'fact'. That's why scientists 'strongly suggest' something to be factual without saying that it simply IS factual.
Extremely satisfactory imo.
What about the philosopher who claimed that 'all swans are white', because the thousands of swans he'd seen in Europe were all white? He subsequently came to Australia and, lo and behold, a black swan! Without visibly observing every sway in existence, the claim can never be proven to be true, only to be false. Evidence can be supported a million times, but it just takes one strong refutation to crush any 'fact'. That's why scientists 'strongly suggest' something to be factual without saying that it simply IS factual.
Extremely satisfactory imo.
OK, so let's say I'm looking at a protein kinase which has been implicated in increasing drought tolerance in wheat. Its corresponding gene is expressed strongly when plants are subject to drought or treated with ABA, drought stress activates the protein, there's a proven interaction between this protein and other, downstream, transcription factors implicated in drought stress responses... transgenic plants overexpressing this gene survive prolonged periods of drought stress whereas control plants do not, when you knock the gene out, the mutant plants are hypersensitive to drought.
With all these results, I would make the claim 'these results strongly suggest that protein kinase x is responsible for increasing the drought tolerance of wheat'. We can all see that the above evidence strongly supports this statement, but there's a minute chance that overexpressing this gene changes other aspects of the plant, and that the increased levels of RNA and protein activity are actually an effect rather than a cause of some other unknown factor, the factor which is actually giving the plant its 'drought tolerance'. We can't be certain, so to say 'Protein kinase x is responsible for increasing drought tolerance in wheat' cannot be proven beyond a doubt to be 'true'. If such evidence gives a 99.99% probability of something being true, isn't that good enough?
Ones called maths, the others called philosophy. Who's to say which is 'true', objectively speaking? Regardless, this statement has no bearing on how a scientist chooses to present his results.
With all these results, I would make the claim 'these results strongly suggest that protein kinase x is responsible for increasing the drought tolerance of wheat'. We can all see that the above evidence strongly supports this statement, but there's a minute chance that overexpressing this gene changes other aspects of the plant, and that the increased levels of RNA and protein activity are actually an effect rather than a cause of some other unknown factor, the factor which is actually giving the plant its 'drought tolerance'. We can't be certain, so to say 'Protein kinase x is responsible for increasing drought tolerance in wheat' cannot be proven beyond a doubt to be 'true'. If such evidence gives a 99.99% probability of something being true, isn't that good enough?
Ones called maths, the others called philosophy. Who's to say which is 'true', objectively speaking? Regardless, this statement has no bearing on how a scientist chooses to present his results.
How does one distinguish between a lack of evidence or an abundance thereof, if the report has the same rhetoric? And wouldn't this mean that most if not all of what we read in science journals/blogs is unsubstantiated rather than facts? And if there are no facts in the science community then to what merit do we hold their findings?
My intent is not to refute the actual study of scientists. And if they want to log their work, skeptical about it or not, and make these findings public, more power to them. It becomes a problem to me when their work becomes skewed somewhere along the line:
Science: We believe that..
Person1: They believe that..
Person2: It's like this..
There is evidence of this virtually everywhere.
as per what is in bold
Are you implying that (1) overexpressing the gene, thus changing "other aspects" of the plant, might have no effect (direct or otherwise) with the tolerance of drought stress, and that (2) some other unknown factor, unrelated to the protein, is actually responsible for the plants tolerance to drought stress? How could this be a possibility if we can observe the plant being both tolerant to the stress with the gene present and intolerant when the gene is absent?
The only way that this theory is not factual is that, without overexpressing the gene, or the plant being absent of the gene, the plant will still be able to find a way to tolerate the drought. Because if the plant can not do this, then we can conclude that in fact, the protein/gene is responsible for the plants tolerance. But what if the plant finds a way to tolerate the drought only because this gene is not present? This possibility, however, does not change the state of protein kinase x and it's effect on the plant. In addition, even if "factor A" is causing the gene to be overexpressed, or the overexpression of the gene causes "factor B" which is directly responsible for the plants tolerance to the drought, it still does not change the state of the gene and it's effect on the plant (direct or otherwise) with its ability to tolerate the drought.
My apologies if I am not understanding this theory correctly.
What I said was pertaining to his character rather than his position on science. Certainly his presumptive statement may be true, but I was pointing out a flaw in the way he responded; rather than ask for evidence, he simply asked and then answered for me. I pointed that out as a weakness in his approach.
My intent is not to refute the actual study of scientists. And if they want to log their work, skeptical about it or not, and make these findings public, more power to them. It becomes a problem to me when their work becomes skewed somewhere along the line:
Science: We believe that..
Person1: They believe that..
Person2: It's like this..
There is evidence of this virtually everywhere.
as per what is in bold
Are you implying that (1) overexpressing the gene, thus changing "other aspects" of the plant, might have no effect (direct or otherwise) with the tolerance of drought stress, and that (2) some other unknown factor, unrelated to the protein, is actually responsible for the plants tolerance to drought stress? How could this be a possibility if we can observe the plant being both tolerant to the stress with the gene present and intolerant when the gene is absent?
The only way that this theory is not factual is that, without overexpressing the gene, or the plant being absent of the gene, the plant will still be able to find a way to tolerate the drought. Because if the plant can not do this, then we can conclude that in fact, the protein/gene is responsible for the plants tolerance. But what if the plant finds a way to tolerate the drought only because this gene is not present? This possibility, however, does not change the state of protein kinase x and it's effect on the plant. In addition, even if "factor A" is causing the gene to be overexpressed, or the overexpression of the gene causes "factor B" which is directly responsible for the plants tolerance to the drought, it still does not change the state of the gene and it's effect on the plant (direct or otherwise) with its ability to tolerate the drought.
My apologies if I am not understanding this theory correctly.
What I said was pertaining to his character rather than his position on science. Certainly his presumptive statement may be true, but I was pointing out a flaw in the way he responded; rather than ask for evidence, he simply asked and then answered for me. I pointed that out as a weakness in his approach.
I think this has a lot to do with the way people are being taught science and math in school. Everybody learns that there is one correct result in math and once it's found, it is is set in stone and unchangeable. However, because science is mostly taught as collection of facts (which it is not), and not as a method for understanding the world around us (which it is), the impression children (with the exemption of the tiny minority who go on to become scientists themselves) leave school with is that it is the same as math. And it simply isn't.
I know am diving into the very deep end here because the debate whether mathematics exists independently of human activity or it is a product of the human mind, i.e. whether it is a collection of tools we develop to help us understand the world around us or whether it is something we discover, is very complicated and an area in which I am not an authority. But for all practical purposes, math has a set of rules which allow for us to be 100% certain in the results given that we make no mistake (which, because of the enormous complexity of modern mathematical research is increasingly less certain). While there are no such rules applying to studying nature which is completely external to us and we have no power over.
It is also debatable whether scientists should try to explain this to people or not. Because on the one hand, if all people understood the scientific process, it would be a very good world to live in, but on the other hand, this is at present practically impossible and instead there is a very big risk that people will only get the "We can never be certain" part of the message and never trust any scientific result, with deleterious consequences...
I know am diving into the very deep end here because the debate whether mathematics exists independently of human activity or it is a product of the human mind, i.e. whether it is a collection of tools we develop to help us understand the world around us or whether it is something we discover, is very complicated and an area in which I am not an authority. But for all practical purposes, math has a set of rules which allow for us to be 100% certain in the results given that we make no mistake (which, because of the enormous complexity of modern mathematical research is increasingly less certain). While there are no such rules applying to studying nature which is completely external to us and we have no power over.
It is also debatable whether scientists should try to explain this to people or not. Because on the one hand, if all people understood the scientific process, it would be a very good world to live in, but on the other hand, this is at present practically impossible and instead there is a very big risk that people will only get the "We can never be certain" part of the message and never trust any scientific result, with deleterious consequences...
The layperson should always interpret the evidence for themselves and should never base the truth of an experiment on the way the researchers word their conclusions. Some conclusions may well be unsubstantiated, others may have whole books supporting them. The strength of the wording often reflects this when conclusions are made - if someone finds a general correlation between drought tolerance and increased gene Y expression, they would often conclude 'this evidence suggests that gene Y may increase drought tolerance in wheat', if there was substantial evidence, they would use stronger wording, such as 'this evidence strongly supports the hypothesis that gene Y increases drought tolerance in wheat'.
The way in which scientists conduct their research is always objectively assessed by other scientists, trying their best to pick holes in their scientific method (was the right control used? did the drought stress reflect actual field conditions? etc.) - if any discrepancies are uncovered, then this could refute their conclusions and a different perspective would be developed concerning gene Y. Some people may replicate this experiment - receiving the same results adds weight to their conclusions. Also, different research groups may use the same method and add to their results, taking it one step further, again adding further evidence to support their conclusions. Step by step, the evidence builds up, until the total body of evidence supporting their argument becomes extremely strong. Would you still choose not to believe in their conclusions because 99.99% certaintly isn't the same as 100% fact? Would you be more likely to believe that gene Y confers drought tolerance in wheat if the scientific group came straight out and said, unequivocally, that Gene Y 'does, without a doubt', confer drought tolerance in wheat?
The problem is not science, scientists or the way they word their conclusions, but rather it's the people who don't bother to understand the research themselves and who blindly accept conclusions as fact because 'scientists are smart'. Such extrapolations are based on either ignorance or politics.
I never said any such thing with regards to (1) and (2) above. Overexpressing the gene may have an effect, it might not though. Another unknown factor may be responsible, it might not be though. Science, especially biology, is never black and white. Showing a correlation between an increase in the expression of protein kinase x and increased drought tolerance does not automatically mean that protein kinase x is actually responsible. It definitely supports the hypothesis that it's directly involved, but may not be doing the work itself. What if the protein kinase requires ABA in order to function efficiently? Then without ABA, drought tolerance simply wouldn't be observed, regardless of how strongly protein kinase x was expressed. Perhaps there are other cofactors which combine with the protein, upstream and downstream signal transduction partners, perhaps the expression doesn't have a direct effect, but rather the postranscriptional modification - protein activity, secondary structure, perhaps the enzymes which give alternative splicing products are the key to obtaining drought tolerance..... there are dozens of factors which might affect the level of drought stress, and the observed results may be based on the specific technique the researchers used to conduct the experiment, perhaps the drought stress conditions depressed the plants natural mechanisms of tolerating drought stress (and were only restored in this genes presence), maybe the results were dependent on the stage of plant growth or cultivar used? With all these variables, no scientist would feel comfortable in claiming their conclusions are 100% factual.
The way in which scientists conduct their research is always objectively assessed by other scientists, trying their best to pick holes in their scientific method (was the right control used? did the drought stress reflect actual field conditions? etc.) - if any discrepancies are uncovered, then this could refute their conclusions and a different perspective would be developed concerning gene Y. Some people may replicate this experiment - receiving the same results adds weight to their conclusions. Also, different research groups may use the same method and add to their results, taking it one step further, again adding further evidence to support their conclusions. Step by step, the evidence builds up, until the total body of evidence supporting their argument becomes extremely strong. Would you still choose not to believe in their conclusions because 99.99% certaintly isn't the same as 100% fact? Would you be more likely to believe that gene Y confers drought tolerance in wheat if the scientific group came straight out and said, unequivocally, that Gene Y 'does, without a doubt', confer drought tolerance in wheat?
The problem is not science, scientists or the way they word their conclusions, but rather it's the people who don't bother to understand the research themselves and who blindly accept conclusions as fact because 'scientists are smart'. Such extrapolations are based on either ignorance or politics.
I never said any such thing with regards to (1) and (2) above. Overexpressing the gene may have an effect, it might not though. Another unknown factor may be responsible, it might not be though. Science, especially biology, is never black and white. Showing a correlation between an increase in the expression of protein kinase x and increased drought tolerance does not automatically mean that protein kinase x is actually responsible. It definitely supports the hypothesis that it's directly involved, but may not be doing the work itself. What if the protein kinase requires ABA in order to function efficiently? Then without ABA, drought tolerance simply wouldn't be observed, regardless of how strongly protein kinase x was expressed. Perhaps there are other cofactors which combine with the protein, upstream and downstream signal transduction partners, perhaps the expression doesn't have a direct effect, but rather the postranscriptional modification - protein activity, secondary structure, perhaps the enzymes which give alternative splicing products are the key to obtaining drought tolerance..... there are dozens of factors which might affect the level of drought stress, and the observed results may be based on the specific technique the researchers used to conduct the experiment, perhaps the drought stress conditions depressed the plants natural mechanisms of tolerating drought stress (and were only restored in this genes presence), maybe the results were dependent on the stage of plant growth or cultivar used? With all these variables, no scientist would feel comfortable in claiming their conclusions are 100% factual.
