BLA2940

media type="custom" key="23466260" align="left"media type="custom" key="23466430"[[image:fuzzy science.JPG width="51" height="76"]]media type="custom" key="23466308"

 * ==Barrett's Laws Assignment==

In each section please write the example and details to the law that was broken.
===1. Only sciences are sciences-Whether or not a given class was informative or helpful to me is a matter of personal opinion, which should not be challenged scientifically. Science only comes into the conversation when someone claims that the class is/is not helpful to most people--a testable claim.=== Possible Violations: Using scientific language to challenge personal experience. Claiming something cannot be true unless it is objective and verifiable.

===2. Human sciences are "fuzzy" sciences, but they are still sciences.-Some people--even some scientists--are inclined to say that some sciences are more scientific than others, but we all use the same method. Some branches of psychology--especially early psychology--are less committed to the scientific method than others, but their legitimacy remains in the accuracy of their predictions. Since psychology is a young science, it is easy for the critics of the science to scoff at early psychologists, especially those who speculated far beyond their data. Modern psychologists check each other's findings very carefully though the peer review process, to keep things as close to the scientific method as possible.=== Possible Violations: Specific statements that a soft science (such as psychology) is not a science. 2. Leaving soft sciences off a list of sciences. 3. Condescending remarks to suggest that soft sciences are not as scientific. 4. While it's not a violation per se, I would also accept examples of why soft sciences remain soft--experiments (even proposals for them) that would be illegal/unethical.. Fight fire with fire, and data with data.

3. Science requires common data.-
Data means facts that are objective, measurable and predictable. The whole point of scientific observation, studies, and experiments is to produce reliable data. Your personal experiences do not constitute data--they are only coming from your perspective (which makes them subjective) and they rarely leads to exact measurements. Nor do your personal beliefs constitute data-- there are many ways to reconcile the data with your beliefs, but to succeed in this class, you cannot merely ignore the data.

1. Not citing a source.

2. Citing your life experience as data (this may also violate rule#4).

3. Citing dogmatic beliefs (everyone knows...) as data.

4. Science runs on careful criticism.--
Sometimes people point to arguments between scientists as evidence that science is merely a matter of opinion. These people fail to notice that most of these arguments have rules, and are a critical part of the process that makes science work. We've all heard about the scientific method--observe, form hypotheses, test them, and draw conclusions--but most people don't realize what takes place after that: we share our conclusions and data with other scientists and invite them to find any mistakes. This search for mistakes has been formalized in the last century into a process called peer review, and it's what keeps science on track. It's not perfect, nor is it pretty, but it's the best thing we've found so far, and it's far better than how scientists used to do this. Of course, you also need to criticize for the reasons. Skepticism that is not based on data is just an opinion, and just as worthless to science as any other opinion. The blogoshere is full of this kind of rabid criticism, where people pick apart this or that conclusion without the benefit of careful reasoning. I expect better of all of you.

1. A rogue or persecuted scientist claims that they are being criticized unfairly.
2. Citing an argument between scientists as evidence for one or both of them being incorrect. 3. Citing contrasting explanations or theories as evidence for a general weakness of the field of study. 4. Sloppy criticism--attacking without carefully thinking it through, or without a clear understanding of the topic. (May also be a violation of Law # 5)

====Sometimes when people don't like a particular study, they try to outsource the work of fighting it to someone else. They say things like, But there might be something wrong with that study,'or That guy was probably biased,or Yeah, and next year someone else will say the opposite. In scientific terms, they want their hypothesis that a flaw exists to have the same weight as the data they are attacking, but it just doesn't work that way. While it's possible that this or that study was flawed somehow, you will need evidence of an error if you want to refute the data. Bear in mind: even the least controversial claims in your textbook have gone though a lot of peer review--lots of smart people picked though them to find any mistakes the scientists might have made. While it's quite possible that they missed something, you can't reject data on the grounds that someone, someday, might find a flaw in it.====

1. Hypothesizing potential flaws in a study without researching whether such flaws existed.
2. Predicting that a disliked theory will be discredited someday. 3. Rebuttal by reputation: claiming that a hypothesis or theory has more weight because the chief proponent has X or Y credentials in the scientific community.

6. There's power in precise terms.
Ever wonder why scientists use such big fancy words? It's because these words are misagore precise, and good scientists understand the power of precise terms. Terms that might be interchangeable to a layperson might mean vastly different things to a scientist. If you want to get ahead in class, you would do well to learn the differences between psychotic and psychopathic, between sex and gender, between normal and typical.'' These are only a few of the terms that have specific meanings within scientific circles. The better you know them, the better you will understand what you read, which will lead to success on your tests and essays, which will lead to a higher grade. One example of this that comes up frequently is the word theory. Outside of scientific circles, people use the term theory to mean an idea based on observation, but the proper scientific term for that is hypothesis. A theory is actually a hypothesis that has been thrown to the wolves of scientific criticism, and survived. The theories in your textbook are the greatest survivors of this process. If you disagree with something in the book, that's fine, but youll need more than it's only a theory'' if you want to criticize it.

Repeat Offenders:
1. Theory vs. hypothesis 2. Gender vs. sex 3. Normal vs. typical 4. Psychotic vs. psychopathic 5. Nerve cells vs. nerve connections media type="custom" key="23466456"

7. Correlation is not causation.
media type="custom" key="23466508"

8. More of something good isn't always better.
A Example I heard on the Dr. Oz show has a lady in the show said she drinks more milk and also takes calcium. From the NYTimes.com Dangers of too Much Calcium Calcium is an important nutrient for bone health, but new research suggests that older women who take larger amounts may be at increased risk of heart disease and death.

9. Beware the plausible, __especially__ if it works.
media type="custom" key="23466578"

10. Lack of evidence doesn't mean it's false.
media type="custom" key="23466682"