I would prefer the reasonable, non-alarmist approach.

It’s said that extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof. They also likely attract extraordinary reaction. If the object of science is to understand, not to win arguments, then a reasoned, non-alarmist interpretation of the data is more likely to advance our knowledge, and encourage further study.

Knowingly misrepresenting research data has no place in science or any other field. Honestly making big claims is okay because it alerts the community to spend time to verify the claim in a timely manner.

It is fine for big claims to be made in line with the apparent evidence, with appropriate caveats and in an environment where the claims can be challenged and answered. That whole process for example drew me to this course and an interest in this subject.

Obviously, if there are any big claims it should be supported by big evidence. And it is the moral responsibility of the scientist.

I consider there to be a need for some extraordinary claims to be made in order for progress to be made. The only way to expand someones understanding and consciousness of a topic is for one to over challenge it with even sometimes ridiculous ideas that make sense for us to expand the way we look at things, just for curiosity. Later we can then connect the puzzles pieces differently and make great advances.

New found scientific discoveries don’t have to be alarming to be shared and discussed. When people deticate their lives to a subject and discover a true possible theory in that field one could see how they would be extremely excited about that and want to share it with their peers for discussion. It’s up to each individual not to be alarmed by the alarmist, a true expression of free will.

si hay grandes afirmaciones, debería estar respaldado por pruebas concisas.

Do you think scientists have a responsibility to make reasonable, non-alarmist claims with their data? Or do you think it is good for big claims to be made so that people like Dr. Mele can challenge them and start a productive dialogue?
Drawing from the last discussion in this course I would say this falls in the morality and ethics area of science. With the topic of neuroscience and this focused topic of free will, it might be that both are ok. Each is expressing their view in written form as an expression of free will. The statement of it being non-alarmist would be subjective without clear rules and guidelines. Since some much is unknown the entire field and discovery process might be considered alarmist because it might not be the full set of facts. It is simply the best explanation at the time with the information that is available. That said, as a human being consuming information I prefer the non-alarmist route. I enjoy the process of thinking and understanding. Alarming claims and statements of fact are subjective but the science community has a cool tool called peer review that allows discoveries to be refuted or further solidfied.

Scientific data can be used and presented (and misrepresented) by altering the context of the results and making subjective claims about their meaning and significance. This is especially true in the field of neuroscience, where much is left to be learned. Do you think scientists have a responsibility to make reasonable, non-alarmist claims with their data? Or do you think it is good for big claims to be made so that people like Dr. Mele can challenge them and start productive dialogue? Explain your answer.

I think scientists have the responsibility to be careful before making any big claims. It’s okay if their conclusion end up to be wrong or inaccurate, because that’s simply how science works, but they still have to reach a certain degree of confidence before making any claim. I don’t think they should make claims only for the sake of making claims, I understand that claims might stimulate thoughts, but if scientists do that, then what would separate them from say, a conspiracy theorist? So, scientists will eventually have to make claims, but they also have to remember that it’ll be wise to make claims only after they’ve built it on a rational foundation.

The nature of Science in itself is not built on making making subjective claims and drawing conclusions based off of the experimenter’s feelings, however all claims or proposed possible reality should be backed with experimental facts void of all form of biases. Believing that human actions is built upon antecedent events and actions has not been proven with all available evidence to be true so therefore it wouldn’t scientifically correct to conclude that humans do not posses free will. However this opens the opportunity for other scientist to ask more questions and carry out more research to check the validity and authenticity of such hypothesis. It should only be a claim when multiple experiments are carried and all available evidence supports the claim.

The nature of Science in itself is not built on making making subjective claims and drawing conclusions based off of the experimenter’s feelings, however all claims or proposed possible reality should be backed with experimental facts void of all form of biases. Believing that human actions is built upon antecedent events and actions has not been proven with all available evidence to be true so therefore it wouldn’t be scientifically correct to conclude that humans do not posses free will. However this opens the opportunity for other scientists to ask more questions and carry out more research to check the validity and authenticity of such hypothesis. It should only be a claim when multiple experiments are carried and all available evidence supports the claim.

More sensational claims should be presented with adequate evidence and research covering as many angles of the hypothesis as possible. Scientists have a duty to present the facts as they best believe them, so claims made purely for attention or publicity is deeply contrary to the moral code that the pursuit of science requires. That said, the improbable has proved to be true before, particularly in the field of neuroscience, so exploring less obvious avenues of thought can help us rule out possibilities if nothing else.

In general, the alarmist claims seem to me to belong in the realm of the yellow press. I also find that a study that claims to be able to predict behavior and does so in little more than 50% of cases is not worth the paper it is written on. Studies should be carefully designed so as to show tangible results. I also have my doubts about a study that aims to (dis)prove the existence of free will by asking people to flick their wrist. Surely decisions based on free will are a little more complicated than that.

We can’t limit the scientific research whatever the considerations are.

I think a non-alarmist approach would be best

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,

Big claims and lone soliloquies, panache and adroitness, science as media often is censored.

We all work with tools, some aquiring braggadicio in transit- this depends upon self-importance.

When science is relevant, it can often be self- revealling.

So when the concepts and structures find a tension area that can often accompany a silence, good journalism brings this out to the public.

Is this required? Who knows, but it is a process of front-page-news that occurs.

There is of course, nothing new under the sun.

Scientists funded by the public make known their results to the public. Public dialogue is better than non-dialogue sometimes.

Pierre- Simon LaPlace… I think of 1814, states all positions and outcomes of atomic structure can be known. This is called DEMON. Causal- determinism allows media-freak whining.

It’s one of the best way to make it look like a real to life game that I can use for to play with people

Microagressions are defined as verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial

Acredito que afirmações alarmistas devem ser evitadas. Para além dos dados obtidos, há que se construir formulações teóricas para estruturar o conhecimento obtido através dos dados e nessa formulação é necessária a razoabilidade.

I would prefer the reasonable, non-alarmist approach.

It’s said that extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof. They also likely attract extraordinary reaction. If the object of science is to understand, not to win arguments, then a reasoned, non-alarmist interpretation of the data is more likely to advance our knowledge, and encourage further study.

good

Often scientific makes great claims, however, review articles provide a focused and comprehensive review of the nature of the experimental data and any evidentiary claims made about a subject. These papers help explain gaps or biases in the studies and identify areas for potential future research. So, I suppose anyone can make any sort of claim, but it still has to pass critical analysis for accuracy and reliability that the study has proved its claims.

Scientific data refers to the observations, measurements, and results gathered through scientific methods, which form the foundation for understanding natural phenomena. These data can be quantitative (numerical measurements, such as temperature, distance, or volume) or qualitative (descriptive observations, such as color or texture). Scientific data is collected through experiments, surveys, simulations, or observations in controlled or natural settings.

In my opinion, scientists do have a responsibility to make reasonable and not alarmist assertions with their data. Firstly, science is meant to seek truth and understanding. Making unfounded or exaggerated claims can mislead the public and lead to unnecessary panic or false expectations. This can have negative consequences on decision-making, policy-making, and people’s lives.
Secondly, the credibility of science depends on the integrity and objectivity of scientists. If scientists are constantly making bold and unsubstantiated claims, it will undermine the trust that society places in scientific research.
However, making bold assertions is not entirely without merit. In some cases, it can stimulate discussion and encourage further research. But this should be done within the boundaries of scientific ethics and responsibility. Bold claims should be clearly labeled as speculative or hypothesis-driven, and scientists should be open to criticism and challenges.
In conclusion, while a certain degree of speculation and discussion is beneficial in science, scientists must exercise caution and responsibility in making assertions with their data to ensure the integrity and credibility of scientific research.