World Science Scholars

2.5 Scientific Data and Claims

discussion Discussion
Viewing 7 reply threads
    • 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 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.

      • hey, i personally dot agree with your comment simply because I don´t consider that science works that way. Making extraordinary claims doesn´t require extraordinary proof, science requires only for it to make sense and have 1 solid proof.

    • 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.

You must be logged in to reply to this discussion.

Send this to a friend