 |
 |
KF thank you and glad you clarified that many testers needed to get same result from experiment. I googled "Cell" and got 10 pages and had hard time getting beyond basic unit of life. Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "KF Etzold" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 7:55 AM Subject: The Scientific Method and PD (with emphasis on the scientific method) > Rick posted some references on the scientific method; here is a brief > outline of the usual proceedure followed in research with some coments on > PD and intelligent design. As far as cells are concerned I had a similar > question, which I posed to a biologist. The result is that I now have a > 1000 page, ten pound tome called "The cell". > > K. F. > ______________________________________________________________________________ > > > Ray: > Please won't someone on the List with a science background explain to all > what the scientific method is? Also, what actually is a cell? > > Paula Nixon: > Parkinson's research, what if they are going down the wrong alley as the > pdrecovery.org thinks? They finance their own research and are getting > Recoveries. > ______________________________________________________________________________ > > OK; > I am a scientist, and the work I do uses the scientific method. To solve a > problem, or to find an answer to a question the first thing one needs to > do > is to create a hypothesis. This is a construct, based on previous, > established and verified results of a scientific inquiry. Fundamentally, > one poses a question and then tries to answer it by experiments or > observation. Unfortunately in many cases there is some uncertainty > attached > to the answer and so the experiment or observation has to repeated many > times and by different observers. After getting the same, compatible > results over and over again the hypothesis is accepted as valid. In > general > it not sufficient for one experiment to verify the hypothesis. Multiple > verifications are needed under different circumstances (such as changing > the ambient temperature, whether light is present etc.). There is the > question of whether a natural law can be true or not. Strictly speaking > this is only partially a valid question, because in science there is no > such thing as absolute truth, only multiple verification. > > One of the pillars of research is the ability to project forward: using a > combination of laws we can predict the future behavior of a new system. If > this reliably happens then the constituent laws are generally accepted as > "true". Notice that there is no definite, absolute way to establish > validity. An example of the validity of a physical law is Newton's law of > acceleration, F=ma (Force equals mass times acceleration). Is there a way > to establish the truth of this law? The answer is no, BUT does it describe > the motion of bodies? The answer here is yes. It would not be possible to > fly the Space shuttle, if it were not for the "truth" of this law and its > predictions. It is this sequence that fails in "intelligent design". The > hypothesis is that living things were designed by God. But the scientific > requirement of verifiability is missing. So intelligent design is an > article of faith, the key element of religion. > > But what about laws which are changed, or worse, become invalid. The > second > instance would be due to an incomplete hypothesis i.e. not all factors > were > taken into account. Thus the hypothesis is satisfied but was not > sufficiently broad. An example is the notion that the sun revolves around > the earth. This was based on incomplete observations (and religious > fervor). The first case (change) is a little more subtle. Newton's laws > hold in ordinary terrestrial situations but then Michelson and Einstein > came along and argued that the laws need to extended for very high speeds. > This is the case for Special Relativity > which must be invoked for objects moving with speeds comparable to the > speed of light. At ordinary speeds Newton's laws are still fine but > corrections are necessary at higher speeds. So one cannot argue that these > laws became invalid but rather that they had to be extended. > > In the discussion of research "going down the wrong path", one has to > recognize that many problems are multifaceted and all paths need to be > examined. Usually scientists have a hunch or preference for the most > likely > hypothesis. Those will be explored first. But the others must still be > investigated and either eliminated (wrong path) or verified (right path). > The key idea is that there really is no "wrong path", assuming that the > "wrong path" is not some crackpot idea which also happens unfortunately > but > is usually easy to spot. If an incompatibility arises the hypotheses > (plural) must be modified. > > There is another subtlety. In physics it generally possible to get ones > arms around a problem and have an accurate hypothesis. This is not the > case > in medicine or sociology, where the hypothesis is almost always > incomplete. > This complicates the design of an experiment and the interpretation of the > outcome. > > All of us are familiar with the variability of PD symptoms. Thus the > correlation of a symptom or set of symptoms in PD with a specific Brain > defect is very difficult. It is made even more difficult by the appearance > of confounding symptoms, often due to aging, but unrelated to PD. On > autopsy the situation is usually clarified, but the "experimental" space > is > confined when the PWP is alive. > > > K. F. Etzold > IBM T. J. Watson Research Center > Yorktown Heights NY 10598 > 914 - 945 - 3816 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn