<cite>whether a study was done well and should actually be considered science</cite>
Science either means "knowledge" as the ancients meant it almost exclusively, or it refers to a method of arriving at knowledge, as the moderns have almost always meant. The problem is not the journalists who cannot deem some study as true science or not. The problem lies in their confusion over whether they are referring to a method or a knowledge. Unfortunately, most want to mean both or simply confuse the two. They refer to the method, or the "way", of modern science but, at the same time, they also identify science with knowledge. This is a real problem. For the modern scientific method has left behind the search for true causes and settled on describing nature mathematically. Here is a physical example: a physicist can describe, mathematically, the motions of one billiard ball colliding with another, and all of the collateral motions occasioned by the first collision, but he has no way of telling you what happened to the energy from the arm of the player in its transfer to the balls. In other words, he can draw you a nice diagram of the motions and can repeat those motions under a controlled environment, but he can never tell you the cause of the billiard ball's motion when the player strikes it. Does his energy transfer to the ball? What is the nature of that transfer? Is my account of the motions true always or is it just the most likely case?
Did peer reviewed journalism fail? Yes and no. Yes, because all the peers have lost track of what science originally, and still, claims to be able to do. And no, because it is not the fault of any one person lacking in "science" education.
As a small conclusion to my lengthy rant, consider for a moment all the theories that we have come to accept without a thought and almost always without working through the mathematical edifice that has brought about the theory. 1. Sun-centered universe. How do you know, exactly? 2. Atomic view of the universe (i.e. the world is made up of atoms and molecules). Again, how do you know? Do you know these things the same way you know that if you pick up a barely manageable rock and drop it on your foot, it will hurt?
This type of talk always catches my attention:
<cite>whether a study was done well and should actually be considered science</cite>
Science either means "knowledge" as the ancients meant it almost exclusively, or it refers to a method of arriving at knowledge, as the moderns have almost always meant. The problem is not the journalists who cannot deem some study as true science or not. The problem lies in their confusion over whether they are referring to a method or a knowledge. Unfortunately, most want to mean both or simply confuse the two. They refer to the method, or the "way", of modern science but, at the same time, they also identify science with knowledge. This is a real problem. For the modern scientific method has left behind the search for true causes and settled on describing nature mathematically. Here is a physical example: a physicist can describe, mathematically, the motions of one billiard ball colliding with another, and all of the collateral motions occasioned by the first collision, but he has no way of telling you what happened to the energy from the arm of the player in its transfer to the balls. In other words, he can draw you a nice diagram of the motions and can repeat those motions under a controlled environment, but he can never tell you the cause of the billiard ball's motion when the player strikes it. Does his energy transfer to the ball? What is the nature of that transfer? Is my account of the motions true always or is it just the most likely case?
Did peer reviewed journalism fail? Yes and no. Yes, because all the peers have lost track of what science originally, and still, claims to be able to do. And no, because it is not the fault of any one person lacking in "science" education.
As a small conclusion to my lengthy rant, consider for a moment all the theories that we have come to accept without a thought and almost always without working through the mathematical edifice that has brought about the theory. 1. Sun-centered universe. How do you know, exactly? 2. Atomic view of the universe (i.e. the world is made up of atoms and molecules). Again, how do you know? Do you know these things the same way you know that if you pick up a barely manageable rock and drop it on your foot, it will hurt?
Some food for thought.