The reality of scientific research

I don’t think simple definitions of scientific method really catch the reality of how research is carried out. That is why I prefer not to use an algorithmic description of scientific method. Instead the definition suggested by Neil deGrasse Tyson appeals:

“Science is doing whatever it takes to avoid being fooled by reality”

Here’s a nice little cartoon outlining how real science can often be a frustrating and messy process.
Click on the image for a larger version)

With thanks to Biology Update (@BiologyUpdate)

Climategate summed up

They say a picture can tell a story. I think this one is pretty good. Its by Nick Anderson, Houston Chronicle From the Cartoonist Group.

Thanks to Mind of Dan, Climategate: the scandal that wasn’t, Part 2

Permalink

Similar articles

Iran’s problem

This cartoon in today’s New Zealand Herald (see Cartoon: Theocratic monkey business).

Just in case we forget what the real problem is in Iran.

Permalink

The atheist label

Ever notice how participants in a debate will often attempt to direct the discussion by labeling the participants? Sometimes this is helpful and relevant – as when a person’s background or position can give an indication of their knowledge and authority of their comments. On the other hand it is sometime an obvious pandering to the “them vs us” mentality – a guide to how “we” should reject the arguments of a participant because she is one of “them.” The old red smear ploy. (I wonder if this was the motive for the label “kiwi atheist” applied to me in a recent discussion).

I think this smearing is commonly used by religious fundamentalists. Just check how often scientists are discredited by labelling them “atheists” in the intelligent design/creationism vs evolutionary science debate. Very often the issue of atheism is exposed as the main concern. And it seems that this label is the most effective way of discrediting any opponent amongst this conservative Christian constituency. And yet, the ‘atheist’ label says hardly anything about a person or the reliability of their knowledge – and, of course, may be completely wrong.