I read the posted excerpts on this interview, and I was really struck by Alex's insistence that the interpretation of the results by the researcher is the only interpretation which can be considered. We've run up against that before from Alex. Scientists don't treat experimental results this way. This is something Alex has come up with as a layperson. But it brings me back to something I said to Saiko in another thread:
"It's a given that the conclusions drawn will depend upon your beliefs, so that is beside the point. The point is to perform research where the conclusions are constrained - the design, implementation and analysis only allow for a single conclusion. And that the same conclusion would be drawn by your enemies as by your supporters."
I think a lot of what gets missed when everyone argues about their pet ways of interpreting results is that this indicates the weakness of the research in the first place. If your enemies are drawing different conclusions from you, you need to do a better study. Science progresses when enemies are won over, not by confirming prior beliefs.
Linda
(as usual, Mod+ refers to http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/does-it-matter.1240/page-5#post-33913 )
"It's a given that the conclusions drawn will depend upon your beliefs, so that is beside the point. The point is to perform research where the conclusions are constrained - the design, implementation and analysis only allow for a single conclusion. And that the same conclusion would be drawn by your enemies as by your supporters."
I think a lot of what gets missed when everyone argues about their pet ways of interpreting results is that this indicates the weakness of the research in the first place. If your enemies are drawing different conclusions from you, you need to do a better study. Science progresses when enemies are won over, not by confirming prior beliefs.
Linda
(as usual, Mod+ refers to http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/does-it-matter.1240/page-5#post-33913 )