IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

good science?

Giovanni Maga maga at vetbio.unizh.ch
Tue Apr 25 17:39:53 EST 1995

In article <25APR95.01380045.0191 at UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA>, JARDINE  P
<F3CM at UNB.CA> wrote:

> I'd just like to reiterate a little on a reply I made about some
> criticism that was directed at someone who posted a "HIV is not the
> cause of AIDS" note in another news group.

> This is the foundation on which science is supposedly built and is
> something that seems to escape to many people being trained in the
> sciences today.
> The whole process is supposed to center around the suspension of
> disbelief. If I conduct an experiment with the goal of supporting an
> hypothesis I believe to be true, I am doing poor science. If I
> conduct an experiment which is designed to refute a previously
> supported hypothesis, I am doing proper science. The first thing I
> do if I find supportive evidence for an hypothesis is design
> experiments to prove it wrong. This is the basis of science as
> described by Popper, someone most molecular biologists have
> forgotten about or unfortunately have never heard of.

> The next time you see a post about something you think is wrong,
> present evidence to refute it. The next time you get good results in
> the lab, ask someone to tear it apart. If they can't, move on. If
> they disprove you, you've learned something. But if you fail to ask,
> you might be at risk of doing bad science.

> May your media be sterile but your research not.
> PJ Jardine

Sorry for the extensive cuts. Actually, the basic episthemology is still
teached at the University also in the Biology courses, so I think people
know what you're referring to. I apologize if my posting about that
statement of HIV was not clear. I feel anyway that the perception of the
problem is not right. When I see a post (or read an article) saying
something I think it is wrong, the *first* thing I do is looking at the way
this theory was built up. If I find a right method has been used, I then
can start to find out a way in order to disprove it. The problem in that
particular case was that no indications about the method used were
provided. Since I have read a lot of data supporting the opposite idea, I
suppose that *he* must find an experiment in order to disprove those data,
am I wrong? I have no dogma or orthodoxy in my scientific thinking. Just
like to debate about scientific results, not about self-accomplishement.
That the way that matter was posted was wrong, follows directly from what
you properly said is the scientific method. As a scientist, I do not dare
to state something as *true until it will be disproven* without trying to
disprove it by myself. Asking for common sense and good scientific practice
is far different from censorship.
maga at vetbio.unizh.ch 

More information about the Virology mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net