 |
[RC] Proof through Research - Bruce Weary DCIt is a common strategy here to call for "research" to "prove" that a current practice in endurance riding (in this case vet holds) has either been shown to be effective or not. Knowing that conclusive research findings are rare in our sport, the intent is often to try to show that if there is no bona fide scientific proof for how things are currently being done, that we should then be free to change our methods to a more preferred way of doing things, presumably without worry of any harm from doing so. This is a common mistake in logic, and I found the passage below that may help clarify how science attempts to help us understand our world, and it's limitations as a resource for "proving" things. Calling on science to either support a given position, or to refute another, cuts both ways. I like the phrase near the bottom that says "....what we look for is a preponderance of support for our current belief." In our case, regarding vet holds, that would include veterinary experience and advice, as well as historical success. Doesn't mean that things can't be changed for the better, but how we get there is sometimes a more windy road than it first appears. Enjoy. Bruce Weary"Scientific proof, whenever introduced or suggested, should immediately be questioned. According to Popperian theory (a philosopher of science and the scientific method), proof can never be attained through scientific endeavor. This is because science proceeds by refutation of a given hypothesis, and can never be affirmative. Thus, good scientific research is conducted in the following manner: 1. Determine the system of interest and its boundaries.
2. Collect all the relevant information (from the literature, other
scientists, etc.) in order to be able to proceed to step three
/intelligently./
3. Propose an hypothesis for study. This hypothesis must (or should)
be simple, exhaustive and refutable. Ideally, it should be a
question to which the answer is yes, no or a number, and after the
experiment is completed (provided it is performed well), either
the hypothesis is refuted or it is left intact.
4. If the hypothesis is refuted, return to step 2 and reconsider.
Then proceed to step 3.
5. If the hypothesis is not refuted, then return to step 1 and
consider modifying the system of interest.It is important to note, here, that through the classical scientific method, hypotheses can never be supported. Their support comes from not being refuted. This is the reason "scientific proof" is a misnomer. What we have are hypotheses that have not been refuted to date, despite a very large number of challenges. In order to have proof, we must have access to the "Truth", which cannot be attained outside of the fields of philosophy and pure mathematics. Instead, what we look for is a preponderance of support for our current belief. It's a tricky point, and one that has come under fire in recent work in the field of philosophy of science, but it should always be kept in mind when any party claims that they have scientific proof to support their decisions or policies." =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|