I’ll give an example. I’ve never been a fan of many of Piaget’s theories. They’re rigid and don’t account for externalities like a child’s inherent desire to appease authority figures. That said, here’s a really cool video demonstrating Piaget’s theory of conservation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnArvcWaH6I
The comment section is pretty illustrative of what’s going on. Most comments take the experiment at face value. The child can not understand conservation. Watching the video I get a sense that the child is trying to appease the authority figure, but it’s made obvious with the graham cracker question. The tester gives the child one graham cracker and herself two. She asks if it’s fair, and because each previous test the child has been conditioned to say the presentation is equal, the child says it is indeed fair. The child feels like he’s in a learning environment and that he’ll be taught something new.
Even young animals are aware of simple numbers and simple fairness. So for a 4-5 year old to think 1 is equal to 2 is ridiculous. Many studies show younger toddlers can understand simple conservation of numbers. Studies showing things disappearing when dipped behind objects garner more interest from toddlers.
That said, some of the comments in the comment section call this out, ‘the toddler looks at the camera during the 1 is equal to 2 test,’ or ‘the toddler says yes but shakes his head no.’ Or even the tester shaking her head no during this test. It has a feel that the tester has an objective in mind to prove Piaget’s theory correct. Perhaps she even understands, even subconsciously, that she has an authoritative role that she can play to get the result she’s looking for. She has her own desire to appeal to others in her field to show her fealty to established theories to perhaps advance her career by proving her competence.
The story of Ignaz Semmelweis proves why this is important. He rightfully observed that doctors who worked with cadavers without washing their hands who proceeded to deliver babies would result in a higher rate of infection and death of the mother. But the way he presented his information was so abrasive no one would listen to him. Doctors had an inherent bias against seeing his point of view. They didn’t want to be responsible for the death of mothers.
In both ways Semmelweis proves why it’s important to remain tactful in a profession with new research while also the profession has to be open to less heterodox thinking.
With all this being said, it seems like there’s room for more disagreement in science overall. Particularly in social sciences, but I would suggest in other areas. It’s tougher than ever to work outside the system due to the cost of living and the cost of doing business than it was in Semmelweis’ time.
Comments
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I’ll give an example. I’ve never been a fan of many of Piaget’s theories. They’re rigid and don’t account for externalities like a child’s inherent desire to appease authority figures. That said, here’s a really cool video demonstrating Piaget’s theory of conservation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnArvcWaH6I
The comment section is pretty illustrative of what’s going on. Most comments take the experiment at face value. The child can not understand conservation. Watching the video I get a sense that the child is trying to appease the authority figure, but it’s made obvious with the graham cracker question. The tester gives the child one graham cracker and herself two. She asks if it’s fair, and because each previous test the child has been conditioned to say the presentation is equal, the child says it is indeed fair. The child feels like he’s in a learning environment and that he’ll be taught something new.
Even young animals are aware of simple numbers and simple fairness. So for a 4-5 year old to think 1 is equal to 2 is ridiculous. Many studies show younger toddlers can understand simple conservation of numbers. Studies showing things disappearing when dipped behind objects garner more interest from toddlers.
That said, some of the comments in the comment section call this out, ‘the toddler looks at the camera during the 1 is equal to 2 test,’ or ‘the toddler says yes but shakes his head no.’ Or even the tester shaking her head no during this test. It has a feel that the tester has an objective in mind to prove Piaget’s theory correct. Perhaps she even understands, even subconsciously, that she has an authoritative role that she can play to get the result she’s looking for. She has her own desire to appeal to others in her field to show her fealty to established theories to perhaps advance her career by proving her competence.
The story of Ignaz Semmelweis proves why this is important. He rightfully observed that doctors who worked with cadavers without washing their hands who proceeded to deliver babies would result in a higher rate of infection and death of the mother. But the way he presented his information was so abrasive no one would listen to him. Doctors had an inherent bias against seeing his point of view. They didn’t want to be responsible for the death of mothers.
In both ways Semmelweis proves why it’s important to remain tactful in a profession with new research while also the profession has to be open to less heterodox thinking.
With all this being said, it seems like there’s room for more disagreement in science overall. Particularly in social sciences, but I would suggest in other areas. It’s tougher than ever to work outside the system due to the cost of living and the cost of doing business than it was in Semmelweis’ time.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
No. Science is already fairly agreed upon for things that are reproducible. If anything, I think Science needs to be more heterodox to be able to expand the skill set to communicate advancements to the public.
Science is about finding the truth, so rigorous questioning is appropriate. Nobody gets the Nobel prize for just agreeing with their colleagues.
There’s tons of disagreement over Piaget’s work in psychology, but it isn’t being hashed out in the YouTube comments section.
I don’t think abrasiveness had anything to do with doctor’s rejection of Semmelweis. It’s important the majority of doctors are not scientists, especially in that era. They very often acquire a sort of arrogance about their education, that they know the most about everything in every topic area. That’s how you get people like Ben Carson.
I feel like whether or not something constitutes "science" is actually close to zero-sum. You are either testing your hypotheses in a good faith way (meaning that you present your findings to the community and allow others to attempt to replicate your work) or you’re not.
Science is a method for testing predictions and establishing whether the evidence supports a given hypothesis. It’s fundamentally not about sweeping truth claims or asserting that certain things are factual beyond all possible doubt. If a large amount of evidence exists for a given hypothesis, that evidence can all be collected into what becomes a theory. And if the hypothesis can reduced to a simple statement or equation which is always true within its given context, it becomes a law.
That’s all it is. The various orthodoxies and heterodoxies that we perceive to be surrounding scientific or academic institutions don’t actually constitute "the science," so much as they constitute the politics of how science is communicated to the public.
So when you say that "there’s room for more disagreement," what exactly do you mean? Do you mean that ideas that haven’t been sufficiently tested or shown to be reproducible should be given credence just because their proponents have accumulated a lot of podcast subscribers, or something? Because no.
There’s always room for infinite disagreement, in the sense that anyone is welcome to submit any proposal they want to the community at any time. If they feel like they aren’t being given a fair shake, they are free to say so. But at some point, we might have to consider whether the reality is that a person has become obsessed (for whatever reason) with a pet theory they can’t actually support, and because other scientists are saying, "The evidence for this isn’t very strong," they are instead deciding to take their claims to the court of public opinion where the audience isn’t really qualified to properly assess them.
There’s a name for that, and that name is "crank bullshit." It’s definitely not "heterodox science."
Science needs to be accurate.
PEOPLE need to be less stupid.
Youtube comments are not part of the scientific process…
You are attempting to make GIANT sweeping statements about Science based on a few specific instances and… Youtube comments. No. Just stop.