Some things are too good not to share, and I really liked this cartoon so here it is. Hat tip to The Primate Diaries for the link.
Of course its not just creationists who adopt the lets find the supporting facts approach. A large amount of management articles and most of the popular science and other books written by journalists all pop out a theory, and then go and fill a whole book or article with cases to support said theory. Interestingly they tend to ignore contradictory evidence. Another other thing that fascinates me (in the sense of a horror movie) is the way in which the social and management sciences feel they can validate a theory or approach by applying it to past data. Given that we, by our nature, selectively scan available material it is not surprising that it is easy to find supporting "evidence".
It's about time we had a greater understanding and willingness to engage with theory, less retrospective coherence and fewer simplistic recipes. Too many of those recipes are simply stale collations of misunderstood platitudes such as this specimen.
Comments (3)
Dave,
You've highlighted a rarely discussed aspect of science....the fact that the word/concept 'science' has many meanings poured into it.
It's not surprising that this is so. The balanced combination of rationalism & empiricism that emerged in the West a few hundred years ago has been astonishingly successful in unraveling the cause-effect structure of the universe. The resulting impact on human health and well-being is unprecedented in history.
Any epistemological tool that generates so much success is going to be bent by a wide range of folks looking to ride on its success.
And, there will be serious arguments about the tool's limits as it is applied to various categories of questions.
Unfortunately, few individuals outside philosophy of science circles seem to appreciate the fact that various definitions of 'science' are used to generate a wide range of explanations.....from simple repeatable cause-effect relationships to complex unrepeatable speculations.....with explanations at both ends of the spectrum often treated as equally reliable (at least in the popular mind). Management 'science' is more toward the speculative end of the spectrum.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science for a related discussion.
A key challenge is to clearly understand whether your actions (a) are informed probing (based on plausible speculation) or (b) are reliably expected to produce a desired effect (based on a 'known' cause-effect relationship), or (c) are somewhere in between. Managers often fail to draw the distinction....which is one reason Cynefin is so useful.
Posted by WalterRSmith | January 16, 2008 8:55 PM
Posted on January 16, 2008 20:55
Happens everywhere. A hilarious recent example is the curve fit about corporate taxes and revenue performed by a believer in the Laffer curve. The chart in the Wall Street Journal has been ridicuized at multiple locations, I link to a blog I highly recommend: http://junkcharts.typepad.com/junk_charts/2007/07/mid-week-entert.html
Posted by christianhauck![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 17, 2008 12:45 PM
Posted on January 17, 2008 12:45
Scientific vs. actual method is at
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=761
For management 'science' Pfeffer and Sutton are on the case with 'Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense' and
http://www.evidence-basedmanagement.com/index.html
Posted by Brian Sherwood Jones | January 19, 2008 6:42 PM
Posted on January 19, 2008 18:42