|
Post by Pete on May 17, 2008 10:28:21 GMT
> I think we all agree that one might replicate an experiment by repeating it and getting the same results < As with "mathematics", we're dependent here on definition: what makes "an experiment" that particular experiment? In some ways it may depend on which scientific field you are in. When I was a professional scientist, I worked with molecules (mainly DNA), so the same experiment on different populations (say, different individuals from the same species) should give the same results. But in social sciences or population genetics, subjects where the results are either more subjective or are the result of mass action, replication of results from different populations can be more difficult. Of course, that's a generalisation. And at molecular level we are still looking at mass action results, but these may only manifest themselves at a smaller (quantum) level.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on May 17, 2008 20:44:26 GMT
Interesting answer, Dave, and thanks.
I think that we have some words (like scientist) that carry double meanings. There is the attitude-to-life (and have it forever) meaning and the do-it-for-a-job (and can give it up) meaning.
But some words "fit" that duality, and some don't. and I'm not sure where the dividing line is. (Maybe it's in "you need the attitude to do the job".) Examples:
Attitude and/or job: Philosopher, scientist, teacher, computer specialist, driver(?), medic, ...
Job only: Bricklayer, shopkeeper, policeman(?), ...
For myself, I feel that (inter alia) I was a plumber, an electrician, an inspector, a technical supervisor, but I both was and am a teacher, a scientist, an engineer, and am currently and always will be a designer.
Any suggestions for that dividing line? (And additions to the lists of either side of it.)
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Bertie on May 17, 2008 20:52:30 GMT
> I think we all agree that one might replicate an experiment by repeating it and getting the same results < As with "mathematics", we're dependent here on definition: what makes "an experiment" that particular experiment? In some ways it may depend on which scientific field you are in. When I was a professional scientist, I worked with molecules (mainly DNA), so the same experiment on different populations (say, different individuals from the same species) should give the same results. But in social sciences or population genetics, subjects where the results are either more subjective or are the result of mass action, replication of results from different populations can be more difficult. Of course, that's a generalisation. And at molecular level we are still looking at mass action results, but these may only manifest themselves at a smaller (quantum) level. It's a good job that we aren't on the old board!
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 17, 2008 23:05:05 GMT
It's a good job that we aren't on the old board! Hi, Bertie Is this a reference to how far away this post is from a discussion of apostrophes? It's actually what I enjoy about this (and the pre-restriction APS board), the fact that people tolerate and even encourage diversity of discussion. I also recall a long series of posts about who people thought was the greatest genius of the 20 th century (or ever), which started off with something about Richard Dawkins. At least my point was related to the purpose of the original post.
|
|
|
Post by SusanB on May 17, 2008 23:07:14 GMT
- From Dave M: >If, having replicated the experiment, you get different results, then you have some new findings: you can hypothesize that the original results are incorrect, or that the results depend on the population.<
Yes. I think the aim is not necessarily to replicate the results - but sometimes to see whether they can be replicated (i.e. whether the findings might be generalised to other populations).
(I would always use the word 'study' rather than 'experiment', so this comment may not apply to 'experimenters'.)
Susan.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 17, 2008 23:18:06 GMT
Which leads to the next question: what is the difference between a study and an experiment?
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on May 18, 2008 12:44:40 GMT
In carefully reading the works of Shakespeare, you study them without performing any experiment.
If you carry out an experiment, though, you're necessarily studiously involved in seeing what the result will be.
I'd say, then, that an experiment is a particular activity amongst the sea of others which constitute study.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on May 18, 2008 12:48:04 GMT
In a local hobby electronics magazine in 2002 there was an article about the Segway HT (Human Transporter), a revolutionary powered scooter. (In the absence of a picture of the scooter, some of you might recall it was featured in an episode of Frasier in which one was ridden by Frasier's brother, Niles. It's like a push-type manual lawnmower where the rider holds the handles and stands on a platform above the transverse axle between the two drive wheels.) The following quotes are taken from the magazine's web site where only a brief introduction to the article is given. Inbuilt gyroscopes keep this amazing new scooter upright. Lean forward and it goes forward; lean backwards and it goes backwards.
Following months of media hype and speculation, inventor Dean Kamen's Segway Corporation have finally unveiled their unique machine - a scooter with an uncanny ability to replicate the balance and motion mechanisms of the human brain. While some analysts have touted that the creation will 'change the shape of cities', others remain unimpressed. Do you think 'replicate' has been correctly used here?
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 18, 2008 13:24:54 GMT
... a scooter with an uncanny ability to replicate the balance and motion mechanisms of the human brain. Do you think 'replicate' has been correctly used here? What this machine might be doing is imitating the balance and motion mechanisms of the human brain, at least in a very limited sense. Since we do not know what the balance and motion mechanisms of the human brain actually are, we cannot say they are being replicated. That said, I think 200 years of study of human anatomy is sufficient to demonstrate that we do not have gyros or flywheels in our brains (or elsewhere), so I suggest that "replicate" is entirely the wrong word here. Also, I find that I do not generally move forward if I lean forward, or backward when I lean back, so I am not even very happy about using "imitate". Incidentally, do I move forward or forwards?
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on May 18, 2008 14:54:17 GMT
Pete, you might like to add to your question:
backward(s), toward(s), north/south/east/westward(s), and a few more.
I used to think that the words with the s were British style, and those without were American, but I no longer think that's true. In some cases the words have a slightly different use, e.g. inward(s) and outward(s), but I wonder whether the others are simply alternatives that depend on personal preference or euphony.
Dave M., I'd agree with you about the difference between study and experiment. Study seems to be a far broader concept. In my mind, experiment conjures up pictures of petri dishes, formalin, liquid nitrogen, white-coated individuals doing unspeakable things to small, furry animals, that sort of thing.
Sue
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 18, 2008 15:21:09 GMT
Dave M., I'd agree with you about the difference between study and experiment. Study seems to be a far broader concept. In my mind, experiment conjures up pictures of petri dishes, formalin, liquid nitrogen, white-coated individuals doing unspeakable things to small, furry animals, that sort of thing. I agree, Sue, although the first experiment I ever read about was the one where Galileo dropped 2 balls from the top of the tower at Pisa: no test tubes or furry animals there. I think it's one of those distinctions that is very hard to draw. To me, a "study" has the flavour of a survey, like the Kinsey report, where the answers might not be known. That is, something is being studied to find out more about it. Whereas "experiment" has the flavour of asking a specific question, such as how long does it take a cockroach leg to regenerate? Let's cut one off and watch it regrow to find out. There again, much of the research on the efficacy of new drugs is based on statistical analyses of surveys of people who take them. And there were probably loads of experiments with petrie dishes, etc., just seeing what would happen if, rather than asking a specific question. It's like the proverbial elephant, isn't it? You can't describe or define it but you know it when you see one.
|
|
|
Post by SusanB on May 18, 2008 15:30:04 GMT
My studies are with human participants. I would never call these experiments, though I don't know where the boundary is. I would, however, do an experimental study with people (e.g. lab-based, with control conditions... I promise that nothing unpleasant ever happens to anybody!) To me, the distinction lies more in the field of study. I would equate my 'studies' with scientific 'experiments', but just a different term in a different field. It found it interesting that some would use 'study' as the broader term. This use had never occurred to me before. Susan.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Mildr on May 18, 2008 16:47:21 GMT
My definition is that an experiment is a tightly controlled study in which the participants (human or otherwise) are randomised to conditions, an independent variable is manipulated and all extraneous or potential confounding variables are controlled allowing conclusions to be made about the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. In medicine this is known as a (clinical) randomised controlled trial. A study is anything in which something is studied and includes a whole range of designs from experimental to qualitative. I know definitions vary according to discipline though.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on May 18, 2008 16:58:33 GMT
No ... done it AGAIN! I wonder if it's me, or my "new" function?
|
|
|
Post by Dr Mildr on May 18, 2008 18:15:36 GMT
I also posted in haste, not realising that there was a new page (although probably because I was in a rush to go out, and didn't look closely enough at the bottom of the page). Apologies for repeating(?) what had already been said - more or less.
|
|