"Real Science" with controlled studies is the perfect tool to study very specific, explicitly defined problems. Nobody makes ancadotal claims about
bacterial growth rates on highly dextrose containing media spiked with amp or if a .2M NaCl solution enhances crystallization rates of GDP:CMP cytidylyltransferase in the ligand bound form.
I'd argue that "real science" can study a lot of problems, regardless of complexity. Science is the best tool we have for coming up with empirical answers to very complex problems.
It is not only applicable to very specific challenges. Science works to make complex issues more simple by removing the components within a convoluted problem, isolating these components, and asking specific questions regarding these specific components. Science peels the onion, so to speak.
I am ambivalent about this particular discussion-but what caught my eye was the overt dismissal of gem's observations as not being "data". It interests me on a more meta level.
I would argue that the individual observations become increasingly important, the more complex the system under study becomes. The more fuzzy and ill defined the problem, the more people contaminated it is, the more likely the parameters used to define the collected "data" were flawed-thus the more room for error.
Her observation is absolutely not data. It is an anecdote that leads to a hypothesis. Not data.
I would argue that the more complex a situation, the less we should rely on our own perception. The more variables there are, the more room there is for our perception to add bias.
Of course from the other end of things, complexity does leave more room for error and misinterpretation of data within controlled experiments, but I still think that science is the only method we should use for interpreting data and drawing credible conclusions.
Both methods can be flawed, but one is less likely to be flawed, as this one makes it a goal to be as controlled and accurate as possible. It's pretty difficult to escape the lens of ourselves when analyzing a problem, but science is a tool that we can use with the explicit intent of escaping this lens.
Also-Fi and Fe will view a system under study in a way that Ti and Te will not-evenly a technical problem. If your problem is a people problem, NFs will find those trends before an NT will, very often. Not bashing NTs in anyway, just suggesting to use caution before overt dismissal of an NF observation. Ti will find it a bit repulsive and try and push it away as it is "messy", yet it could be the key to understanding the problem.
Hmm, I'm still skeptical about NF being more capable of finding trends in "people problems." NTs are not definitionally uninterested in people, and NFs are not definitionally interested in them.
And again, just because one NF makes an observation (a particularly biased NF at that...her child has ASD) is not grounds for me to eliminate my skepticism. Yes, that is Ti pushing it away because it's messy, but I'm an Ne dom, so I'm still open to working off of intuitive hunches; I just don't think intuitive hunches should be used as evidence in a discussion/argument.
But yes, once the problem has become very well defined-I also would then default to controlled studies with large numbers. But it is a continuum and you need to understand where you are on that scale and have an in depth understanding of the flaws in your data before making that call.
Agreed.
I certainly do not believe that every scientific study is unyieldingly conclusive. Scientists themselves misinterpret their own findings and others' findings all the time; I find myself constantly surprised at how inaccurate a lot of the scientific conclusions are that I come across in peer-reviewed journal articles, the elitist of the elite when it comes to science and scientific publications.