参预论坛讨论所必备的操守 (原创)---On generalisation

                                                        
Being human, scientists have been struggling to reveal the laws of the world by generalising. They have had some luck and are luckier than many other persuasions.

Amongst those other persuations, alchemists started by believing that base metals could be transformed into gold. They then believed in panacea and life perpetuating elixir. They had limited device and were unwitting in observation, which lead to ill-founded descriptions, misguided predictions, and bizarre prescriptions.

Chemists or alchemists? To be scientific or not to be? The world had made up its mind on the better one. However, there is ALWAYS alchemy in all of us human, including scientists. Intrigued by many heated discussion on WXC, I came up with the following suggestion for those who wish to make generalisations, using the chemists—alchemists analogy:

Chemists
1. It is ALWAYS nice to base one’s generalisation on thorough evidences such as a sensus. Sensus data is hard to come by. Highly relevant ones are even scarcer.
2. It is ALWAYS possible to generalise findings of a study based on survey statistics.
3. It is ALWAYS possible to extrapolate from such studies, but be watchful of the studies’ epistemology, i.e., bias, declared or otherwise. Remember, there is ALWAYS alchemy in a chemist!
4. It is ALWAYS possible to base your generalisation on cases you are familiar with. This method is called case study which is scientific. Case study method is widely used in legal studies, medical science, and some social sciences.

Alchemists
1. It is Never nice to misinterpret sensus data. This kind of behaviour is naive at its best, evil at its worst. A good forum is one to which spin-doctoring does not belong.
2. It is Never plausible to challenge the methodology and conclusion of a study without your own study which would be at least equivalent to the original study in latitude and rigour. Mudslinging belittles the one who does it.
3. It is Never plausible to challenge one’s epistemology and worldview. Free speech, remember? This is probably what a good forum is all about.
4. It is Never plausible to use isolated and highly anecdotal evidence to contradict and defy laws and common threads. This is no case study method.

I declare the authorship of the above comments. I also declare that I "plagiarised" the theme of the above comments from Samnut.