What scientific concept would benefit society most...

[Memeticemetic]

A friend of mine posted this link last week on Facebook. http://www.edge.org/q2011/q11_index.htmlThe link itself is meh, but the question is an interesting one. What scientific concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? My answer was emergent properties, his was Bayesian induction, especially in the realm of medicine.

I propagate the idea of emergent properties occasionally (especially when talking with young people with thirsty minds) by asking simple questions like, how many molecules of water does it take before 'wetness' is achieved? The discussion this question sparks is a good means of explaining the concept that properties that occur in nature can be explained as a result of the component parts of a whole interacting with each other and the environment. Essentially, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts; well, perhaps not greater than, but qualitatively and quantitatively different than.

I was disappointed and a bit surprised by the lack of interest on FB considering the sheer number of nerd-friends we share in common so I thought I'd bring the idea here to see if more interest is sparked.

 

[lrkun]

I guess, the concept of experiment. ^-^

 

[Memeticemetic]

I guess, the concept of experiment. ^-^

That's a bit too basic and intuitive, really. An experiment could easily be boiled down to touching a hot stove and discovering it's hot; then doing it again. Pretty much everyone understands the concept and applies it, at least rudimentarily, every day.

 

[lrkun]

I guess, the concept of experiment. ^-^

That's a bit too basic and intuitive, really. An experiment could easily be boiled down to touching a hot stove and discovering it's hot; then doing it again. Pretty much everyone understands the concept and applies it, at least rudimentarily, every day.

Correct. I like simple things. Consequently, a simple concept like experimentation, to my mind, is what benefits society the most.

Why do I like experiment? Because it's something we must apply daily.

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

 

[BrainBlow]

Irkun is probably right on this one.

After all, it was just a certain someone who one day said "Why don't we actually do tests rather than talk?" and changed the world as a result.

 

[Inferno]

Not sure why the link itself is meh, but if you say so...
Here's PZ's thoughts: Click me

Hm, which one could? Maybe "to be able to correct oneself", but is that scientific? Dunno. Possibly "taking all the facts into consideration and being swayed by evidence"?

 

[lrkun]

From Inferno's link, I prefer this over the others. It's simple, the scientific method. ^^

PAUL BLOOM
Psychologist, Yale University; Author, How Pleasure Works

Reason

We are powerfully influenced by irrational processes such as unconscious priming, conformity, groupthink, and self-serving biases. These affect the most trivial aspects of our lives, such as how quickly we walk down a city street, and the most important, such as who we choose to marry. The political and moral realms are particularly vulnerable to such influences. While many of us would like to think that our views on climate change or torture or foreign policy are the result of rational deliberation, we are more affected than we would like to admit by considerations that have nothing to do with reason.

But this is not inevitable. Consider science. Plainly, scientists are human and possess the standard slate of biases and prejudices and mindbugs. This is what skeptics emphasize when they say that science is "just another means of knowing" or "just like religion". But science also includes procedures , such as replicable experiments and open debate , that cultivate the capacity for human reason. Scientists can reject common wisdom, they can be persuaded by data and argument to change their minds. It is through these procedures that we have discovered extraordinary facts about the world, such as the structure of matter and the evolutionary relationship between monkey and man.

The cultivation of reason isn't unique to science; other disciplines such as mathematics and philosophy possess it as well. But it is absent in much of the rest of life. So I admit to twisting the question a bit: The concept that people need to add to their toolkit isn't a scientific discovery; it is science itself. Wouldn't the world be better off if, as we struggle with moral and political and social problems, we adopted those procedures that make science so successful?

 

[Memeticemetic]

Not sure why the link itself is meh, but if you say so...
Here's PZ's thoughts: Click me

Because I forgot to enjoy the sauce, apparently. And these answers are of the type I'm interested in. More expanded concepts. Concepts that may have acceptance in a scientific context but that have little or no broad based popularity or even comprehension.

 

[Inferno]

Aye, I haven't got to read em all yet. Insomnia ftw though.

 

[lrkun]

From the thread starter's link, I submit this as one of the better posts.

RICHARD DAWKINS
Evolutionary Zoologist, University of Oxford. Author, The Blind Watchmaker; The Greatest Show on Earth

The Double-Blind Control Experiment

Not all concepts wielded by professional scientists would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit. We are here not looking for tools with which research scientists might benefit their science. We are looking for tools to help non-scientists understand science better, and equip them to make better judgments throughout their lives.

Why do half of all Americans believe in ghosts, three quarters believe in angels, a third believe in astrology, three quarters believe in Hell? Why do a quarter of all Americans and believe that the President of the United States was born outside the country and is therefore ineligible to be President? Why do more than 40 percent of Americans think the universe began after the domestication of the dog?

Let's not give the defeatist answer and blame it all on stupidity. That's probably part of the story, but let's be optimistic and concentrate on something remediable: lack of training in how to think critically, and how to discount personal opinion, prejudice and anecdote, in favour of evidence. I believe that the double-blind control experiment does double duty. It is more than just an excellent research tool. It also has educational, didactic value in teaching people how to think critically. My thesis is that you needn't actually do double-blind control experiments in order to experience an improvement in your cognitive toolkit. You only need to understand the principle, grasp why it is necessary, and revel in its elegance.

If all schools taught their pupils how to do a double-blind control experiment, our cognitive toolkits would be improved in the following ways:

1. We would learn not to generalise from anecdotes.

2. We would learn how to assess the likelihood that an apparently important effect might have happened by chance alone.

3. We would learn how extremely difficult it is to eliminate subjective bias, and that subjective bias does not imply dishonesty or venality of any kind. This lesson goes deeper. It has the salutary effect of undermining respect for authority, and respect for personal opinion.

4. We would learn not to be seduced by homeopaths and other quacks and charlatans, who would consequently be put out of business.

5. We would learn critical and sceptical habits of thought more generally, which not only would improve our cognitive toolkit but might save the world.

Supplimental information

What is double-blind experiment?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I love XKCD.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

Skepticism.

 

[Deleted member 5174]

There's so many, I can't choose:
- Asking questions on both why and how
- Credulity and skepticism (like the post above)
- Rational thought and reason
- Proof based reasoning
- Self-correction and admitting past-errors (intellectual honesty)
If I had to choose one.. I'd personally go for self-correction. I rarely see people admit they were / are wrong and go directly for the truth. People become attached to what they believe and while arguing for their position, they adopt a dogmatic view of certainty. Not to say the others aren't imporant, but I personally think this would help the most.

 

[Laurens]

One of the major things I learned from science is that its okay to not know the answer to something.

There are a lot of people out there that would benefit from this kind of humility

 

[Inferno]

Substantial: I'd agree, but you must be weary with your first suggestion.

- Asking questions on both why and how

There is an extent to this question. Simply asking "Why?" does not get us any further. This question must be pursued with a curiosity about nature and an intellectual ability to learn.

 

[lrkun]

Substantial: I'd agree, but you must be weary with your first suggestion.

- Asking questions on both why and how

There is an extent to this question. Simply asking "Why?" does not get us any further. This question must be pursued with a curiosity about nature and an intellectual ability to learn.

If you want to be more particular just continue to ask the question how.

To illustrate:

Why is experiment important?

Because it allows one to test whether a certain principle is applicable.

How does one apply the experiment?

via the scientific method.

how does one do the scientific method?

hypothesis etc.

how does one does so?

so on and so forth.

 

[mat_hunt]

I would have said the concept of a field is prettly important. Coming from a physiacs perspective of course.

 

[Andiferous]

Communication.

 

[lrkun]

Communication.

What do you mean? I ask because communication, although just a word, is broad.

 

[Andiferous]

I thought it was self explanatory. :lol:

Sorry, I'm just silly now.

It is broad and always overlooked. Because for want or flaw within communication no result or knowledge can be trusted, and this really applies to everything. But it's not even in error calculations. It shouldn't have to be, but...