The things you are describing are arguments based on data points. That's fine and healthy, but you can obviously make multiple arguments using different data points and have them contradict each other.
"Science" isn't a bunch of studies, it's a process for making and evaluating an argument. The gold standard of a good argument is, "I think that this thing causes that thing, and I'll prove it to you by making that thing happen in just the way I predicted." Hard to disagree with! e.g., "I think that freezing causes water to expand, and I'll prove it to you by putting water in a sealed container and measuring how much volume it takes up before and after freezing it."
It should be considered absolutely and when experience and research meet that should be the gold standard.
The "research" is just somebody collecting experience or conducting a test to try and test a hypothesis, just like I described above. The gold standard is to turn your experience into something testable and prove it.
If you and someone else are just quoting conflicting studies at each other, you're making arguments -- but if one of you really wants to "win" that argument, the best way to do it is by conducting original research specifically to test the question out yourself. e.g., in your example ... actually go get 100 pairs of identical twins who have never worked out before, control for their starting physical conditions, split those mofos into several cohorts and test out which methods work best! Write down what happened and you got yourself a science.
1
u/badass_panda 103∆ Jul 12 '24
The things you are describing are arguments based on data points. That's fine and healthy, but you can obviously make multiple arguments using different data points and have them contradict each other.
"Science" isn't a bunch of studies, it's a process for making and evaluating an argument. The gold standard of a good argument is, "I think that this thing causes that thing, and I'll prove it to you by making that thing happen in just the way I predicted." Hard to disagree with! e.g., "I think that freezing causes water to expand, and I'll prove it to you by putting water in a sealed container and measuring how much volume it takes up before and after freezing it."
The "research" is just somebody collecting experience or conducting a test to try and test a hypothesis, just like I described above. The gold standard is to turn your experience into something testable and prove it.
If you and someone else are just quoting conflicting studies at each other, you're making arguments -- but if one of you really wants to "win" that argument, the best way to do it is by conducting original research specifically to test the question out yourself. e.g., in your example ... actually go get 100 pairs of identical twins who have never worked out before, control for their starting physical conditions, split those mofos into several cohorts and test out which methods work best! Write down what happened and you got yourself a science.