Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

Are scientific arguments good?

Q: People say arguing is not good in life. Is arguing good in science?

Krishna: Conflict in any meaningful relationship or friendship is inevitable. No two people process life in the exact same way, and each of our unique stories is the result of a distinct combination of triggers, thought patterns, and emotional responses. For any of these reasons, people often find themselves in disagreements.

But instead of viewing arguing as a bad thing, experts agree relationship conflict can actually be healthy—an opportunity to learn about your relative or friend and how you can work together as a team.

Now let us move to the scientific arena. Science invites challenges. It embraces falsification.

Scientists argue a lot. Scientists ask you to question first and trust things later only when evidence is provided.

A scientific argument is defined as people disagreeing about scientific explanations (claims) using empirical data (evidence) to justify their side of the argument. A scientific argument is a process that scientists follow to guide their research activities. Scientists identify weaknesses and limitations in others' arguments, with the ultimate goal of refining and improving scientific explanations and experimental designs. This process is known as evidence-based argumentation.

Scientific argumentation requires scientists to support their claims (either for or against a particular idea or explanation) with evidence that has been gathered through observation or experimentation and then to use logic and reason to justify why that evidence supports their claims. Scientific arguments use evidence and data rather than belief or opinion to support a claim because evidence and data can be empirically reexamined and retested, whereas beliefs and opinions (no matter how strongly held) cannot be empirically verified.

“Nullius in Verba" which means “take no one's word for it".

Perception is an interesting thing. It is based on several things.

You want to increase your knowledge by interacting with people, by considering various view points.

Argumentation is a critically important discourse process in science and it is taught and learned in science classrooms across the world as part of scientific inquiry and literacy. Argumentation stresses the evidence-based justification of knowledge claims, and it underpins reasoning across STEM domains.

In science, reasoning and argument based on evidence are essential in identifying the best explanation for a natural phenomenon.

Being the essential element of scientific inquiry and important activity in scientific reasoning, scientific argumentation helps people to develop and refine scientific knowledge. It is imperative to implement scientific argumentation in science classrooms, labs.

I am working with the best brains in the world in international projects and we debate, discuss and argue a lot. In a very controlled and friendly way. That is how we learn new things, the right things. About others' view points.

It is even unthinkable how people can put this learning process in a negative way.

Learning how to construct a valid scientific argument will help you recognize arguments that are unscientific — those based wholly or in part on emotion, ignorance, misinterpretation of scientific evidence, or denial.

An objective scientist should be skeptical: one should not jump to conclusions or believe something simply because it is fashionable and agrees with current dogma.

Skepticism is the act of suspending judgment (the opposite of jumping to conclusions) when evaluating an explanation or claims. It allows scientists to consider all possibilities and systematically question all information in the course of an investigation.

Why is maintaining a skeptical outlook so important? Skepticism helps scientists to remain objective when performing scientific inquiry and research. It forces them to examine claims (their own and those of others) to be certain that there is sufficient evidence to back them up. Skeptics do not doubt every claim, only those backed by insufficient evidence or by data that have been improperly collected, are not relevant or cannot support the rationale being made.

Skepticism allows scientists to reach logical conclusions supported by evidence that has been examined and confirmed by others in the same field, even when that evidence does not confirm absolute certainty.

Although challenging other scientists' explanations of natural phenomena may seem unfriendly, it is actually a form of collaboration (working together). By reviewing and questioning each other's methods, data and findings, scientists not only improve their work, but they also communicate more effectively.

But ..... recently an interesting thing happened. A genetic professor told me 'Only children argue, not scientists'. 'When a scientist says something, you should not question it, you should never argue with a scientist ', he said. He also added, "Scientists need not learn anything as they are experts!"

It was the dumbest thing I ever heard from a professor!

Yes folks, if you find something I said is not right, question me. I invite challenges and arguments. But please follow only scientific method while doing that. Never use your opinions or beliefs to justify what you say. I, and all genuine scientists, will never accept this type of argument.

Read here why: Can you challenge science?

Q: Based on the above write up, people asked me these questions:

What if people think you are bad and short tempered if you argue as several of them think arguing is bad?

Krishna: Yes, that can happen. That is why I say perception is a strange thing. It is influenced by several factors. If people are conditioned to think that arguing is bad, they think you are bad too because you have chosen to argue.

However, if your intension is good, if you don't cross your limits, you need not worry about what others think with regard to you. It is people who think you are bad who are at fault, not you. It is they who should worry about their faulty thinking process, not you.

Don't worry. You need not change your conscious-controlled behaviour for others.

Q: What if somebody starts attacking you personally?

Krishna: The moment a person starts attacking you personally, he loses the argument.

Do you know why people attack you personally?

Either they don't have enough knowledge to counter you properly or they think they are wrong but can't admit it. So they take other routes to justify themselves or win the argument. Just ignore if things get personal and leave the argument because it can lead to useless squabbles.

Q: When should we argue and when should we keep quiet?

Krishna: If we keep arguing about everything, there won't be an end to it causing disturbances. There are certain 'no go' areas even with close relatives, friends and colleagues. Like we have our right too have our own space, others too have it. We have to respect that space.

Then when should we argue and try to make things clear?

In science, I argue when the person is not following the scientific method. If he is dealing with pseudo-science, and is going the anti-science way. If he is bringing opinions and beliefs into the picture to establish facts.

I do this because people watching don't know most of the time ( even if they are highly qualified in other subjects and are not critical thinkers) what is a scientific fact and what is pseudo-science. And there is a possibility that this might lead to misinformation getting circulated and cause harm to the societies we live in.

Pseudo-science and misinformation definitely cause great harm and I would definitely fight them no matter what.

Likewise I fight superstitions, baseless beliefs and all other irrational things as they cause harm to people.

I also obstruct ill-treatment of people and other living beings. In one word I fight against everything that is harmful to the societies we live in.

Q: You say arguments are OK in science. But I have been told that arguing is bad. I am confused. How can bad become good in science?

Krishna: I have explained above how arguments can be useful in science.

Yes, in science arguments are used for establishing facts. You win arguments with better data and genuine evidence in science.

That is how science progresses. If you stop arguing, you will never find these things. That is why they are important.

If you question a terrible system in ordinary life, you might invite enmity.

If you don't question it, you will become a slave to the existing rotten system.

It is better to question and change the system than becoming a slave to a decaying system.

If you don't question and argue for or against something, that means you are accepting it blindly which is against scientific spirit. Only when you ask questions, analyse something brought to your notice thoroughly, find evidence through data, then only you can accept something in science.

"Question everything" even if it leads to arguments. As long as you don't use your beliefs and opinions, and deal with only data and evidence, arguments are good. They help establish facts.

0 members like this