Deresiewicz laments the notion that "science is the only valid form of knowledge".
However, I find the example of equating experience and data as equally valid means to arrive at the conclusion "city life is stressful" somewhat problematic.
For example, many people feel that violent crime has increased, while "scientific" data seem to show otherwise (see this TED talk by Steve Pinker on his book on the topic).
When experience and data diverge, data - trust the data!
[editors] want numbers; studies, sociology. Aristotle, Montaigne, and Emerson are not valid authorities on the topic, say, of friendship, but a study of 50 college students is enough to convince an editor of anything.There definitely is something that rings true in his argument.
However, I find the example of equating experience and data as equally valid means to arrive at the conclusion "city life is stressful" somewhat problematic.
For example, many people feel that violent crime has increased, while "scientific" data seem to show otherwise (see this TED talk by Steve Pinker on his book on the topic).
When experience and data diverge, data - trust the data!
Is data really better than subjective opinion in social research? Sure, it depends. That's the problem with social research, and really, there are branches of physical science where the ordinary person won't have expertise to trust the data.
ReplyDeleteSimply saying "trust the data" without a critique of social research, or abstruse domain knowledge is irresponsible. Does it mean trust the data when you feel like the data accord with your experience?
I know you wrote this post some years ago. That's the problem with blogging. Your old opinions start to seem a bit idiotic from a more mature perspective. I just found your blog because I was researching something about Octave. Stick to what someone can test for himself.