Quotes from exactly two people (a religious scholar and a literary studies scholar) provide the basis for the title.

There are no statistics quoted (if they are present in the original survey).

Furthermore, the quotes specifically do not doubt the scientific method -- but rather the applicability of scientific methods to the study of the human condition.

We all love science, but the scientific method is not applicable to everything - not even to all parts of what people see as science. For one, that's not how many rich areas of mathematics were discovered and developed (e.g. non-Euclidian geometry makes for a nice example).

Insofar, there are great obstacles to applying the scientific method to social sciences. Try building a predictive model for sin. Even if your model is perfect, it will only be perfect to you.

EDIT: the quoted paper, of course, doesn't support the title, and the quotes were taken somewhat out of context. See my comment below.

The original paper, rife with statistics and quotes, is here: http://journals.academicstudiespress.com/index.php/ESIC/arti...

Thanks; the relevant page in the paper is 25, and very clearly, the people in the group do not doubt the scientific method.

Specifically, the negatively-correlated Scientific Explanation factor is defined on page 6:

"The second factor, accounting for 12.6% of the total variance, was defined by the four items stating that science can explain nature, human behavior, imaginative artifacts, and subjective human experience. We labeled this factor Scientific Explanation."

That is, "Scientific Explanation" is a combination of the following factors on page 8 (it's the 2nd eigenvector in the PCA of the survey results):

-- Nature forms a unified structure that can be objectively known by science.

-- Human behavior can be objectively explained by science.

-- Subjective human experience can be explained scientifically.

-- Imaginative artifacts like music, painting, and literature can be objectively understood using scientific knowledge

I don't doubt the scientific method in the slightest, and yet even with the most optimistic hopes for science, my answers would be:

-- NO, as science (and the scientific method) aren't about that (e.g. the "shut up and calculate" approach to quantum mechanics). We can study the structures and their effects, but understanding them is more philosophy than science, and any knowledge or understanding is always going to be incomplete as the boundary of our knowledge becomes more vast.

-- MAYBE, leaning towards LIKELY NOT, because I think this is equivalent to building a strong AI

-- NO, by definition of subjectivity this falls outside of the domain of science

-- NO, for the same reason.

Nuances like this are absent from the article.

This is some very shoddy journalism.

Anyone who suggests we know enough to state confidently whether "nature" or "nurture" is the predominant force in human development is either ignorant, deluded, or both. The simple truth is that we have only begun to scratch the surface in this area. Its one thing to speculate, and entirely another thing to claim enough knowledge to make a confident assessment (let alone know for sure).

FWIW, there is actually a pretty great technique for sussing out the degree to which environment and heredity impact various traits: twin studies.

Twin studies have repeatedly shown that genetics contribute from 30%-80% of the variance in most psychological traits. Interestingly, they have also shown that the shared environment (family, parents, socioeconomic status, etc.) has zero contribution to variation in psychological traits. All of the environmental variation is due to what is called the non-shared environment.

I highly recommend a book by Judith Rich Harris called The Nurture Assumption if this kind of stuff is interesting to you.