83 replies to this topic

[Doki]

casandra, on Aug 2 2009, 04:29 AM, said:

Nabi, on Jul 31 2009, 11:52 PM, said:

PIs are PIs because they can look beyond what we can see. It takes a lot to be a PI and they are PI because they have an understanding what to believe and what not to believe and how to make others believe what they believe.

and I don't believe that you actually believe this....  

there is no other belief to believe than to believe that this belief is true and believe it till I am in a position to believe in what I actually believe and make other believe in it too.

[casandra]

Nabi, on Aug 2 2009, 05:35 AM, said:

casandra, on Aug 2 2009, 04:29 AM, said:

Nabi, on Jul 31 2009, 11:52 PM, said:

PIs are PIs because they can look beyond what we can see. It takes a lot to be a PI and they are PI because they have an understanding what to believe and what not to believe and how to make others believe what they believe.

and I don't believe that you actually believe this....  

there is no other belief to believe than to believe that this belief is true and believe it till I am in a position to believe in what I actually believe and make other believe in it too.

oh yeah, I definitely believe that you believe in this unbelievable belief but still a belief that can be believed nonetheless...BB. We shld transfer this to the philosophy and beliefs forum.......

[Doki]

Might be an unbelievable belief but to believe the belief that we can believe in our PIs belief is the only belief we should believe in. If we do not believe in our PIs belief then to work to make other believe that this belief is believable is not right. For the moment, to believe or not to believe is not the question.

@ Casandra : I believe what you said.

[casandra]

Nabi, on Aug 2 2009, 09:54 PM, said:

If we do not believe in our PIs belief then to work to make other believe that this belief is believable is not right. For the moment, to believe or not to believe is not the question.

Touché.....and also, we shld follow Bertrand Russell's advice: "I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."    

Seriously, going back to the original post, do we (as students, tech staff etc) have the right or enough guts and gumption to question or even challenge the "beliefs" of our PI? What shld we do if we feel that our belief in his beliefs are no longer justified as in ejim's case?

[GeorgeWolff]

It's science - not belief.  As I said, identify and get agreement to the pivotal experiment

[casandra]

Hmm...trust GeorgeWolff to rain on our parade with his dry one-liners altho he's got a point...if we're not nit-picking, science is still a kind of belief system (and in our latest posts, we were using "belief" here in the most mundane, everyday kind of way but that's beside the point ) altho the knowledge produced using the scientific method is process-based, empirically-confirmed and what they call as justified true belief as opposed to faith, of course.

And back to the OP, how do you get the PI to sit with you to identify and agree on a pivotal experiment if he's being unyielding, stubborn and stuck to his own hypotheses?

[HomeBrew]

I once chased something only I truly believed in -- it turned out I was right, and that finding and its implications ultimately translated into a couple of grants and a half dozen papers....   Of course, I've also often been wrong, too -- many times...

[Doki]

That is the true spirit . .chasing something that we believe is true and examining it by science. If what we believe is true - it is a big finding; and if we end up knowing what we believe is not true - that is even bigger finding.

[GeorgeWolff]

Sounds like the original poster is as "unyielding, stubborn and stuck to his own hypotheses" as anyone.  We're not aware that this one has attempted to arrive at a compelling experimental design with his employer or to understand why data so "strong", to his less experienced  and less educated mind, are not driving his employer to a different conclusion.
Elitist or not - the person is a lab tech, not a grad student or post doc., who works at the pleasure and direction of the PI.    

Remember - convincing the skeptical is  our charge in the critical scientific community.

[perneseblue]

The flip side to this coin, is that the "far more experienced" and "more educated mind" of this PI has failed to engage and convince his "humble" employee that said employee is in error.

Quote

Remember - convincing the skeptical is our charge in the critical scientific community.

And that road is a two way street.

But yes, I do agree. ejim should attempt to speak with his PI some more to try to at least run an experiment that would validate or falsify on hypothesis or the other. And realistically, ejim would probably have to go down my path; doing one failed experiment after another until PI is willing to accept that his hypothesis is in error.

Quote

Original poster is as "unyielding, stubborn and stuck to his own hypotheses" as anyone

Well there is that.  

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - M. Planck

Always examine your pet hypothesis. It is not what you don't know, but what you think you know that will get you.

[casandra]

perneseblue, on Aug 4 2009, 10:02 AM, said:

The flip side to this coin, is that the "far more experienced" and "more educated mind" of this PI has failed to engage and convince his "humble" employee that said employee is in error.

I was thinking of the same thing..tech staff or grad student regardless, the least the PI could do is explain to his subordinates why the data is not strong enough to change the direction of their research, if he has acess to additional information then he should share it...is that too much to ask? One with a "less experienced" and "less educated" mind is probably more open and more willing to listen....unless of course the PI doesn't care and is just flexing his elitist muscles....

Quote

Original poster is as "unyielding, stubborn and stuck to his own hypotheses" as anyone

Quote

Well there is that.  

and I second that....I wonder who's the most stubborn here...




hey ejim......come back in here....you can't do a post and run.....

Edited by casandra, 04 August 2009 - 07:01 AM.

[HomeBrew]

GeorgeWolff, on Aug 4 2009, 07:28 AM, said:

Elitist or not - the person ... works at the pleasure and direction of the PI.

Quite true.  I should point out that the personal example I mentioned above was pursued with the approval, albeit originally somewhat skeptical, of my PI at the time...

GeorgeWolff, on Aug 4 2009, 07:28 AM, said:

Remember - convincing the skeptical is  our charge in the critical scientific community.

Strongly agree.  In my lab, we try and be our own worst critics by anticipating objections to our interpretations and exploring alternative explanations for the data.

[casandra]

GeorgeWolff, on Aug 4 2009, 07:28 AM, said:

Elitist or not - the person is a lab tech, not a grad student or post doc., who works at the pleasure and direction of the PI.    

Remember - convincing the skeptical is  our charge in the critical scientific community.

I also completely agree.... but to be convincing you need to present evidence, otherwise it's not science but just philosophy. But if we follow this line of reasoning, are lab techs part of this skeptical population that needs convincing?

[GeorgeWolff]

Not to my perspective - any more than undergrads with or beginning grad students.  Not aware many are peer reviewers or able to generate/report/argue contrary data and opinion in scientific fora.

[casandra]

GeorgeWolff, on Aug 4 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

Not to my perspective - any more than undergrads with or beginning grad students.  Not aware many are peer reviewers or able to generate/report/argue contrary data and opinion in scientific fora.

Oh yeah, Mt Olympus......you tell it like it is, eh George..... ...I have always thought so too..but most PIs don't actually want to be challenged esp not by those they consider beneath them. Isn't this a gross violation of scientific thought?