Ethics: Understanding the difference between right and wrong.
Morals: Behaving right or wrong.

Hypothesis and Theory. A hypothesis is a "guess" or "prediction", based on observation or related information, that is then tested by some sort of experimentation. A theory is a widely accepted belief based on many related hypotheses that have been successfully and repeatedly supported.

In science we rarely "prove" anything to be an absolute fact. In some physical sciences, such as chemistry, we can show causation. That means that our data supports that one action causes another without question. In many science experiments we show correlation. This means that in the presence of one variable, a certain result happens an acceptable percentage of the time. It deos not prove that a variable causes a reaction, just that it has a strong probability of causing or affecting the outcome. We design the experiment to rule out as many possible confounding variables that we can think of, and conclude that there is/isn't a relation between the variables/subjects we are testing. This may, in fact, be causation, but unless the result is 100% every time, we have to say it is correlation. We view correlation as significant for two reasons. First, if we are testing people or animals we cannot identify/provide exact duplicates of each test subject and those difference may account for the differences in outcome. Second, in many experiments dealing with life, behavior etc. there may be unknown variables that affect the outcome. When we compute and report the data we use a standard of error set by the scientific community that allows for a certain amount of "error by chance" that would be normal and acceptable.

That said, here are a few basic things to consider when using support materials to "verify" information. For simplicity sake, I will dispense with other metaphors and relate directly to issues on this site.

Advice on letting your dog hang his head out the window: This is advice, you can take it or leave it. By taking it, you might protect your dog. By leaving it, you might save him in a accident, or from eye damage or you might be part of the percentage who do so without negative results. The author wants you to take the advice, but taking the advice will COST YOU NOTHING AT ALL nor will it hurt any one or anything. Support for the issue is a couple of web-based articles on dog eye health related to car windows, therefore the author did not "pull it out of the air". Those articles are probably based on research and professional experience, but, bottom line: Taking the advice does not hurt anyone or anything, it does not threaten any moral issues or create any economic loss.

Deaf puppies should be killed because they are aggressive and accident prone: Here is the big one folks. This is a piece of "advice" that is not just advice, it is a standard, a DICTATE if you will, of the DCA and others who profess to have authority on such matters. Acting on this information has very serious results!!! If nothing else, it violates decent morality. These dogs are being bred intentionally in order to gain puppies as economic chattel. Then the breeders are destroying the imperfect ones after they are born! If there was actual proof that deafness CAUSED aggressiveness, perhaps there would be some legitimacy in the action. What is most bizarre, is that this dictate is voiced WITHOUT ANY RESEARCH DATA.... WITHOUT ANY RESEARCH AT ALL BEINGCONDUCTED, MUCH LESS ANY WITH RESULTS THAT SUPPORT THE CLAIMS! I will guarantee you that even if research is ever gained on this issue, it will NEVER prove CAUSE! It can't. This is a case in which each individual animal should be considered. Behavior cannot, and should not be predicted to validate murder. If we start doing this, then why not start killing all male children, because statistics show that males commit the overwhelming majority of violent crimes, so why not just nip it in the bud?

So.......when considering what to believe and what not to believe, here are some practical guidelines:

1. What is the "voice" of the information? Is it a standard, requirement, advice, suggestion?

2. What are the costs and benefits of accepting or denying the information?

3. Is there support for the information?

4. How valid is the support? Where does it come from? How was it gained? By whom?

5. Does the the support and it's validity "match" the magnitude/severity of the ramifications of the information? In other words, weigh the costs and benefits against the strength of the "proof". If the matter at hand is very, very serious...if it involves killing ..especially killing a life you intentionally brought into the world yourself.......then I say you had better have some darned unreproachable PROOF!

THE BASIC RESEARCH METHOD

In order to be considered valid, scientific research must confrom to standards set by a nationwide governing board. In the field of Psychology, the American Psychological Association sets the standards for research design and publication. Most research in any field follows basic guidelines and adheres to a code of ethics and certain basic principals. Below are some basics that you can look for in research to consider validity of design and presentation.

Reliability: Research must be reliable. You cannot use a thermometer to measure CO2 output. You cannot test the effects of menopause on 10 year old boys. The units of measure or quality that are used have to have some sort of rational order and relationship. You cannot ask someone to evaluate pain based on a scale of 1,7,3,9,10,14,2; that means nothing! Likewise you can't use a scale of peaches and plums to evaluate pain. You can't administer a test in Spanish to people who speak only French. Or a printed test to blind people. While these examples seem extreme, you would be amazed at how often test results are manipulated by the sheer design of the test! Example, someone wanting to prove that deaf dogs re violent, might interview ONLY people who had been bitten by deaf dogs and then claim that 95% of subjects reported that they observed aggressiveness in deaf dogs. Without considering the people who were bitten by hearing dogs....the data is worthless. Get the point?

Repeatability: You must be able to repeat the test, over and over, in exactly the same manner and get the same results. This requires a complete description of how subjects and variables are chosen and designed. How the test itself is designed and conducted. How the data is measured, collected and scored. If the test is made with identical (or as close as possible) subjects and variables and there is a great difference in the results then you need to ask "why?" It means that there is some other variable at work, and therefore causation or correlation cannot be supported.

Conclusion: The conclusion is the part of the research where the researcher reports his findings. Key here is that the findings reported are opinions that are supported by the results of the test data! If the test data contradicts the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is rejected unless there is a possibility that there was a design flaw in the testing. Regardless of the outcome, the conclusion should be an ACCURATE report of the data collected and not a forum to promote the researchers personal opinion and "facts" that are not supported.