People have no idea which sciences are robust • Hacker News Board

Re: People have no idea which sciences are robust

#41

Post by pm90 » Sun, Mar 05, 2017, 7:08 PM UTC

dsjoerg wrote: post #33

pdkl95 wrote: post #27

(I've posted this before, but it's very relevant to this topic) Learning to filter guesswork and scams from robust claims is easily the most important skill that the general pubic needs to learn. It's hard to progress in any other topic if you don't understand the basic methods for filtering good information from the many mistakes, misinterpretations, scams and other bad data. Democracy and modern civilization itself…

"easily the most important skill that the general pubic needs to learn" <-- important for who, them or you?

For everyone. Witch-hunts and human sacrifices were believed to help with getting better harvests and they did not. And yet they were believed for thousands of years before we finally understood and adopted the scientific method. If you do not try to understand the causes of your problems, it becomes very hard to effectively find solutions as well.

Re: People have no idea which sciences are robust

#42

Post by stult » Sun, Mar 05, 2017, 7:20 PM UTC

jhbadger wrote: post #37

msandford wrote: post #2

Physics and chemistry are pretty robust, everything else is far squishier. It's pretty easy to get identical atoms or molecules or subatomic particles. It's much harder to grow a field of identical plants or raise hundreds of identical mice.

On the other hand, those "squishy sciences" have nothing as squishy as string theory, which can't even be tested experimentally. In most sciences, theory papers without confirmatory experimental results to show that that it isn't mere fantasy are rejected.

There's nothing squishy about string theory. The line between currently untested hypotheses and those supported by reliable experimental results is quite clear in physics. You frequently see journalists representing the results of unreplicated garbage psychology experiments as scientific fact yet you never hear anyone claiming string theory is any such thing.

We know how to test string theory but we lack the ability to generate sufficient energy to do so. We don't even know how to reliably test many of the theories generated by the social sciences. That's the difference between a robust science and a squishy one: effective methods for generating and testing hypotheses. String theory is part of the "generating" process. It makes falsifiable and (theoretically) testable predictions. There's no reason that experimental results are required for that process, so long as everyone is clear about the hypotheses not being experimentally supported yet. The separation between theoretical and experimental physics is particularly necessary because testing quantum physics hypotheses involves multi-billion dollar investments in particle colliders. Yet once that investment is made, the experiments are effective at testing the theories and the theories are effective at being tested by experiments. You can't say the same about the squishier end of the scientific spectrum.

Re: People have no idea which sciences are robust

#43

Post by jhbadger » Sun, Mar 05, 2017, 7:32 PM UTC

stult wrote: post #42

jhbadger wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, those "squishy sciences" have nothing as squishy as string theory, which can't even be tested experimentally. In most sciences, theory papers without confirmatory experimental results to show that that it isn't mere fantasy are rejected.

There's nothing squishy about string theory. The line between currently untested hypotheses and those supported by reliable experimental results is quite clear in physics. You frequently see journalists representing the results of unreplicated garbage psychology experiments as scientific fact yet you never hear anyone claiming string theory is any such thing. We know how to test string theory but we lack the ability…

The comment I was responding to was specifically calling out biology as "squishy". As a computational biologist myself, I have experience in getting my purely computational papers rejected before I learned that you have to collaborate with experimentalists to get a really good paper.

Re: People have no idea which sciences are robust

#44

Post by dang » Sun, Mar 05, 2017, 8:02 PM UTC

pdkl95 wrote: post #27

(I've posted this before, but it's very relevant to this topic) Learning to filter guesswork and scams from robust claims is easily the most important skill that the general pubic needs to learn. It's hard to progress in any other topic if you don't understand the basic methods for filtering good information from the many mistakes, misinterpretations, scams and other bad data. Democracy and modern civilization itself…

Please don't repost comments, especially not generic ones. HN threads are supposed to be conversations, and good conversation doesn't work that way.

Re: People have no idea which sciences are robust

#45

Post by 77pt77 » Sun, Mar 05, 2017, 8:06 PM UTC

lowdown:

> The fields that were labelled as “least precise” were psychology and evolution. Also on this end of the scale were economics, climate science, and—wait for it—astrophysics. On the other end, forensics was perceived as the field with the highest level of precision, followed by aerospace engineering.

> They also note that classing medical research, seismology, and nuclear engineering at roughly similar levels of precision is giving a bit too much credit to seismology and medical research.

Re: People have no idea which sciences are robust

#46

Post by 77pt77 » Sun, Mar 05, 2017, 8:07 PM UTC

jhbadger wrote: post #37

msandford wrote: post #2

Physics and chemistry are pretty robust, everything else is far squishier. It's pretty easy to get identical atoms or molecules or subatomic particles. It's much harder to grow a field of identical plants or raise hundreds of identical mice.

On the other hand, those "squishy sciences" have nothing as squishy as string theory, which can't even be tested experimentally. In most sciences, theory papers without confirmatory experimental results to show that that it isn't mere fantasy are rejected.

> On the other hand, those "squishy sciences" have nothing as squishy as string theory

I would classify string theory as it stands as impressionistic mathematics.

Re: People have no idea which sciences are robust

#47

Post by 77pt77 » Sun, Mar 05, 2017, 8:09 PM UTC

stult wrote: post #42

jhbadger wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, those "squishy sciences" have nothing as squishy as string theory, which can't even be tested experimentally. In most sciences, theory papers without confirmatory experimental results to show that that it isn't mere fantasy are rejected.

There's nothing squishy about string theory. The line between currently untested hypotheses and those supported by reliable experimental results is quite clear in physics. You frequently see journalists representing the results of unreplicated garbage psychology experiments as scientific fact yet you never hear anyone claiming string theory is any such thing. We know how to test string theory but we lack the ability…

> because testing quantum physics hypotheses involves multi-billion dollar investments in particle colliders

You're conflating particle physics (which does need "multi-billion dollar investments") with quantum physics which sometimes only needs well designed table top experiments.

Re: People have no idea which sciences are robust

#48

Post by godelski » Sun, Mar 05, 2017, 8:12 PM UTC

xaa wrote: post #40

godelski wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statistical models doesn't mean that there is no predictive power. If we look at a (perfectly random) coin flip we can predict a 50% chance of heads. We can also predict the likelihood of distributions of values over x flips. If the system we are modeling is inherently statistical we would expect our prediction to be statistical. You are also confusing the fact that the stuff in physics that isn't statistical in natu…

Your overall point is correct, but I would add that there is no such thing as a non-statistical model or prediction in any science or aspect of physical reality IMO. For two reasons: A) reality is inherently statistical at the quantum level, and B) measurement error will always exist. Thus even our models of planetary orbits are statistical. The inverse-square law, GM1M2/r^2, even if it perfectly describes reality (p…

Yes, but you're implying "predictive" means 100% accurate. No science, no math, no language, will ever be 100% accurate. We say things have predictive power if we can, to a reasonable degree, if our results reflect our prediction. This is definitely true. And most those equations involve a pi. Pi doesn't have an end. There is ALWAYS and WILL ALWAYS be some uncertainty to our predictions. But is it that big of a deal if we can predict a planet's location down to the nm? Would you even say that it isn't predictive if we were off by 10km? No, you wouldn't. Because it is a planet and if you are looking for a planet and off by 10km you will still find the planet because the error is small. It would also be unreasonable to calculate the location of a planet down to the plank scale.

And to your mention of everything being statistical because quantum, well there's a reason Newton's methods didn't require them to be powerful (useful or predictive). Because the likelihood of quantum like events happening on a macro scale is basically zero. Sure, your hand could quantum tunnel through a wall, but would we ever expect to see it within the lifetime of the universe?

We're talking about the relativity of wrong here[1]. Physics wouldn't have become so popular if it wasn't predictive. We don't need to be 100% to be predictive nor useful. Accuracy and predictiveness are two different things.

[1] http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

Re: People have no idea which sciences are robust

#49

Post by pdkl95 » Sun, Mar 05, 2017, 8:18 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #44

pdkl95 wrote: post #27

(I've posted this before, but it's very relevant to this topic) Learning to filter guesswork and scams from robust claims is easily the most important skill that the general pubic needs to learn. It's hard to progress in any other topic if you don't understand the basic methods for filtering good information from the many mistakes, misinterpretations, scams and other bad data. Democracy and modern civilization itself…

Please don't repost comments, especially not generic ones. HN threads are supposed to be conversations, and good conversation doesn't work that way.

Understood. I'll keep that in mind in the future.

Re: People have no idea which sciences are robust

#50

Post by dsjoerg » Sun, Mar 05, 2017, 9:04 PM UTC

pdkl95 wrote: post #27

(I've posted this before, but it's very relevant to this topic) Learning to filter guesswork and scams from robust claims is easily the most important skill that the general pubic needs to learn. It's hard to progress in any other topic if you don't understand the basic methods for filtering good information from the many mistakes, misinterpretations, scams and other bad data. Democracy and modern civilization itself…

I'll come at this from another direction -- is the general tendency towards being easily BS'd and manipulated a bug or a feature? It's not obvious to me that societies where the mass of people are not easily manipulated will tend to last longer. They may be tend to be wiped out by societies who can be molded more readily into an effective fighting/conquering force.

I agree that individual selection pressures tend to favor those who are scam-resistant, however only in scams that directly adversely affect the person. If there's a group/societal scam going on, it's probably individually safer to go along with it rather than buck the group and risk being ostracized.