Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science • Hacker News Board

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#51

Post by Experimentalist » Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 6:43 PM UTC

zeteo wrote: post #18

'You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe.' Right. The difference lies in the way that trust is achieved. The "I trust X because Y trusts X" transitivity is very easy to jump on, but often disastrous; just ask Bernie Madoff's investors. If you read in the newspaper that "X is one of the foremost scientists in his field", it is also dangerous to rely on just this pronouncement, and blindly tr…

I agree with most of what you said.

However, you don't need to be knowledgeable of a particular field to find faults in a scientific study.

Logic, reasoning and mathematics can be used to identify methodological errors regardless of the subject matter or your knowledge of it.

Also, many seem to forget, science is a process not a conclusion.

We can certainly say a scientific theory is a strong theory supported by numerous scientific studies, evidence and rigorous testing. But all scientifically supported theories, by definition of using that methodology, are subject to modification and falsification based on new research.

I only point this out because of the predilection of some to brand as "kooks" people who dare question scientific conclusions. In fact questioning science is part of science.

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#52

Post by nanairo » Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 6:50 PM UTC

anamax wrote: post #50

nanairo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed I agree that there exist a gradient of trust. But it is this that seems to be so difficult for the non-scientific literate to understand. In part I think it's a problem that society seem to use "shown scientifically" for "it's true". If there is one thing that people should learn at school is statistics and the scientific method: a LOT more useful than trigonometry nowadays! However my point is that it's not e…

> The IPCC has 3 panels from what I remember: the scientific stuff, the effect these will have on society, and ways to prevent them. The former gives proper scientific assessment but the later two less so. One of the problem of the IPCC is that many of its complains came from mistakes in the latter two groups, but they cast a shadow of doubt to the first one (the scientific one) despite the three groups have little c…

1) I had to Google this, but I don't think James Hansen was part of IPCC

2) I agree scientist are people too: you need to distinguish between their work (e.g. their papers) and the rest of their lives. Only the formers have to undergo scientific scrutiny. Outside of that they are normal people like everyone else.

3) When a scientist speaks about something which is not his field, of course his titles and such don't count for much. But my impression is that people complain of scientist even when they speak of what they know, and back their statements with evidence from their studies.

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#53

Post by chadmalik » Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 6:58 PM UTC

I think what he is saying make sense. For instance there is a huge mountain of evidence for anthropogenic global warming and the need to cut down our emissions. I'd say on 9/10 things I probably agree with the scientists, with the exception of GMO foods which to me are a really bad idea with potentially catastrophic consequences.

However, I have a problem with laymen needing to sit down and accept whatever scientists say for the simple fact that science is not some pristine incorruptible institution dedicated only to truth. Scientists are PEOPLE and are subject to the same political issues, careerism, bias to not make funders angry, etc. that everyone else is.

Science is subject to a lot of influence from the people holding the purse strings, which are often industry. Take the recent story that came out of Harvard Medical School about how pharma has been influencing the ways that drugs are being prescribed: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-co... - should we non-scientists not question scientists, physicians, and other "authorities" when this type of thing is happening?

It is a GOOD thing when people question what scientists say. What is needed are better ways for scientists and non-scientists to engage in dialogue, and more often. Believe it ot not there might be a few things scientists can learn from the non-scientists.

I think that a lot of this gets discussed by regular people on broadcast channels (talk radio, cable news) that are really terrible mediums for communicating complex ideas. It would be nice if TV and radio weren't so cluttered with advertising, which makes it almost impossible to do more than make short statements. The exceptions that are good for communiating ideas through broadcast (such as Michio Kaku's radio show) prove the rule by being commercial-free.

Another note, scientists have to understand how political discourse and beliefs work. The domain is NOT based on rational inquiry and peer review. There is no "correct answer" as to whether Social Security should be privatized or if the US should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. The work of George Lakoff is a must-read on this topic; we form much of our political beliefs based on non-rational moral frameworks that stem from our childhood and our ideas about the family (strict father vs. nurturant parent morality), and mapping our ideas about how the family should work onto the "nation as family" morality.

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#54

Post by nanairo » Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 7:04 PM UTC

zeteo wrote: post #46

nanairo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed I agree that there exist a gradient of trust. But it is this that seems to be so difficult for the non-scientific literate to understand. In part I think it's a problem that society seem to use "shown scientifically" for "it's true". If there is one thing that people should learn at school is statistics and the scientific method: a LOT more useful than trigonometry nowadays! However my point is that it's not e…

I agree with most of your points, and the info about the IPCC's inner workings is particularly interesting. And yes, we can't expect the larger part of the public to become sufficiently informed to properly evaluate even the bases of scientific discourse (at least until, as you point out, the educational system changes considerably). My point was directed more at the _intellectually curious_ laypersons (which is, I b…

If you are interested to know more about the IPCC inner workings and exactly what was wrong, here it's an article from a British newspaper (Guardian) from one of its members: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/ipcc-error...

The crucial bit: "The IPCC does not carry out primary research, and hence any mistakes in the IPCC reports do not imply that any climate research itself is wrong. A reference to a poor report or an editorial lapse by IPCC authors obviously does not undermine climate science. Doubting basic results of climate science based on the recent claims against the IPCC is particularly ironic since none of the real or supposed errors being discussed are even in the Working Group 1 report, where the climate science basis is laid out."

and about the Himilayan glaciars mistake:

"This is of course not the proper IPCC projection of future glacier decline, which is found in Volume 1 of the report. There we find a 45-page, perfectly valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice (Chapter 4), with the authors including leading glacier experts"

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#55

Post by nanairo » Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 7:08 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #47

nanairo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About your last quote, I think what we need is to have scientist dedicated to the communication side of science: aka scientific journalists. I know there are a few, but we need a lot more, and like many bits of science they'll need to be sometimes paid with public money. This seems to me the only way that you can keep the scientist working on the science, and still answer all the questions that people have. Basically…

[deleted]

True, but what is the alternative? To be at the receiving end of all the mud-slinging? (Kind of like Obama and the Democrats in the USA ;) )

At least you would end up with people despising the think-tanks and not the scientist. :) Too optimistic? Of course in an ideal world journalist would start doing proper research and fact checking, but now we are talking sci-fi. ;)

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#56

Post by Tamerlin » Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 7:10 PM UTC

zeteo wrote: post #18

'You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe.' Right. The difference lies in the way that trust is achieved. The "I trust X because Y trusts X" transitivity is very easy to jump on, but often disastrous; just ask Bernie Madoff's investors. If you read in the newspaper that "X is one of the foremost scientists in his field", it is also dangerous to rely on just this pronouncement, and blindly tr…

"On the other hand, things like climate science seem (to me at least) to rely much more on the argument from authority for gaining lay support."

Have you looked at any of the actual research? It sounds more like you're criticizing the very pseudo-science that the climate science community is battling.

The actual researchers are using a combination of meteorological models, telemetry (if you've seen the film "Twister" you've seen a Hollywood-ized version of an actual piece of science in their flock of birds), and empirical observational evidence (e.g. presented in "Planet Ice").

A lot of organizations that fund a lot of the climate research, including NOAA, have been going to great lengths to stifle it and obfuscate the actual message that they send out to the public.

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#57

Post by zeteo » Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 7:11 PM UTC

Experimentalist wrote: post #51

zeteo wrote: post #18

'You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe.' Right. The difference lies in the way that trust is achieved. The "I trust X because Y trusts X" transitivity is very easy to jump on, but often disastrous; just ask Bernie Madoff's investors. If you read in the newspaper that "X is one of the foremost scientists in his field", it is also dangerous to rely on just this pronouncement, and blindly tr…

I agree with most of what you said. However, you don't need to be knowledgeable of a particular field to find faults in a scientific study. Logic, reasoning and mathematics can be used to identify methodological errors regardless of the subject matter or your knowledge of it. Also, many seem to forget, science is a process not a conclusion. We can certainly say a scientific theory is a strong theory supported by nume…

You need to know the basic vocabulary. When someone says that two genomes are 95% identical, that has a very precise meaning. You need to know genomes are made of chromosomes, containing long strings built with four letters, that amino-acids are made of groups of three of these letters, and that the possible mutations include deletions and insertions as well as substitutions. Once you know this, the claim is a mathematical statement, and you can test it in many ways.

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#58

Post by zeteo » Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 7:49 PM UTC

Tamerlin wrote: post #56

zeteo wrote: post #18

'You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe.' Right. The difference lies in the way that trust is achieved. The "I trust X because Y trusts X" transitivity is very easy to jump on, but often disastrous; just ask Bernie Madoff's investors. If you read in the newspaper that "X is one of the foremost scientists in his field", it is also dangerous to rely on just this pronouncement, and blindly tr…

"On the other hand, things like climate science seem (to me at least) to rely much more on the argument from authority for gaining lay support." Have you looked at any of the actual research? It sounds more like you're criticizing the very pseudo-science that the climate science community is battling. The actual researchers are using a combination of meteorological models, telemetry (if you've seen the film "Twister"…

I'm sure there is a lot of good science happening in climatology. I'm not so sure, however, how much of the sound science is of the predictive variety, and how much is merely concerned with historical reconstructions. Being able to do the latter doesn't give you the ability to do the former, especially if the system is complex enough / chaotic.

What I definitely can take issue with is the way the science is presented to laypersons, especially laypersons with an intellectual bent. Granted this is mainly not the work of the scientists themselves, but neither do they seem to do anything to discourage it.

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#59

Post by Experimentalist » Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 7:55 PM UTC

zeteo wrote: post #57

Experimentalist wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with most of what you said. However, you don't need to be knowledgeable of a particular field to find faults in a scientific study. Logic, reasoning and mathematics can be used to identify methodological errors regardless of the subject matter or your knowledge of it. Also, many seem to forget, science is a process not a conclusion. We can certainly say a scientific theory is a strong theory supported by nume…

You need to know the basic vocabulary. When someone says that two genomes are 95% identical, that has a very precise meaning. You need to know genomes are made of chromosomes, containing long strings built with four letters, that amino-acids are made of groups of three of these letters, and that the possible mutations include deletions and insertions as well as substitutions. Once you know this, the claim is a mathem…

And my point, which you get to at the end of your msg, is that a mathematical or logical error can invalidate a hypothesis regardless of the subject matter of the datapoints being measured.

If you say 10 nuclear reactors + 10 nuclear reactors = 25 nuclear reactors. I can prove that wrong mathematically without knowing anything about nuclear reactors.

That's all I'm saying-- you don't have to necessarily have to know something about the subject matter to prove it wrong logically.

Likewise, I can evaluate a statement on the correlation of datapoints of a genome without knowing anything about what a genome does or is. (assuming you have defined the datapoints)

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#60

Post by praptak » Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 8:01 PM UTC

adolph wrote: post #16

praptak wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true." I don't think he is advocating that. Trusting scientists because they use controlled experiment, peer review and other similar tools is quite a different thing than trusting them based on authority.

From the interview: Don’t come up with a view, find everybody who agrees with it, and then say, “Look at this, I must be right.” Start off by saying, “Who do I trust?” On global warming, for example, I happen to trust climate experts, world academies of science, Nobel laureates, and certain science journalists. You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe. It sounds like he is advocating a trust…

The titles, organization membership, scientific prizes are of course a kind of authority, but they are not assigned based on authority alone. It is a whole system built upon peer review, reproducible experiments, verifiable hypotheses and so on.