11–20 of 265 posts
This is the exact reason I don't believe science should be used blindly to affect government policy. It flies in the face of democracy and is subject to falsehoods just like any other human endeavor.
This is the exact reason I don't believe science should be used blindly to affect government policy. It flies in the face of democracy and is subject to falsehoods just like any other human endeavor.
Of course science is imperfect, but it tends towards truth over time, whereas dogma and populism have no way of correcting mistakes that isn't just as likely to introduce new ones.
So my less dystopian future goes like this. Train lots and lots of physicists, chemists, engineers, programmers, materials scientists, biologists, mathematicians. And (shock horror) through higher taxes employ them. Employ them on promising ideas, and on impossible ideas. Employ them on the problems of the day, and on arcane research that will almost certainly never bear fruit. And sure, right at the top in the Apples and Googles of the world, you'll have the best and brightest pulling together all of the discoveries made without all these reproducibility issues.
Or we could continue down the dystopian path. The low tax path where there really are only meaningful jobs for the best and the brightest. Where we rely on Apple and Google to decide what ideas are worth pursuing. Where the skills and abilities of a great many are not used. And most of us fight for the crumbs from the oligarch's tables. And the oligarchs? For every Elon Musk, there will be 10 who just want the biggest yacht and the prettiest mistress.
Let me say that again. In a low tax environment, the skills and abilities of a great many will not be used. And we will all be poorer for that. Genuinely poorer, because great discoveries will not be made. And it is happening now.
And I'll go one step further. We are also wasting the talents of our best writers and artists. The BBC and other national broadcasters are squeezed. Squeezed so that the idea of something as original and amazing as Monty Python appearing now is laughable. And again, we are all the poorer for that. Not just the lucky ones who get to make amazing shows or works of art, but all of us who never get to revel in them.
The low tax, small government world is a step backwards. If you wish to sum it up succinctly, you may say it is a world where, in order to placate the very rich, we take away opportunities from many, and impoverish the world as a whole.
This is the exact reason I don't believe science should be used blindly to affect government policy. It flies in the face of democracy and is subject to falsehoods just like any other human endeavor.
If we don't use science to make decisions, what are we supposed to use? Gut instinct? Of course science is imperfect, but it tends towards truth over time, whereas dogma and populism have no way of correcting mistakes that isn't just as likely to introduce new ones.
The scientific method is important to be used, but don't trust something just because another person believes it to be science. You need the hypothesis and the verification method. Others (all of us) have the obligation to challenge both the hypothesis as well as the verification methods.
This is the exact reason I don't believe science should be used blindly to affect government policy. It flies in the face of democracy and is subject to falsehoods just like any other human endeavor.
One less drastic solution may be to require a full disclosure of the process for all experimental results (to allow reproduction) and place much higher value in funding decisions on reproducibility.
One particularly egregious approach reproducibility requirement can address is doing enough "independent" studies until you like the result, then report that one study only (e.g., toss a coin 10 times; repeat as a new study until you find 10 tails; report a new discovery). My 2c.
Recently I have been beginning to question university education. It seems that today's education system has mismatched priorities which may have an impact on the reproducibility crisis. You see, to come up with a fantastic new alloy, you don't have to be a genius. Or even very good. You have to be persistent, and clever enough to realize when you've found something interesting. You will need to understand your field…
That doesn't seem intuitive at all.
Being reproducible is only critically important if people treat individual studies as meaningful. That IMO is a far more dangerous stance. Any study can have hidden flaws, none should be trusted without some form of replication.
not sure what you're getting at. are you saying meta analysis is more important than individual studies? but if a large % of your studies in the meta analysis can't be reproduced, what faith do you have in the meta analysis at all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The report (not a paper) is actually written for a lay audience and very readable: https://www.nas.org/images/documents/irreproducibility_repor...
It's a position paper from a conservative think tank and needs to be treated as such.
What does that even mean?
You have one point "it's a conservative think tank" - which does not mean anything - coupled with another empty statement.
Now I sure don't mind criticism of that entity, but I find it ironic that it is done with such an empty statement that's just a not very cleverly disguised type of ad hominem attack.
May I suggest you take some time actually reading the paper and then coming back with criticism of their actual points?
This is the exact reason I don't believe science should be used blindly to affect government policy. It flies in the face of democracy and is subject to falsehoods just like any other human endeavor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we don't use science to make decisions, what are we supposed to use? Gut instinct? Of course science is imperfect, but it tends towards truth over time, whereas dogma and populism have no way of correcting mistakes that isn't just as likely to introduce new ones.
Racial 'science' was used by the Nazi's to justify antisemitism, eugenics, and everything they did beyond that. The scientific method is important to be used, but don't trust something just because another person believes it to be science. You need the hypothesis and the verification method. Others (all of us) have the obligation to challenge both the hypothesis as well as the verification methods.