Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A scientist must go where the evidence leads

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 103 posts

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#41

Post by tabtab »

Even in research, when everyone else is zigging, it may be time to start zagging and pursue alternatives. Neural nets have a lot of attention, but maybe competitors will show sufficient promise once enough research is done. For example, Factor Tables:

https://github.com/RowColz/AI

Most of the research on early semiconductors focused on germanium. Manufacturers got pretty good at preparing it, but some started looking to silicon as a promising alternative. Germanian had a head start due to experience, but silicon research started paying off after a while. Lesson: the early leader may not be the best finisher.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#42

Post by oh_sigh »

chousuke wrote: post #19
notadoc wrote: post #8

What if the evidence is deemed offensive by a mob because they don’t like the scientific findings? Or what if the scientist has personal beliefs or opinions that are disagreeable to some? And what if the evidence is politically toxic?

Assuming "evidence" in this context is something that has been sufficiently scrutinized and no alternative hypotheses pass muster, why would any of those three things matter? And if you're leaving open the possibility that the evidence in your hypothetical situation is wrong, then what is the point of your question? The universe is what it is regardless of what we think of it. When we attain better understanding of t…

> why would any of those three things matter?

Because the public is not scientific, and scientists generally rely on explicit or at least tacit approval of the public to do their work.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#43

Post by tabtab »

kiba wrote: post #39
wellpast wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean this with no offense but I think you're reflecting the deficit in thinking I mention. E.g. here: > If you're just saying that people can use religions to make themselves feel better by believing in things that are false, I assume you're using science's rhetoric of false here. Which is really just can it be observed using the tools & vocabulary of science. > I have serious problems with this sentiment that ther…

Now someone may report to be an atheist and report that they have a moral outlook that involves respect for fellow man. I guess I won't insist that its Religion; I simply insist its not Science that is giving them their moral outlook. When people claimed that god exists, then it is a claim that can be challenged. If someone claimed that Jesus Christ came to back to life, then it is a claim that can be challenged. Dit…

Science doesn't create "goals", only describes impacts at best. It has no will or motivation by itself.

But I am bothered by the idea the primary reason religious people behave is due to fear of becoming BBQ. What about personal pride in not being a jerk?

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#44

Post by anticensor »

tabtab wrote: post #43
kiba wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now someone may report to be an atheist and report that they have a moral outlook that involves respect for fellow man. I guess I won't insist that its Religion; I simply insist its not Science that is giving them their moral outlook. When people claimed that god exists, then it is a claim that can be challenged. If someone claimed that Jesus Christ came to back to life, then it is a claim that can be challenged. Dit…

Science doesn't create "goals", only describes impacts at best. It has no will or motivation by itself. But I am bothered by the idea the primary reason religious people behave is due to fear of becoming BBQ. What about personal pride in not being a jerk?

Not science, but scientists do define goals for themselves.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#45

Post by wellpast »

tabtab wrote: post #43
kiba wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now someone may report to be an atheist and report that they have a moral outlook that involves respect for fellow man. I guess I won't insist that its Religion; I simply insist its not Science that is giving them their moral outlook. When people claimed that god exists, then it is a claim that can be challenged. If someone claimed that Jesus Christ came to back to life, then it is a claim that can be challenged. Dit…

Science doesn't create "goals", only describes impacts at best. It has no will or motivation by itself. But I am bothered by the idea the primary reason religious people behave is due to fear of becoming BBQ. What about personal pride in not being a jerk?

The Hellfire fear is a naive interpretation of what most religious people derive from their religion.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#46

Post by kiba »

tabtab wrote: post #43
kiba wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now someone may report to be an atheist and report that they have a moral outlook that involves respect for fellow man. I guess I won't insist that its Religion; I simply insist its not Science that is giving them their moral outlook. When people claimed that god exists, then it is a claim that can be challenged. If someone claimed that Jesus Christ came to back to life, then it is a claim that can be challenged. Dit…

Science doesn't create "goals", only describes impacts at best. It has no will or motivation by itself. But I am bothered by the idea the primary reason religious people behave is due to fear of becoming BBQ. What about personal pride in not being a jerk?

I am not making any claim that "science" have goals.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#47

Post by chousuke »

wellpast wrote: post #29
chousuke wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not quite sure what it is exactly that you're trying to say, so apologies if I misinterpreted it, but to me you seem to suggest that science and religion are somehow complimentary; two different ways of seeing "truth". Two different "domains" of truthiness, in essence. If you're just saying that people can use religions to make themselves feel better by believing in things that are false, then yes, that's evident…

I mean this with no offense but I think you're reflecting the deficit in thinking I mention. E.g. here: > If you're just saying that people can use religions to make themselves feel better by believing in things that are false, I assume you're using science's rhetoric of false here. Which is really just can it be observed using the tools & vocabulary of science. > I have serious problems with this sentiment that ther…

> I assume you're using science's rhetoric of false here. Which is really just can it be observed using the tools & vocabulary of science.

What useful definition of true and false exist besides the scientific one? And why would any religion have a claim to this?

> > I have serious problems with this sentiment that there's some other way of knowing things besides studying reality

> What is reality? Is science reality? Science has models. We are mistaken to think that "particle" is somehow a brutally real thing. "Particle" is a word used to model observations.

Reality is that which we attempt to describe using science. Any other definition is nonsensical, because of we want to actually know anything that is practically useful, we have no choice but to accept reality as real.

If you disagree, please provide another definition and show me how it's useful.

> Actually -- just to make sure I'm clear. You can't derive a workable moral system from scientific axioms/observations.

There's no reason for moral axioms to be scientific. We can simply decide that striving towards universal wellbeing is morally good, and that suffering should be minimized. The difference is that I don't drag the baggage of religion with me.

> Now someone may report to be an atheist and report that they have a moral outlook that involves respect for fellow man. I guess I won't insist that its Religion; I simply insist its not Science that is giving them their moral outlook.

I think you're wrongly equivocating "religion" with simple value statements here. I personally think that this kind of rhetoric is dangerous and gives religion as a concept more credence that it deserves, but I won't go any further on that topic.

EDIT: I was missing a rather crucial 'but'. I hope I didn't confuse anyone.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#48

Post by pvg »

wellpast wrote: post #30
pvg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

both got tricked into thinking that their propositions somehow exist in the same domain when they do not. This seems quite ahistorical and dismissive of a few hundred years of recent history. The domains overlap and this was a fight, both intellectual and sometimes literal that lasted centuries and for real stakes. It has now mostly settled into a sort of polite truce but calling this all a result of some sort of tri…

Take my example of the person who believes in Resurrection encountering the Scientific dissenter. Either they are having a fair debate and they are talking in the same domain or they are not. I say they are not. Yet they are still having the debate. Ergo, I say they are "tricked". What better word to use for two people fervently engaging in debate based on a senseless equivalency? I also point to history b/c it seems…

You don't have to make up some hypothetical, you can just look at what actually happened with, say, heliocentrism or the beginnings of scientific geology. These were real, genuine cosmological disputes. In what way was this a 'trick'? What is the history you are pointing at that clarifies your position?

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#49

Post by wellpast »

yarrel wrote: post #38
wellpast wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take my example of the person who believes in Resurrection encountering the Scientific dissenter. Either they are having a fair debate and they are talking in the same domain or they are not. I say they are not. Yet they are still having the debate. Ergo, I say they are "tricked". What better word to use for two people fervently engaging in debate based on a senseless equivalency? I also point to history b/c it seems…

Someone has certainly been tricked in this example...

You have an ellipse to finish I think. Show us your brilliant thinking:

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#50

Post by andrepd »

wellpast wrote: post #18

> There are major aspects of our life that remain unexplained, leaving professional scientists with the choice of whether to accept the general notion that they will also be resolved one day by the scientific method. ... This ambiguous state of affairs explains why some of the best scientists are religious. This to me reflects huge deficit in the author's thinking and perception. It also reflects a common sentiment a…

>Their domains are mutually exclusive and yet the conversation continues stupidly (on both sides) as if they were.

This may be true in principle, but your whole argument falls apart because religion does make assertions about the real physical world. They (taking here the example of Christianity) they postulate miracles, divine intervention, life after death, an unlikely and unsubstantiated cosmology, not to mention of course stories about the creation of the universe or biblical floods which have conveniently become "metaphorical" after it became plain enough that they were nothing but fabrication. So your premise is not true, and that is where the whole friction comes from.

EDIT: Engagement rather than downvotes would be appreciated :)

Post reply on HN