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

61–70 of 103 posts

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#61

Post by CharlesColeman »

dabbledash wrote: post #55
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…

I agree that there are claims (normative, aesthetic, etc.) that are not amenable to scientific inquiry. But most religious people would claim that 1) a god exists and 2) that god has observable effects on the material world. If claim 2 is true we should be able to use the usual tools to know it. If claim 1 is true but claim 2 is false, that is practically indistinguishable from a situation where God does not exist at…

> If claim 2 is true we should be able to use the usual tools to know it.

Not necessarily. The "usual tools" presume objects that react minimally to observation, and they tend to loose potency when the objects being studied are aware of observation and especially of its intent. You see reactions to this fact in psychological research, which often has to mislead experimental participants to get them to react less unnaturally, for instance. If God exists, He knows of your tests and may choose to have you point your "usual tools" somewhere else when He's "having an observable effect."

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#62

Post by ta1234567890 »

chousuke wrote: post #52
ta1234567890 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a philosophical issue, and it's also an ineffable issue. What is truth? Something that is the same for everyone at the same time? How could you ever prove something is true if you are not omniscient? (ie. you can only experience reality from your own point of view, but can never experience it from someone else's). To complicate things further, we are trying to use words and spoken language as a way to communi…

In the philosophical sense, I'd say truth is what reality is. In the practical sense, truth is what the evidence indicates, and anything else either remains unknown or is false if it contradicts the evidence. We're limited to never knowing the complete truth of most things, which is why we have science so we can make our practical truth approximation ever closer to reality.

That is a circular definition of truth. Which very well exemplifies the limitation of our spoken/written languages and the ineffability of reality.

Any evidence needs to be interpreted. You need to assign some sort of meaning to evidence. That interpretation is subjective. And this has happened a million times in science. If science actually discovered "truth", then it would never need to be revised. Nevertheless science is constantly discovering that it was wrong and keeps updating itself (well, us humans keep doing that).

Science (like religion), is just a system for humans to assign meaning to their experiences. Meanings will differ, just like our individual experiences. Hence these systems are built on collective agreement and continuous re-building of their own meanings.

Also, if as you say, we're limited to never knowing the complete truth of most things, then how could we possibly ever know that science is actually getting us closer to that truth?

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#63

Post by UnFleshedOne »

dabbledash wrote: post #59
UnFleshedOne wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: your last statement, you can say it is not science that gave people[0] their morals, and I would agree. Science didn't create humans, so it can't be blamed for human's properties. But it is a job of science to describe how those morals emerge and why they are the way they are: yadda yadda, evolution, group selection, basic biological realities, some other natural mechanisms I haven't heard about. Thousands of man…

There is distinction between investigating how people’s moral intuitions work, which science can do, and answering the question “what is actually Good.” Many materialists would say the latter question doesn’t have an answer, because there is no such thing as morality outside of human opinion.

I generally agree with that, but would extend it to hypothetical other sentient beings, artificial or otherwise. With every species having potentially distinct moral frameworks that can have different answer to that question.

You could say I'm a species-level moral relativist. :)

Still, answering "what is actually Good" is not a trivial question because self-contradicting moral intuitions are too easily confused. Here is where science works better than other approaches (most of which involve just intuiting harder or relying on sloppy intuitions of ancients) -- if for example you value individual rights and have to decide if mandatory vaccinations are a Good or a Bad thing, there is no substitute to using a scientific approach, investigating outcomes as fully as possible and then morally intuiting at those much more fleshed out scenarios.

Let say you found out that mandatory vaxxing everybody would save X number of people, kill Y number with side-effects that would otherwise survive, cause Z amount of secondary goodness (ie some members of public becoming less selfish) and Ω amount of secondary badness (ie other members of public becoming paranoid and state authoritarian). Now you can look at those projected outcomes and weigh them using your conflicting intuitions and decide which parts you care more about. And if numbers change, maybe your judgement also changes.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#64

Post by gus_massa »

dragonwriter wrote: post #35
CharlesColeman wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Qualia are one class.

Qualia are the only class of things which both can be experienced by an individual (and thus reasonably be said to exist, at least by that individual) but also be ineffable. If there are other ineffable things which exist, we cannot ever know about them.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

> Much of the debate over their importance hinges on the definition of the term, and various philosophers emphasize or deny the existence of certain features of qualia. Consequently, the nature and existence of various definitions of qualia remain controversial because they are not verifiable.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#65

Post by jmcqk6 »

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?

>What if the evidence is deemed offensive by a mob because they don’t like the scientific findings?

This is pretty much the history of science. It is full of instances where new findings were rejected by society at large.

I get the impression that you're trying to make some point about the environment today, but pushing against societal inertia is pretty much built into the idea of doing science. it's always been that way, and will continue to be that way until people are basically willing to put their ego on hold and consider something without judgement.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#66

Post by jmcqk6 »

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…

>What a Scientist derives from their observations has nothing -- zero, nothing -- to do with how they approach the world and others in the way of morality, pursuit of contented life, etc. Again self-reports are not to be trusted here.

Why do you claim self-reports are not to be trusted here? My understanding of morality has absolutely been shaped by empirical studies of moral thinking. When I consider whether something is right or wrong, I'm drawing on that knowledge, as well as other related knowledge that I have.

When considering how to live a contented life, I'm absolutely going to be thinking about studies that have shown levels of happiness tend to stabilize over time, and related information. And if I encounter a studies that is in conflict with my moral and ethical views, I'm definitely going to be considering those things.

That's not to say that these things are purely scientific, but it's also not accurate to say that there is nothing scientific about them.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#67

Post by dabbledash »

UnFleshedOne wrote: post #63
dabbledash wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is distinction between investigating how people’s moral intuitions work, which science can do, and answering the question “what is actually Good.” Many materialists would say the latter question doesn’t have an answer, because there is no such thing as morality outside of human opinion.

I generally agree with that, but would extend it to hypothetical other sentient beings, artificial or otherwise. With every species having potentially distinct moral frameworks that can have different answer to that question. You could say I'm a species-level moral relativist. :) Still, answering "what is actually Good" is not a trivial question because self-contradicting moral intuitions are too easily confused. Her…

I think we may be talking past each other. You can certainly use the scientific method to help you maximize utility, but it can’t tell you that maximizing utility is Good.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#68

Post by catawbasam »

dabbledash wrote: post #55
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…

I agree that there are claims (normative, aesthetic, etc.) that are not amenable to scientific inquiry. But most religious people would claim that 1) a god exists and 2) that god has observable effects on the material world. If claim 2 is true we should be able to use the usual tools to know it. If claim 1 is true but claim 2 is false, that is practically indistinguishable from a situation where God does not exist at…

Re claim 2, I claim that it has an effect on my experience: Though I was at one time an atheist, I experienced what I can only describe as the presence of God or the divine spirit. I am far from the only witness.

Does this count as an observable effect on the material world? I am certainly a material being living in the physical universe, but you could not detect that experience with a telescope. Maybe with an MRI? Dunno.

Of course you can claim the experience was probably a delusion. But you'll never convince me of that.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#69

Post by tabtab »

wellpast wrote: post #45
tabtab wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some groups do claim that "fear of God's wrath" (or Satan's) makes people behave better. I will agree that different sects have widely different interpretations of such.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#70

Post by tabtab »

bookofjoe wrote: post #57
tabtab wrote: post #41

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…

e.g. Blu-Ray v VHS

I'm surprised disks are still as prevalent as they are for music and movies. Thumb-drives should have replaced them years ago. Perhaps there are copyright-related reasons holding it back?
Post reply on HN