A scientist must go where the evidence leads • Hacker News Board

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#81

Post by roca » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 3:20 AM UTC

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?

If Hell exists then fear of it is healthy. Empirically I don't know any Christians for whom that is a primary motivator. In Protestant Christianity in particular, that's a weak motivator because it is generally taught that all a Christian's sins are forgiven through Jesus, so choosing to commit a sin will not send us to hell. (Patterns of sinful behaviour might, however, rightly cause us and others to question the sincerity of our commitment to Jesus.)

Personal pride in not being a jerk is a good motivation, but that kind of motivation can easily turn to self-righteousness.

For Christians, a healthy motivation is to consider Romans 6 and understand that if we really believe we are sinners and we really believe our sins are forgiven through Jesus, then we should please him by doing what he wants, out of love and gratitude.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#82

Post by shard972 » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 3:23 AM UTC

Unless its about race then your bad bad bad.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#83

Post by pupe » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 4:17 AM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #6

I think a better way to state this is: If you're not going where the evidence leads then you are not a scientist. Too often we're using the wrong words, and that further complicates an always complex process (i.e., human communication). Other words that are also often misused are: leader and journalist.

The problem with this, though, is that evidence is only as good as its appropriateness for addressing the goal or question at hand, and the suitability of the method for overcoming the gap between where you are now and the projected outcome. Consideration of all these factors is called __research__, not science, thereby incorporating a greater plurality of approaches for addressing various kinds of questions.

For example, treating human social interactions as simulated particles is not considered a good way to understand social relations, according to most anthropologists and social scientists. Instead, methods and frameworks that rely on more useful kinds of information, namely situated testimonials from involved participants, are devised to facilitate reasonable ways to understand what’s going on from an outsiders perspective. The evidence is very different from what a physicist might consider appropriate, but the questions, goals and limitations of anthropology warrant a very different approach. This approach, however, has been well thought out and devised with a full understanding of the practical limitations and affordances of social science research.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#84

Post by DoofusOfDeath » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 4:46 AM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #50

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…

I agree with your central thesis, but I doubt one of your other points:

> 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.

People hold (and have held) various beliefs about Christian theology and proper interpretation of scripture. E.g., you rightly point out problems with a literal 6-day interpretation of creation, but St. Augustine and others [0] were skeptical of that interpretation well before modern archaeological methods and/or carbon dating.

So I think it's helpful to look closely at just a handful of testable claims, that cut across many different theologies, denominations, and interpretations.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of...

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#85

Post by stochastic_monk » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 4:54 AM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #42

chousuke wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most basic science is funded by the government, at least in the US, whose money in turn comes from taxes.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#86

Post by pupe » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 4:58 AM UTC

ta1234567890 wrote: post #62

chousuke wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sci…

I have no idea why this is getting downvoted so much. This is a great, well articulated comment that raises significant points by situating science as a human activity, and thereby subject to situated experienced.

The often-overlooked fields of Science and Technology Studies and Sociology of Scientific Knowledge, which have been around for decades (and which, contrary to what many believe, treat Latour as an initiator of further discussion that has spun into much more robust work, rather than as a decisive figure). I wholeheartedly recommend any interested readers to look into it, particularly Andrew Pickering’s 1992 edited volume Science as Cultural Practice as an introductory jumping off point. My second recommendation is always Karin Knorr-Cetina’s 2001 book titled Epistemic Cultures (anything else by her is also superb!).

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#87

Post by chousuke » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 5:15 AM UTC

roca wrote: post #79

chousuke wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?…

> We can simply decide that striving towards universal wellbeing is morally good, and that suffering should be minimized. Your "axiom" will also have to define what "universal wellbeing" and "suffering" actually mean, and how these maxima/minima are to be computed, etc. That is not simple at all. Having done that, you have to admit that your decision is arbitrary (except, hopefully, it aligns modestly well with the e…

Of course it is arbitrary, just like every other moral compass out there ultimately is (as far as has been demonstrated).

Practically, we already have a decent idea what "wellbeing" and "suffering" mean. That means we can use them as our axiom even if the understanding is not perfect.

If you waited for perfection, you'd be stuck doing nothing forever for the fear that it's immoral.

We can still use science to examine where our axioms lead, and see if we still agree with the projected outcomes. Then we may have a reason to modify the arbitrary starting point.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#88

Post by StanislavPetrov » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 6:04 AM UTC

wellpast wrote: post #37

kiba wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am content with trying to grasp with it and never quite coming to an answer. These stuff can be answered with "I don't know" or "I don't know, but this is my best guess".

Or you could write narratives and koans and poems that explore it and assist in exploring it to its depths. Or -- better -- read the ancient and long-evolved, long-refined attempts at this. Why limit exploration to the narrow (and yet highly valuable at times) domain of Science.

Its fine to write fairy tales and works of fiction, but its quite another to do so in a attempt to explain objective reality. There is great value in being able to admit to yourself, and to others, that you "don't know" without any shame in doing so.

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#89

Post by wellpast » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 2:13 PM UTC

MRAutumn wrote: post #76

wellpast wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trick was in both sides acting as if geo or helio-centrism from a scientific method pov had anything to do with the derived value to the religious. The religious derives value — perhaps — from the concept of centrism, perhaps the centrism of the soul/consciousness from a relational POV but whether or not the litmus paper proves an earth center matters two shits to the religious. The trick was that these two domai…

With all due respect, I think it is you the one who's been tricked into the ethereal realm of 'the religious', which you've used often in this thread to get out of the real discussion. The historical debate came about because of specific claims about the physical world. No one is, or was, discussing the derived value of 'the religious', that is not the point of contention most of the time. The heliocentric debate ref…

> With all due respect, I think it is you the one who's been tricked into the ethereal realm of 'the religious', which you've used often in this thread to get out of the real discussion.

"real discussion" -- this is exactly the trick. you are laying claim to your domain being the "real discussion"

> The historical debate came about because of specific claims about the physical world. No one is, or was, discussing the derived value of 'the religious', that is not the point of contention most of the time.

This is why I say "trick". Yes, the challenge to the religious was from Science/empiricalism that said "Look, I can explain phenomenon this way, now you don't need religion." The latter part "now you don't need religion" is the trick -- b/c it's assuming falsely that the value that the religious were getting from their faith was explanation for phenomenon which is not primarily what most humans are getting from their belief, now and then.

> Religion is not some ambiguous collection of moral view points

I'm afraid you're not able to see what I'm talking about, even when you shift your perspective to religion. Here you're misunderstanding the claim. The claim isn't that Religion = A Set of Moral Propositions. The value from "religion" is the resonance of a dynamic, mimetic process played out usually in narratives in historic texts/scriptures.

To only be able to construe your "opponents" position as a static set of "view points" or "axioms" means you have been wholly inculcated by the domain of science etc. This is the trick, again: to try to drag the Religious person from their dynamic relationship to their faith into an on-paper axiom-, proof- oriented domain of symbol manipulation.

(By the way, if I've taken liberty in explaining your position ^ here it is only to ask you to clarify yourself.)

Re: A scientist must go where the evidence leads

#90

Post by wellpast » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #50

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…

> 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...

I don't think you could have articulated my point any better.

The so-called "assertions"[1] you're talking about are narratives that came well before the scientific method, including presumably your conceptual understanding of the whole model of a "real physical world".

So, therefore, at least for your examples here, there is no way that religion could have been making these "assertions"[1] in the way that you're talking about.

[1] Also this word "assertions" is so grounded in this narrow (but extremely useful at times) scientific/propositional/static worldview. Science derives value from "assertions", "axioms" etc. The religious derive no value from static "assertions"; for the religious the value is in a dynamic mimetic process to the characters and narratives of their long-evolved spiritual texts & scriptures.

We are so deeply entrenched in this "static" view of "assertions" that for many, many people it is the only way to "see" the world. But it is a narrow, severely incomplete picture of the world -- and, of course, extremely useful at times, but extremely narrow as well.