Science without Validation in a World without Meaning • Hacker News Board

Re: Science without Validation in a World without Meaning

#21

Post by snowwrestler » Tue, Jun 02, 2020, 8:30 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #18

snowwrestler wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no sidelines in public policy. There's nowhere to wait to see how things turn out before making a decision. So, there are no neutral decisions. "Waiting until we're more sure about something" is not actually waiting, it is an affirmative decision to disregard what we think we know right now. That can be a valid choice, and something to debate, but it's fundamentally different from the feined neutrality of t…

> "Waiting until we're more sure about something" is not actually waiting, it is an affirmative decision to disregard what we think we know right now. No, it's an affirmative choice to not impose a public policy on everyone based on what we think we know right now. And often that is the right choice. > To make such an argument requires attacking that knowledge directly, showing specifically how it's wrong. Not just v…

Everyone is already under the imposition of public policy, right now. Today's society is not neutral just because it is today.

Edit to add: the public policy imposed on us today is based on what we thought we knew back when it was put in place.

Re: Science without Validation in a World without Meaning

#22

Post by btrettel » Tue, Jun 02, 2020, 8:35 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #4

An article by an electrical engineer, published in a political journal, about climate change... I had low hopes, which were met. IMO few categories of professions have a harder time understanding cutting-edge science than engineers. That is because they think they know science because they use similar mathematical and technical tools, when in fact the professions do the exact opposite of one another. Engineers use wh…

You claim that engineers apply known science, and consequently have a hard time understanding and doing quality science themselves. This is a common view in some groups, but it isn't true in my experience. Fact is that engineers receive training in science that is similar that of scientists as far as I can tell. (I'd argue that it's superior in some aspects!) Don't focus too much on the titles. Look at the content of the curriculum.

Full disclosure: I haven't read the linked article and am not defending or endorsing it here, just trying to correct a misconception about engineers. I have a BS and MS in engineering, and am almost done a PhD in engineering, where I have basically conducted applied scientific research. I am friends with quite a few physicists and have heard variations of your argument from them many times. When they ask why I didn't get a degree in physics, my answer is easy: "Physics" is more accurately "modern physics". Consequently, fluid dynamics (my area) is rarely studied in physics departments. Typically one gets a degree in aerospace or mechanical engineering to become a fluid "physicist".

Also, I haven't seen any clear data showing that engineers are more prone to unqualified statements that than non-engineers. I think there is something to this but I would attribute it to engineers (by title) seeming more conservative and religious than scientists, and they are willing to challenge the status-quo here. The problem in my view is not engineers being less qualified to do and understand science.

Re: Science without Validation in a World without Meaning

#23

Post by guscost » Tue, Jun 02, 2020, 8:42 PM UTC

pjkundert wrote: post #20

paganel wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But we don't. And the only way to expand what we know is to spend a ton of time doing things that we don't know. That can sound great, at least from a scientist's point of view, the issue is that many times those "things the scientists don't know about" are taken as a given (i.e. closer to the "truth" compared to the things that non-scientists reason about) and they come back to bite us non-scientists, meaning the…

That's a great example; and, the instant we got 1 (one!) report that gave evidence of a significant percentage of the population having experienced the virus with few symptoms -- thus lowering the CFR (Case Fatality Rate) for that segment of the population to something near a low multiple of the normal Flu -- the "lockdown" hypothesis should have been discarded, violently, for that segment of the population! But, it…

The botched response to COVID-19 will bring the whole institution of modern science crashing down, when all is said and done. Maybe you don't want to believe that, but there it is: https://guscost.com/2020/05/12/pandemic-woo/

By the way, I still have not heard of a single serosurvey being run in South Korea. Why is that?

Re: Science without Validation in a World without Meaning

#24

Post by snowwrestler » Tue, Jun 02, 2020, 8:43 PM UTC

btrettel wrote: post #22

snowwrestler wrote: post #4

An article by an electrical engineer, published in a political journal, about climate change... I had low hopes, which were met. IMO few categories of professions have a harder time understanding cutting-edge science than engineers. That is because they think they know science because they use similar mathematical and technical tools, when in fact the professions do the exact opposite of one another. Engineers use wh…

You claim that engineers apply known science, and consequently have a hard time understanding and doing quality science themselves. This is a common view in some groups, but it isn't true in my experience. Fact is that engineers receive training in science that is similar that of scientists as far as I can tell. (I'd argue that it's superior in some aspects!) Don't focus too much on the titles . Look at the content o…

I want to be clear that I'm not intending to make a value judgment, like scientists are better than engineers or vice versa. And I agree that it's not about degrees; people with engineering degrees work in science and vice versa.

Re: Science without Validation in a World without Meaning

#25

Post by didibus » Tue, Jun 02, 2020, 8:50 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #18

snowwrestler wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no sidelines in public policy. There's nowhere to wait to see how things turn out before making a decision. So, there are no neutral decisions. "Waiting until we're more sure about something" is not actually waiting, it is an affirmative decision to disregard what we think we know right now. That can be a valid choice, and something to debate, but it's fundamentally different from the feined neutrality of t…

> "Waiting until we're more sure about something" is not actually waiting, it is an affirmative decision to disregard what we think we know right now. No, it's an affirmative choice to not impose a public policy on everyone based on what we think we know right now. And often that is the right choice. > To make such an argument requires attacking that knowledge directly, showing specifically how it's wrong. Not just v…

Hum, I think both of you provide a good point. Ultimately though, I have to agree with snowwrestler, public policy often needs to make a decision with incomplete information. There's probably a middle ground here, I'd say having 70% of the information, something like that.

Otherwise, it is too slow to act to prevent future problems.

In that regard, I feel it's best paralleled with business. Business decisions are often made with incomplete information, to get a competitive advantage. But you always need to weigh the risk/reward potential.

Feel it's the same for public policy. Depending on the potential risk of a particular policy, pitched against the level of confidence in the information that supports it, and you can arrive at a decision. I don't think it make sense to say, always wait for the confidence level to be approaching 100%. You've got to take calculated risks sometimes.

Re: Science without Validation in a World without Meaning

#26

Post by btrettel » Tue, Jun 02, 2020, 8:50 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #24

btrettel wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You claim that engineers apply known science, and consequently have a hard time understanding and doing quality science themselves. This is a common view in some groups, but it isn't true in my experience. Fact is that engineers receive training in science that is similar that of scientists as far as I can tell. (I'd argue that it's superior in some aspects!) Don't focus too much on the titles . Look at the content o…

I want to be clear that I'm not intending to make a value judgment, like scientists are better than engineers or vice versa. And I agree that it's not about degrees; people with engineering degrees work in science and vice versa.

Well, the following seems fairly harsh to me, and I would recommend rephrasing it:

> IMO few categories of professions have a harder time understanding cutting-edge science than engineers. That is because they think they know science because they use similar mathematical and technical tools, when in fact the professions do the exact opposite of one another.

The wording "few categories" in particular seems hyperbolic. I think many non-STEM folks would have a much harder time understanding science than engineers.

Re: Science without Validation in a World without Meaning

#27

Post by bobbydroptables » Tue, Jun 02, 2020, 8:52 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #18

snowwrestler wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no sidelines in public policy. There's nowhere to wait to see how things turn out before making a decision. So, there are no neutral decisions. "Waiting until we're more sure about something" is not actually waiting, it is an affirmative decision to disregard what we think we know right now. That can be a valid choice, and something to debate, but it's fundamentally different from the feined neutrality of t…

> "Waiting until we're more sure about something" is not actually waiting, it is an affirmative decision to disregard what we think we know right now. No, it's an affirmative choice to not impose a public policy on everyone based on what we think we know right now. And often that is the right choice. > To make such an argument requires attacking that knowledge directly, showing specifically how it's wrong. Not just v…

>No, it's an affirmative choice to not impose a public policy on everyone based on what we think we know right now.

You're either misunderstanding his point or misunderstanding reality.

Our public policy today endorses (and heavily subsidizes) the burning of carbon on a scale never before tested.

Why should the default position be to subsidize this as opposed to alternative means?

Or are you arguing that we should be agnostic about the science and thus stop burning all carbon immediately (i.e., returning to a scientifically validated state in the past where we didn't burn carbon)?

>You have this backwards. Claimed knowledge doesn't get to be assumed to be right until it's shown to be wrong.

I'm guessing you have it backwards but I'll let you explain. Which knowledge do you think we are claiming that we shouldn't assume to be right? Give a concrete example and we can discuss. If you think we can "assume its safe to burn obscene amounts of carbon" without any evidence of that safety, then you are the one who has it backwards.

You can't make a public policy that is agnostic to the science of burning of fossil fuels at current levels. It's clearly unsustainable, but let's set that aside. If you want to argue it's sustainable and should continue, you would still need to rely on (nonexistent) science to make your case. It's not an argument to say "this is how we done things for a long time so this way doesn't need to be supported by science." That's illogical.

Re: Science without Validation in a World without Meaning

#28

Post by scottishcow » Tue, Jun 02, 2020, 9:06 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #4

An article by an electrical engineer, published in a political journal, about climate change... I had low hopes, which were met. IMO few categories of professions have a harder time understanding cutting-edge science than engineers. That is because they think they know science because they use similar mathematical and technical tools, when in fact the professions do the exact opposite of one another. Engineers use wh…

You make it sound as if the author is some middling engineer building smartphones for Apple.

An EE professor at a well-regarded research university deals with the scientific method all the time. Whatever opinion you may have about the article, as far as I can tell the author is certainly not on "the sidelines" and more than qualified to write about the state of science.

Re: Science without Validation in a World without Meaning

#29

Post by bobbydroptables » Tue, Jun 02, 2020, 9:16 PM UTC

didibus wrote: post #25

pdonis wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Waiting until we're more sure about something" is not actually waiting, it is an affirmative decision to disregard what we think we know right now. No, it's an affirmative choice to not impose a public policy on everyone based on what we think we know right now. And often that is the right choice. > To make such an argument requires attacking that knowledge directly, showing specifically how it's wrong. Not just v…

Hum, I think both of you provide a good point. Ultimately though, I have to agree with snowwrestler, public policy often needs to make a decision with incomplete information. There's probably a middle ground here, I'd say having 70% of the information, something like that. Otherwise, it is too slow to act to prevent future problems. In that regard, I feel it's best paralleled with business. Business decisions are oft…

I think only snowwrestler has a good point. "Waiting for the science" is the same as saying "we know for a fact that burning carbon is safe" if both of those result in burning unsustainable amounts of carbon.

>I'd say having 70% of the information, something like that.

This is still missing the point. This means that you need only 31% of science to continue burning carbon, but you need 70% to stop burning carbon. You have created an asymmetry that's not justified by anything (let alone science). Public policy cannot be agnostic about the science. It's not possible.

If you say "let's wait" you're saying "it's safe to keep doing what we're doing" even though you don't have any justification for that.

To put it really simply, you've created a default bias. There is no reason to assume the default is better than a given alternative. It needs to be justified. If you can justify it, fine and good, let's do it. But no one has.

Re: Science without Validation in a World without Meaning

#30

Post by snowwrestler » Tue, Jun 02, 2020, 9:17 PM UTC

btrettel wrote: post #26

snowwrestler wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to be clear that I'm not intending to make a value judgment, like scientists are better than engineers or vice versa. And I agree that it's not about degrees; people with engineering degrees work in science and vice versa.

Well, the following seems fairly harsh to me, and I would recommend rephrasing it: > IMO few categories of professions have a harder time understanding cutting-edge science than engineers. That is because they think they know science because they use similar mathematical and technical tools, when in fact the professions do the exact opposite of one another. The wording "few categories" in particular seems hyperbolic.…

I think the huge overlap in shared tools, techniques, technologies, language etc. can act to obscure the fundamental differences in mindset between the fields. If a research scientist doesn't know how their work is going to turn out, they're probably on the right track. If an engineer doesn't know how their work is going to turn out, they're probably on the wrong track.

Non-STEM folks might have a hard time understanding either field, but they might also be less likely to assume that they already do.