This is slightly related to the fact that most scientists today no longer consider themselves 'scientists' for the same reason mathematicians no longer consider themselves strictly 'mathematicians': they're logicians, group theorists, geometers, algebraists, etc. Maybe a hundred (or a couple hundred?) years ago, learned men and women could call themselves scientists and be educated in almost everything there is to know in the human corpus of science, but that's impossible today with the hyper-specialization we have in all branches of math, CS, physics, and biology. In any empirical science, it's simply because there is a lot lot more data to play with, and in mathematics it's simply because more rules to the game are being discovered/created.
Why I Hate Science
11–20 of 41 posts
Re: Why I Hate Science
#12Part of his rant is about things that are generally not considered to be "science". Economics is usually categorized separately as "social science" (look! Wikipedia agrees! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics ). It's ironic that someone who "no beg[s], scientists to adopt much stricter standards of disseminating information" is so cavalier about lumping together very different fields of study. This appears to be w…
This appears to be written by someone that doesn't have a background in what I think most people would identify as "science". I admit that the combination of the headline plus the photo he uses in his sidebar made me think derp even before I started reading.
I don't follow DanielBMarkham closely, but I don't think his comments here on HN suggest a high level of "derp".
Do try to be a bit nicer.
Re: Why I Hate Science
#13He's got a good point. The layman doesn't know the difference at all. Heck, most of the 'experts' don't seem to be able to tell the difference. You constantly hear how X is bad for you according to a new study, and people repeat it like gospel, instead of the theory that it is. Often it hasn't even been reproduced yet.
What point is that? Lumping unrelated fields together and disliking them all? What alternative does he offer?
He does suggest a few things which are useful but not practiced in all academic disciplines (note "academic" instead of "scientific"): systematic ways of finding truth (specifically, Bayesian analysis), carefully specifying the exact experiment done, being open about your confidence (or lack thereof) in the results.
To pick a random example, I've been told economists don't often look back to check the accuracy of the macro-scale predictions they made. (Un)succesful predictions are an excellent way to check for (un)truth.
Re: Why I Hate Science
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
This appears to be written by someone that doesn't have a background in what I think most people would identify as "science". I admit that the combination of the headline plus the photo he uses in his sidebar made me think derp even before I started reading.
I don't follow DanielBMarkham closely, but I don't think his comments here on HN suggest a high level of "derp". Do try to be a bit nicer.
Perhaps that was a bit blunt.
I don't know who he is or read many of his comments here, but on the basis of the article alone (long, incoherent, illogical) I didn't get a favorable impression.
Perhaps he should have thought a bit more about what he wanted to say, and he would have a written a better piece (which reminds me about a quote from Twain: "I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one").
Re: Why I Hate Science
#15He's got a good point. The layman doesn't know the difference at all. Heck, most of the 'experts' don't seem to be able to tell the difference. You constantly hear how X is bad for you according to a new study, and people repeat it like gospel, instead of the theory that it is. Often it hasn't even been reproduced yet.
What point is that? Lumping unrelated fields together and disliking them all? What alternative does he offer?
I believe the basic answer to that is in the first paragraph.
He should almost copy & paste that first paragraph and append it to the end.
Re: Why I Hate Science
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
What point is that? Lumping unrelated fields together and disliking them all? What alternative does he offer?
He does suggest a few things which are useful but not practiced in all academic disciplines (note "academic" instead of "scientific"): systematic ways of finding truth (specifically, Bayesian analysis), carefully specifying the exact experiment done, being open about your confidence (or lack thereof) in the results. To pick a random example, I've been told economists don't often look back to check the accuracy of the…
These methods should be incorporated.
Incorporating these methods will not significantly impact the public perception of science.
My reasoning is that there is a game of telephone between scientists and the public.
Currently it looks like this: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd051809s.gif
However, even if we were to refine the news process, or try to cut them out entirely through blogging, games of telephone will still happen, as people will still try to communicate a simplified version of what was said. This will not be intentional, but every time some fact gets left out, the certainties change, making the statement less and less true.
Re: Why I Hate Science
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
What point is that? Lumping unrelated fields together and disliking them all? What alternative does he offer?
He does suggest a few things which are useful but not practiced in all academic disciplines (note "academic" instead of "scientific"): systematic ways of finding truth (specifically, Bayesian analysis), carefully specifying the exact experiment done, being open about your confidence (or lack thereof) in the results. To pick a random example, I've been told economists don't often look back to check the accuracy of the…
And the last three or four years have been a bounteous cornucopia of false macro-scale economic predictions... with no apparent adjustment of the theories being considered necessary or desirable, at least from my outsider perspective.
Re: Why I Hate Science
#18Part of his rant is about things that are generally not considered to be "science". Economics is usually categorized separately as "social science" (look! Wikipedia agrees! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics ). It's ironic that someone who "no beg[s], scientists to adopt much stricter standards of disseminating information" is so cavalier about lumping together very different fields of study. This appears to be w…
This appears to be written by someone that doesn't have a background in what I think most people would identify as "science". I admit that the combination of the headline plus the photo he uses in his sidebar made me think derp even before I started reading.
I generally put his articles firmly into the "derp" category. And before we say "hey, we all have to be polite here on HN," his articles consistently take shots at anyone and everyone he disagrees with in a disrespectful manner. Terms like "knuckle-dragger", "pseudo-scientific slime", "Mr. Smarter-than-thou", "flowering of this idiocy", all reek with contempt of his straw-man opponents.
To address this particular article: the writing is all over the place. First paragraph: he doesn't like science when it's a "club to beat up people you simply disagree with." Well, good, reproducible scientific results can indeed be used as a "club" to beat up ideas that are wrong. It's one of the best uses of science. Now my assumption (from reading further) is he hates bad science. Which I actually agree with, but that is not stated up front.
From the fourth paragraph. "...science is the beautiful application of reason and logic that slowly and inexorably moves from ignorance to truth." The next paragraph says "Bullshit." What's bullshit about it? That is indeed how good science should work.
Then he goes on to talk about scientists who speculate outside either their area of expertise, or outside scientifically produced results.
Later he says "It needs to be clear when reporting medical studies what types of methods were used...". Here's the deal: it is clear. It's clear in reputable scientific journals. Read by scientists that can actually make sense of that kind of information. And even then, as a reader, you have to use critical thought to mentally junk studies that don't follow appropriate methods. Reading the most reputable peer-reviewed journals is a start, but you can't shut your brain off while reading even those.
If he's talking about newspaper reporting about science, yes, it's frequently wrong, because it's written by non-scientists. As an exercise, read a regular newspaper article about anything you have deep knowledge in. I'll bet you find many problems with it based on the lack of understanding of the reporter.
In his last paragraph, his conclusion seems to be that scientists should do good science, and not bad science. Again, this is what peer-reviewed journals contribute greatly to. It's not a "totally new way of doing things". Not even close.
Re: Why I Hate Science
#19Daniel, please stop using link-bait titles and openers. It makes it far more difficult for me to evaluate the actual ideas you're talking about, because I have to separate the link-bait stuff from your real points. (The "bait" from the "switch.") That takes more mental effort than I'm willing to afford an essay that starts off being disingenuous.
Re: Why I Hate Science
#20this is why you need to teach science in schools as early as possible and as much as possible, so the people wouldn't need BS guides on distinguishing good ... err... there is no such thing as a "bad science" so just science from anything else.