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

How trust undermines science

worksinprogress.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 120 posts

Re: How trust undermines science

#71

Post by SantalBlush »

gumby wrote: post #51

Part of the problem is how people learn what science is. Science, despite the name, is really all about doubt. Unfortunately in school it’s taught as certainty. In school you do “experiments” and if the answer doesn’t match what is in the book you are marked down. Often you have to memorize a bunch of assertions or even simply names, without any epistemic context. Then in the real world you discover that scientists c…

>Science, despite the name, is really all about doubt.

This is a popular misconception on HN, and it's why so many here think they're being scientific by dismissing every journal article on the front page. Doubt plays a crucial role in science, but it's not what science is "really all about."

You can doubt every single data point and sensory impression. There is no empirical way to "prove" a single thing if one is determined to doubt it. Not one.

Re: How trust undermines science

#72

Post by DoreenMichele »

At some point, this article uses the phrase the inexact sciences. I have traditionally heard the phrase soft sciences for things like psychology.

Human psychology and social phenomenon are inherently hard to study well for myriad reasons and much of this article is about psychology.

The bits about outright fraud and problematic medical studies are more worthwhile things to be concerned about, but if your primary conclusion or concern is "human psychology is hard to study scientifically" (ie with exactness and ready replicability) then I'm going to be all "Well, duh!"

Re: How trust undermines science

#73

Post by hammock »

nitwit005 wrote: post #41
jimsimmons wrote: post #2

We should respect people questioning science as long as they are doing it in good faith and are showing willingness to learn. We should even respect flat earthers and climate change deniers. They improve rigour and identify blindspots.

The problem with the flat earthers, and the more conspiratorial portion of the climate deniers, is it's not clear even the people making the claims believe it. They don't seem to mind ideas that contradict theirs, so long as the central belief that there is some sort of vast conspiracy is upheld. You can't really engage with people who aren't all that interested in what's actually true.

Assuming your premise is true, is a strongly held belief a prerequisite to conduct a scientific inquiry? Or couldn't it just be any hypothesis, however crazy? It seems to me you are imposing a constraint that doesn't need to be there, and parent is arguing it doesn't deserve to be there, either.

Re: How trust undermines science

#74

Post by neutronicus »

MathMonkeyMan wrote: post #70
krapp wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In school you do “experiments” and if the answer doesn’t match what is in the book you are marked down. Often you have to memorize a bunch of assertions or even simply names, without any epistemic context. I don't know what school you went to, but this doesn't match my experience.

There's the desire to teach the scientific method, and also the desire to convey the established literature in preparation for the (standardized) exams. So, you design "labs" where the students "experiment." This is my experience at a high school in Florida.

It might behoove you to think of these as exercises in "measurement" rather than "experiment"

Re: How trust undermines science

#75

Post by DarylZero »

tempestn wrote: post #57
DarylZero wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But most people aren't rational and don't prove any fact independently for themselves, or have the capability to do so. They believe in what they're told. They were told god and heaven are real so they believe it. Their scientific beliefs are similarly founded.

My point is that the solution is not to teach people to come to their own conclusions, but rather to determine how much trust is due to various sources of information.

Well people aren't doing that either. Expert opinion is a type of evidence. You still have to be investigating and questioning to apply reasoning to that evidence that can lead to a rational conclusion.

Re: How trust undermines science

#76

Post by kodah »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #72

At some point, this article uses the phrase the inexact sciences. I have traditionally heard the phrase soft sciences for things like psychology. Human psychology and social phenomenon are inherently hard to study well for myriad reasons and much of this article is about psychology. The bits about outright fraud and problematic medical studies are more worthwhile things to be concerned about, but if your primary conc…

> if your primary conclusion or concern is "human psychology is hard to study scientifically" (ie with exactness and ready replicability) then I'm going to be all "Well, duh!"

The way that I read the "inexact sciences" critique is one that takes aim at the certainty of their rhetoric. An uncertain and "hard to study" science should use words that reflect that rather than an inappropriate level of determinism which seems to be what the article is actually discussing.

Re: How trust undermines science

#77

Post by azinman2 »

daenz wrote: post #59
azinman2 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it hard to believe most flat earthers are perfectly normal people living well balanced lives, when you believe that literally every government, institution, physicist, airplane pilot, airline, map maker, etc etc is all on some big great conspiracy that the globe is roughly spherical.

It's free speech, end of story. You hypothesizing that they must not have a balanced life does not supersede their freedom of expression.

I didn’t say anything about freedom of expression. Not sure where that even came from.

Re: How trust undermines science

#78

Post by DoreenMichele »

kodah wrote: post #76
DoreenMichele wrote: post #72

At some point, this article uses the phrase the inexact sciences. I have traditionally heard the phrase soft sciences for things like psychology. Human psychology and social phenomenon are inherently hard to study well for myriad reasons and much of this article is about psychology. The bits about outright fraud and problematic medical studies are more worthwhile things to be concerned about, but if your primary conc…

> if your primary conclusion or concern is "human psychology is hard to study scientifically" (ie with exactness and ready replicability) then I'm going to be all "Well, duh!" The way that I read the "inexact sciences" critique is one that takes aim at the certainty of their rhetoric. An uncertain and "hard to study" science should use words that reflect that rather than an inappropriate level of determinism which se…

There are more ways to come up with firmer conclusions. They do exist.

They just have something of a tendency to not fall under the love that so many seem to have of treating people like lab rats.

Someone found that when men decide a female celebrity is hot, they google up nude photos. When women decide a male celebrity is hot, their first search is to determine "Is he currently married?"

So when someone wants to deal privately with their own feelings of attraction or sexual desire, men and women have different initial impetuses when no one is looking, when they have no expectation that anyone is judging them, etc.

This suggests a distinct gender difference.

Whether that's somehow socially influenced or biological, I don't know. But it seems significant.

And it's not the kind of thing you are likely to find in most so-called studies because people like to ask questions of people who volunteered for your study. So when they do studies that find that "everyone" is secretly having threesomes and orgies, that's probably selection bias. Because folks who actually value their privacy and don't casually sleep around probably aren't part of your pool of volunteers wanting to blab about their sex life to a total stranger. Duh.

Re: How trust undermines science

#79

Post by tpoacher »

SantalBlush wrote: post #71
gumby wrote: post #51

Part of the problem is how people learn what science is. Science, despite the name, is really all about doubt. Unfortunately in school it’s taught as certainty. In school you do “experiments” and if the answer doesn’t match what is in the book you are marked down. Often you have to memorize a bunch of assertions or even simply names, without any epistemic context. Then in the real world you discover that scientists c…

>Science, despite the name, is really all about doubt. This is a popular misconception on HN, and it's why so many here think they're being scientific by dismissing every journal article on the front page. Doubt plays a crucial role in science, but it's not what science is "really all about." You can doubt every single data point and sensory impression. There is no empirical way to "prove" a single thing if one is de…

I doubt it.

Re: How trust undermines science

#80

Post by tpoacher »

TameAntelope wrote: post #30
raziel2701 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We should even respect flat earthers No those people need mental healthcare. They have a very debilitating dysfunction, an inability to see reality.

I think this is closer to the truth. I'm struggling to find it, but an article I read and found enlightening explained how there was seemingly a uniform struggle with education in every story the author was told by the people she talked to at a flat earther's convention. They all had some profoundly negative encounter with the education establishment, and usually as a result of a learning disability that they had. It…

In which case, all the better a reason to engage in good faith discussion, so as to identify those academic failings that create such movements and help address them decisively and appropriately
Post reply on HN