[dead]
When do we have a scientific fact?
41–50 of 119 posts
Re: When do we have a scientific fact?
#42> "We want governments to base policies on scientific facts, insofar as that is possible"
How we can act judiciously under uncertainty ?
related:
Medical Science: "The science-policy relationship in times of crisis: An urgent call for a pragmatist turn" ( August 2022 )
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795362...
Keywords:
Crisis, Public health policymaking, Uncertainty, Knowledge, Pragmatism, Covid-19
Abstract:
"In this conceptual paper, we argue that at times of crisis, what is sometimes called “evidence-based” or “science-driven” policymaking—establishing scientific truths and then implementing them—must be tempered by a more agile, deliberative and inclusive approach which acknowledges and embraces uncertainty. We offer pragmatism as one potential option, using examples from the UK to illustrate how such an approach might have changed particular crisis decisions and led to better outcomes. We propose that to better prepare for the next public health crisis, five pragmatism-informed shifts are needed in the science-policy relationship: from scientism to science-informed narrative rationality that emerges from practice; from knowledge-then-action to acting judiciously under uncertainty; from hierarchies of evidence to pluralist inquiry; from polarized camps to frame-reflective dialogue; and from an “inside-track” science-policy dialogue to greater participatory democracy. We suggest an agenda for a pragmatist-informed program of applied research on crisis public health policymaking."
Re: When do we have a scientific fact?
#43The article doesn't fulfill the promise of the title. Not only does it not explain how to identify a scientific fact (who samples the 95% "consensus" and who decides what to ask, for example?), it doesn't even define the term, despite multiple uses. The reason is, of course, that there are no scientific facts. There are hypotheses, theories, and observations. There is a scientific method, which attempts to connect th…
Seems to me we can identify a scientific fact: it's an empirical proposition for which we have sufficient scientific evidence. "Sufficient" is a community standard, and different communities may have different standards. That's not an ideal state of affairs, but it turns out to be a liveable one. This doesn't solve the problem of "future-proofing" or universalizing facts, because THAT is not a solvable problem. But i…
> it's an empirical proposition for which we have sufficient scientific evidence. "Sufficient" is a community standard
It doesn't have to be. We can use predictive power to judge how strong our evidence is.
Re: When do we have a scientific fact?
#44> "We want governments to base policies on scientific facts, insofar as that is possible" How we can act judiciously under uncertainty ? related: Medical Science: "The science-policy relationship in times of crisis: An urgent call for a pragmatist turn" ( August 2022 ) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795362... Keywords: Crisis, Public health policymaking, Uncertainty, Knowledge, Pragmatism, Covi…
In a temporary crisis, the mandate is to enact policies that calm panic, even if they aren't just or scientific (and they usually aren't). A major complaint about COVID is that the panic came from the top down, as a justification for doing the unjust and unscientific things the people in charge wanted to do anyway. Nobody is really addressing the truth or lack of truth of that statement, we're all just slinging mud.
Re: When do we have a scientific fact?
#45The article portrays Popperian falsifiability as a negative thing, when in fact it is exactly the kind of defining criterion that the author is hunting for. Except it is a criterion of a scientific _theory_ , not a fact derived from it; because the natural sciences are entirely empirical disciplines (today), theories can only be _disproved_ , not proved, by experiments. Progress - in the form of convergence towards t…
> theories can only be _disproved_ , not proved, by experiments While it is technically true that a theory cannot be "proved", that view ignores the huge range of predictive power in our various scientific theories. General relativity and quantum mechanics have extraordinary predictive power: we can make quantitative predictions that match experimental results to ten or more decimal places. But predictive power gets…
> While it is technically true that a theory cannot be "proved", that view ignores the huge range of predictive power in our various scientific theories.
It doesn't though. Acknowledging one thing does not mean that all other things are ignored.
Re: When do we have a scientific fact?
#46This very lightweight article doesn't touch on why Popper and Kuhn were so influential (although I'm partial to Imre Lakatos, who tried to rescue Popper from Kuhn). If you aren't familiar with the Logical Positivists and their approach to science, it's valuable background to understanding the debates. The article shows that the West has not really come to terms with rejecting divine revelation and the end of absolute…
[deleted]
Re: When do we have a scientific fact?
#47When we use a single word for a complex phenomenon (in this instance, the "scientific fact") we bound to have endless discussions talking past each other.
The focus on "95%" gives away that the focus of the article is on a preliminary stage of scientific inquiry, where uncertainties around the measurement (observation) process are dominant and the explanatory framework of what is happening is sketchy (statistical) in nature. This is typically the case when the system we want to establish scientific facts about is very complex (e.g. biological or much worse, human social).
Inceased scientific confidence obtains only when we can control that complexity and zoom-in into more fundamental behavior that can be both quantified and explained in more detail. That deepening of understanding leads to a cycle of prediction/measurement/experiment/confirmation that keeps adding "confidence" in a way that has nothing to do with statistical "95%" confidence. E.g., Netwonian laws were "proven" to very high certainty and yet they got eventually replaced by even more accurate scientific models.
Scientific facts are a journey, not a destination. For a sane discussion we need to clarify what phase of the journey we are talking about.
Re: When do we have a scientific fact?
#48"Scientific fact" is a term used by people who don't understand science.
Re: When do we have a scientific fact?
#49"Scientific fact" is a term used by people who don't understand science.
The term is used by such eminent and respected scientists as Richard Dawkins and Neil de Grasse Tyson. I don't think that they misunderstand science.
Re: When do we have a scientific fact?
#50"Scientific fact" is a term used by people who don't understand science.
The term is used by such eminent and respected scientists as Richard Dawkins and Neil de Grasse Tyson. I don't think that they misunderstand science.
Dawkins makes it clear here, that he is using the terms to explain to people who don't understand science: https://richarddawkins.net/2015/11/is-it-a-theory-is-it-a-la...