There are no scientific facts. There are only scientific proves. Didn't need to read the article thanks to the title.
When do we have a scientific fact?
61–70 of 119 posts
Re: When do we have a scientific fact?
#62This article is garbage. If we agreed that 95% consensus was “scientific fact” then plenty of “truths” that we knew back in the past would never be revisited. For example, homosexuality was thought of as a choice as recently as the 1980s. Or high fat diets caused heart disease. Or larger heads equals smarter people.
The reason why scientific facts don’t exist is because the truly great scientists before this author knew that facts are only as good until the next data point that disproves it.
On the other hand, trying to establish scientific fact as consensus will result in political fights to try to force the scientific community and policy makers into decisions that further their own agendas. The sex/gender political fight right now is a great example of how consensus can be forced to further agendas. It’s evil and should never be pursued. Leave science as it is.
Re: When do we have a scientific fact?
#63This article is garbage. If we agreed that 95% consensus was “scientific fact” then plenty of “truths” that we knew back in the past would never be revisited. For example, homosexuality was thought of as a choice as recently as the 1980s. Or high fat diets caused heart disease. Or larger heads equals smarter people. The reason why scientific facts don’t exist is because the truly great scientists before this author k…
[flagged]
Re: When do we have a scientific fact?
#64The author doesn't really get epistemology, it isn't that philosophers are out there mocking geologists and think that such ice ages probably didn’t exist and are just “nice ideas”. We are trying to establish frameworks of justification with explicit and rigorous criteria that we can use to determine when something is knowledge, and so far the double negative (non-falsifiable) is the closest we can get to an affirmat…
The author is a philospher of science, it's a discredit to simply suppose that he doesn't get epistemology just from this article. This blog post is meant to be an introduction to the book, which has more discussion and details: https://petervickersphilosophy.com/2021/07/08/identifying-fu....
Re: When do we have a scientific fact?
#65The 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…
Is Popperian falsifiability itself falsifiable?
Re: When do we have a scientific fact?
#66The 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…
The earth gravity field isn't uniform even in the context of Newtonian physics, the apple will not directly fall toward the center of the earth.
Re: When do we have a scientific fact?
#67This article reminder me of this classic from 1994 by Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution as a fact and theory". [1]
I adore SJG but this is one essay where I disagreed. Actually started the first day of a research design course in a pretty heated debate with the dead wood professor where this essay was the topic of discussion, he couldn't wrap his head around taking epistemological or practical issue with the label of scientific fact and accused me of being a creationist. But I digress:
I don't see what use the word fact is except in a contextual sense. We have scientific observations, which are pretty close to facts, but they can still change when we later discover measurement error or similar. Everything beyond those observations is a matter of inference and I can't see how calling them a fact is useful beyond a term of convenience in the context of a dialogue where all parties are informed on the subject and can agree on something akin to the Gould definition:
> In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
Because you won't be convincing the unconvinced by calling something a fact, especially not in the post-truth era, so it's not going to turn creationists and will have limited use for public health messaging or similar.
[1] https://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/knowing/gould_fact-and-...
Re: When do we have a scientific fact?
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just this year, a huge RCT called into doubt the usefulness of mass colonoscopy [1] This reference seems to be saying that mass colonoscopy reduces the 10 year risk of colorectal cancer by a statistically significant amount. How is this calling into doubt its usefulness?
There was no significant survival benefit. Just because you find and treat cancer doesn't mean you've made someone's life better or longer. > The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.16). The number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer was 455 (95% CI, 270 to 1429). The risk…
>This isn't the final word on the subject, but it overturns the conventional wisdom that colonoscopy is an obvious win and worth all of the money, time, effort and pain we spend on it.
I'd posit that the one in 455 people who would die without a colonoscopy would disagree that colonoscopy isn't worth "all the money, time, effort and pain we spend on it."
I would suggest that you ask my uncle about it, as he didn't have a colonoscopy and was eventually diagnosed with stage IV colorectal cancer.
But I won't make that suggestion, as it wouldn't be worthwhile -- because he's dead. From colorectal cancer.
I guess that what one person considers a waste of money, time, effort and pain, another might consider a worthy investment.
Currently, colonoscopy is the only way to confirm whether or not colorectal cancer (and/or pre-malignant polyps) is present.
I expect that eventually, we'll have a test for colon cancer, similar to the (PSA[0]) blood test that helps diagnose prostate cancer. But until then, colonoscopy is the only way to identify colorectal cancers.
For your part, I hope you never get cancer and live a long, healthy, happy life. But if you do end up with colorectal cancer, I hope you've disabused yourself of the ideas you've expressed and get yourself tested.
Good luck!
Re: When do we have a scientific fact?
#69The article seems to be making it's definition of "fact" as a guide to policymakers on what should be accepted as fact. I think this is all a bit of a red herring. The question is how do policymakers deal with politically charged topics. And I personally haven't seen cases where more research or "science" is the answer, it's just crutch that people use to try and make their political point. The article mentions clima…
What if climate change turns out to be a hoax and we made the world better for nothing?
If climate change turns out to be wrong, nevermind a deliberate hoax, it would result in incalculable damage to the reputation of the entire scientific community for the next century.
Re: When do we have a scientific fact?
#70The author doesn't really get epistemology, it isn't that philosophers are out there mocking geologists and think that such ice ages probably didn’t exist and are just “nice ideas”. We are trying to establish frameworks of justification with explicit and rigorous criteria that we can use to determine when something is knowledge, and so far the double negative (non-falsifiable) is the closest we can get to an affirmat…
The author is a philospher of science, it's a discredit to simply suppose that he doesn't get epistemology just from this article. This blog post is meant to be an introduction to the book, which has more discussion and details: https://petervickersphilosophy.com/2021/07/08/identifying-fu... .
Then the article is in bad faith, in any case a bad article.