The Limits of Science
nationalaffairs.com
The Limits of Science
1–10 of 60 posts
Re: The Limits of Science
#2Science is all about gathering data. Theorise all you like; but if the theory can't be tied back to data at some point in time then it is at best maths or philosophy.
Experiments and dispassionate language are about gathering clear data and representing it accurately. Claiming that science is all about "clarity and economy" is ironically unscientific - if nature is unclear and uneconomical then good science has to represent that too. That part of science isn't taught as much because it takes longer to communicate. Ignoring data, such as from your senses, is also not a good scientific idea.
Being unscientific is ignoring data. There are different standards and a bit of judgement about what quality of data and how relevant it is, but ultimately the person with the most relevant and comprehensive data on a subject is the 'truest' scientist in a very meaningful way.
Re: The Limits of Science
#3I don't like this kind of writing. Even the first para falls apart at the first poking.
> In the modern world, science has become the ultimate guide for describing reality.
I'm an atheist but I recognise that religion does exactly that function for the religious.
> and with such an appearance of impartiality, that we feel satisfied with its answers and seek nothing more
So climate change is fully agreed upon by everyone and anti-vaxxers don't exist. Sure.
Re: The Limits of Science
#4I believe the article is dangerously drawing incorrect conclusions. In particular, from the cases shown, I'd say it's rather that there's a lot in the world that we currently are unable to measure (esp. in human behaviors and mind). That's where science indeed and emphatically has limits, and that's why medicine doctors must not rely purely on science. And why anyone who tries to ignore people's descriptions of how they feel is not a great doctor, I think. Although it's super hard to practice good medicine outside what can be measured... especially compared to how where science really works it's so much easier... it may have spoiled some doctors... And it doesn't help that there seems to be a "science crisis", with high profile journals eagerly accepting crappy papers that are falsely "proving" various stuff, and otherwise scientists falsifying their findings, tempted by wrongly aligned incentives. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater by saying "all science is crap" through some romantic argument that "it's distant from the people" is just leading us all straight back to charlatanerie :( bloodletting and all such stuff... :(
Re: The Limits of Science
#5I don't like this kind of writing. Even the first para falls apart at the first poking. > In the modern world, science has become the ultimate guide for describing reality. I'm an atheist but I recognise that religion does exactly that function for the religious. > and with such an appearance of impartiality, that we feel satisfied with its answers and seek nothing more So climate change is fully agreed upon by every…
Exactly the main problem for some is that science almost never fully explains anything - it's a process.
People like to have solid explanations or at least excuses, and crackpots go further in this need than others.
As usual, if you have better method than experiment, measurement and observation, describe it in detail. Science is not just numbers and words are quantifiable too, if not accurately. The condition is that the results have to be attempting objectivity.
If you have a beef with using statistics for particular cases, say so and propose a better approach. (Many people feel they're special or above average. Wobegon effect also known as illusory superiority or inferiority.)
Re: The Limits of Science
#6I believe the article is dangerously drawing incorrect conclusions. In particular, from the cases shown, I'd say it's rather that there's a lot in the world that we currently are unable to measure (esp. in human behaviors and mind). That's where science indeed and emphatically has limits, and that's why medicine doctors must not rely purely on science. And why anyone who tries to ignore people's descriptions of how t…
Yes, the article does not propose a credible way of achieving comparable or better results.
Re: The Limits of Science
#7There are three things that bother me:
1. Using "true story," then telling a very general story without any citation. That he did it twice was worrying.
2. People like the writer who treat our current understanding of science as if it were a religious text that is complete. Science is an ongoing process of discovery and experimentation to try to further our understanding of the world. The fact that it's wrong is kinda the point, because it motivates us to challenge the assumptions underlying our theories.
3. The story about his mother losing her job is likely true, but the way he tells is seems like it purposely omits relevant information.
For example, he says his mother lost her job as a "social worker," but according to this wedding announcement (https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/06/style/alexandra-roosevelt...), she was the Director of Social Services at Hillcrest Convalescent Hospital in Long Beach, CA.
I also checked the Federal Register for that date, and it seems that the change also included an exception to the bachelors degree requirement, provided the individual had two years experience. His claim in the article that his mother had 20 years of experience should have been sufficient.
http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/fedreg/fr054/fr054021/fr054021... Page 135
"In § 483.15(g), we are requiring that social services be provided by a qualified individual defined as an individual with a bachelors degree in social work or two years experience in a health care setting working directly with patients or clients, or similar professional qualifications."
Re: The Limits of Science
#8Science is all about gathering data. Theorise all you like; but if the theory can't be tied back to data at some point in time then it is at best maths or philosophy. Experiments and dispassionate language are about gathering clear data and representing it accurately. Claiming that science is all about "clarity and economy" is ironically unscientific - if nature is unclear and uneconomical then good science has to re…
Creating theories helps guide us towards collecting the right data. For example nobody would have checked Mercury's precession unless Einstein had suggested the theory of general relativity. That is what good science is, first you predict and then verify, not first get data and then make models to fit said data.
Re: The Limits of Science
#9I don't like this kind of writing. Even the first para falls apart at the first poking. > In the modern world, science has become the ultimate guide for describing reality. I'm an atheist but I recognise that religion does exactly that function for the religious. > and with such an appearance of impartiality, that we feel satisfied with its answers and seek nothing more So climate change is fully agreed upon by every…
Exactly the main problem for some is that science almost never fully explains anything - it's a process. People like to have solid explanations or at least excuses, and crackpots go further in this need than others. As usual, if you have better method than experiment, measurement and observation, describe it in detail. Science is not just numbers and words are quantifiable too, if not accurately. The condition is tha…
You misread my post. I agree with you completely (excepting the snide Wobegone effect comment, which I had to look up but at least I learnt something today).
Re: The Limits of Science
#10Science is all about gathering data. Theorise all you like; but if the theory can't be tied back to data at some point in time then it is at best maths or philosophy. Experiments and dispassionate language are about gathering clear data and representing it accurately. Claiming that science is all about "clarity and economy" is ironically unscientific - if nature is unclear and uneconomical then good science has to re…
Creating theories helps guide us towards collecting the right data. For example nobody would have checked Mercury's precession unless Einstein had suggested the theory of general relativity. That is what good science is, first you predict and then verify, not first get data and then make models to fit said data.
Assuming we agree that there is an objective reality; someone who figures out truths by measuring then fitting is obviously doing science. The phenomenon studied by science are largely those that are real no matter how they are approached.
There are easier and harder ways to come up with useful data and I endorse predict -> check-> refine as a great model; but if someone figured out laws by guessing what data they needed to gather then did a curve fit doesn't somehow make the laws invalid or the process particularly unscientific. If someone had just gotten lucky and just happened to plot mass vs velocity to recover the laws of gravity we'd still include it in all the science textbooks. What is the alternative - claim they figured out universal truths in the wrong way and ignore them until someone else figures it out?
If all the data fits the model then science has happened. Everything else is quibbling how robust the data is (which is still important).