Interview with Scott Aaronson • Hacker News Board

Re: Interview with Scott Aaronson

#21

Post by privong » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 4:29 PM UTC

dilemma wrote: post #18

privong wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's not a social scientist, and I don't think he'd appreciate an anthropologist evaluating the state of affairs in quantum computing research. But, from things I have read elsewhere, there does seem to be a reasonably convincing body of evidence that there are systematic biases in social sciences. Some of this perhaps stems from discrimination (e.g., in hiring practices) based on political allegiance. Jonathan Hai…

There are systematic biases in the social sciences, and there are systematic biases in physics. Read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics. As they are social systems, they will always be biased. And the most dangerous bias is the one that claims itself unbiased, fully objective.

> There are systematic biases in the social sciences, and there are systematic biases in physics. Read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics. As they are social systems, they will always be biased. And the most dangerous bias is the one that claims itself unbiased, fully objective.

I never claimed physics was bias-free. I just said that political affiliation likely imparts less bias on physics than it does on sociology. And that was just one example of a possible source of bias.

Re: Interview with Scott Aaronson

#22

Post by Rylinks » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 4:29 PM UTC

dilemma wrote: post #18

privong wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's not a social scientist, and I don't think he'd appreciate an anthropologist evaluating the state of affairs in quantum computing research. But, from things I have read elsewhere, there does seem to be a reasonably convincing body of evidence that there are systematic biases in social sciences. Some of this perhaps stems from discrimination (e.g., in hiring practices) based on political allegiance. Jonathan Hai…

There are systematic biases in the social sciences, and there are systematic biases in physics. Read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics. As they are social systems, they will always be biased. And the most dangerous bias is the one that claims itself unbiased, fully objective.

Physics can collect so much data that the generally accepted standard for results is five sigma. There are biases in physics, but it's much harder to delude yourself into a five sigma result than a two sigma one--in the end the right answer becomes obvious.

Re: Interview with Scott Aaronson

#23

Post by typon » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 4:36 PM UTC

privong wrote: post #21

dilemma wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are systematic biases in the social sciences, and there are systematic biases in physics. Read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics. As they are social systems, they will always be biased. And the most dangerous bias is the one that claims itself unbiased, fully objective.

> There are systematic biases in the social sciences, and there are systematic biases in physics. Read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics. As they are social systems, they will always be biased. And the most dangerous bias is the one that claims itself unbiased, fully objective. I never claimed physics was bias-free. I just said that political affiliation likely imparts less bias on physics than it does on sociolo…

But that's pretty much what Aaronson is implying. That physics can be cold, calculating, unbiased while the social sciences are the opposite.

There is plenty of dogma in the physics world as well. For example, just look at the way people defend their favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics as absolute truth.

Re: Interview with Scott Aaronson

#24

Post by privong » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 4:39 PM UTC

typon wrote: post #23

privong wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are systematic biases in the social sciences, and there are systematic biases in physics. Read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics. As they are social systems, they will always be biased. And the most dangerous bias is the one that claims itself unbiased, fully objective. I never claimed physics was bias-free. I just said that political affiliation likely imparts less bias on physics than it does on sociolo…

But that's pretty much what Aaronson is implying. That physics can be cold, calculating, unbiased while the social sciences are the opposite. There is plenty of dogma in the physics world as well. For example, just look at the way people defend their favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics as absolute truth.

> But that's pretty much what Aaronson is implying. That physics can be cold, calculating, unbiased while the social sciences are the opposite.

Sure, and I agree that it's not necessarily true. I just wanted to point out that I was never claiming physics to be unbiased. :)

Re: Interview with Scott Aaronson

#25

Post by privong » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 4:43 PM UTC

Rylinks wrote: post #22

dilemma wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are systematic biases in the social sciences, and there are systematic biases in physics. Read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics. As they are social systems, they will always be biased. And the most dangerous bias is the one that claims itself unbiased, fully objective.

Physics can collect so much data that the generally accepted standard for results is five sigma. There are biases in physics, but it's much harder to delude yourself into a five sigma result than a two sigma one--in the end the right answer becomes obvious.

> Physics can collect so much data that the generally accepted standard for results is five sigma. There are biases in physics, but it's much harder to delude yourself into a five sigma result than a two sigma one--in the end the right answer becomes obvious.

That's in the case of clear-cut predictions from theory or empirical relations. But bias generally arises in a more subtle fashion than statistics on measurements, though. Even if you have a "5-sigma result", it still needs to be interpreted, and that's where biases can rear their heads. On possible manifestation (though not the only), is if one ascribes to a particular theory, one is generally biased into interpreting those results within the framework of that theory. And if one isn't careful, that can lead to diminishing the weight of evidence that conflicts with the theory (e.g., "it's 5-sigma, but those data aren't actually relevant to this issue").

As an example, one area I'm actively researching is the emission from molecules in galaxies. We see that some galaxies show enhancements in emission from a specific molecule (HCN). Everyone agrees that the enhancements exist but there's wide disagreement on what causes it. And much of the discussion around it parallels people's opinions/biases about which is more important for a galaxy: how many new stars it is forming versus how active the supermassive black hole is at the galaxy's center. The preferred interpretations for the extra HCN emission seems to correlate very well with people's prior notions* (which is not surprising). Of course, more data will eventually provide a concrete solution to this question, though what new data are collected is often chosen within an existing framework.

* - I'm sure it's true for me, even though I try to mitigate it as much as possible. But we often have trouble recognizing our own biases.

Re: Interview with Scott Aaronson

#26

Post by ced » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 4:53 PM UTC

moultano wrote: post #15

ced wrote: post #4

In social sciences, there’s an absolutely massive bias in favor of publishing results that confirm current educated opinion, or that deviate from the consensus in ways that will be seen as quirky or interesting rather than cold or cruel or politically tone-deaf. Isn't that a massive problem for meta-analyses? If there are 15 studies supporting the consensus/politically-correct position and 5 against it, that might be…

You can assess this using funnel plots. If publication bias were not a factor, then you expect effect size to be uncorrelated from sample size. If they are correlated, then it's likely publication bias is having some effect on the results.

Clever solution. Is there a more general principle? I thought that most MNAR problems were hopeless, but maybe not.

Re: Interview with Scott Aaronson

#27

Post by fitzwatermellow » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 4:56 PM UTC

News to me that he is moving to UTexas in Austin to build a center for quantum computing and theory. Terribly exciting! With the impetus being a state funded allocation of $4B+ for basic research. It really begs the question: are our governments spending way too little on moon shots? And what could have been accomplished in the last two generations if the focus had been on pure science rather than military technologies?

Re: Interview with Scott Aaronson

#28

Post by mafribe » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 5:04 PM UTC

pron wrote: post #8

elcapitan wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does meta-analysis in a highly opinion based field like the social sciences, where there are different, mutually exclusive schools of thought even make sense in the first place?

And how does a lack of even rudimentary knowledge of a specific field of study qualify one to reject it wholesale? The difficulties in meta-analysis in the social sciences vary from field to field -- psychology is qualitatively different from anthropology or history -- but if we had to generalize, they have more to do with the sheer dimensionality of the problem combined with the difficulty of precise measurement (an…

I'd say that scientific fields being "opinion based" or forming around "mutually exclusive schools of thought" is a reaction to "the sheer dimensionality of the problem combined with the difficulty of precise measurement".

You see similar social phenomena in other fields with a measurement problem, for example programming language research ...

Re: Interview with Scott Aaronson

#29

Post by cowsandmilk » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 5:07 PM UTC

fitzwatermellow wrote: post #27

News to me that he is moving to UTexas in Austin to build a center for quantum computing and theory. Terribly exciting! With the impetus being a state funded allocation of $4B+ for basic research. It really begs the question: are our governments spending way too little on moon shots? And what could have been accomplished in the last two generations if the focus had been on pure science rather than military technologi…

> the focus had been on pure science rather than military technologies?

I find your question a little funny in that Aaronson has said the DOD is where much of the funding for his research will come from for the next 5 years[1].

So, the $4 billion in Texas likely funded his recruitment package, but it is the military that is funding his research.

[1] http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2687

Re: Interview with Scott Aaronson

#30

Post by disconcision » Sat, Apr 23, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

johngossman wrote: post #16

pbw wrote: post #12

Wow he seems very smart but not very succinct.

It is an incredibly long interview, but I assume it was e-mail. And full of short gems like: "QM isn’t even “physics” in the usual sense: it’s more like an operating system that the rest of physics runs on as application software"

that's a line straight out of his book 'quantum computing since Democritus'. highly recommended if you want to get a bird's eye view of the foundation of quantum logic without all that pesky physics (and physical history) getting in the way.