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

The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 402 posts

Re: The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

#231

Post by tomohawk »

Many of Galileo's peers were threatened by him, as they were more interested in interpreting Aristotle then investigating nature. So, they used political processes to attack him instead of engaging him in honest debate. They used authority rather than truth. The authority / government of the day in his area was the Catholic Church. Despite these attacks, Galileo remained a committed Christian, saying "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word."

Science that depends on authority for success is the kind of science that attacked Galileo. It's the kind of science that attacks people today for not caving to whatever prevailing consensus holds sway.

Science questions the status quo to see what reality really is, and is not threatened when questions are asked.

Re: The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

#232

Post by pdonis »

Majromax wrote: post #136
pdonis wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it gets tricky in cases where you're deciding between facts whose enclosing theories are incompatible. Is gravity a force, or is it an acceleration? This isn't deciding between facts. It's deciding between different theoretical interpretations of the same facts. The facts of gravity didn't change when Einstein discovered General Relativity. All that changed was the theoretical model. > Your epistemology appears to…

> But in the world of today, where all of those diseases are extremely rare--precisely because of such a huge fraction of the population getting vaccinated in the past--the probability of catching the disease if you aren't vaccinated is much lower. So now even a much lower probability of some kind of harm from the vaccine itself can justify not getting vaccinated. I think this is also a good example of the exact oppo…

> the individual risk of infection is low precisely because everyone else vaccinates their children

Yes, this is true. However, this is easy for individuals to take into account as the percentage of vaccinated individuals changes: if fewer people get vaccinated, the incentive for a particular individual to do so increases. So I don't see this in itself as a collective action problem.

> A Nash equilibrium generates a suboptimal outcome, where disease prevalence increases to the point where the perceived risks are equal.

Not quite until perceived risks are equal; until perceived costs are equal. In other words, the equilibrium (which can change over time as the percentage of vaccinated individuals changes--see above) is where the expected cost of getting vaccinated exactly equals the expected cost of not getting vaccinated.

This in itself does not mean the outcome is suboptimal. However...

> this has negative externalities for others, such as those too young to take a vaccine or who are allergic

...this does, since the externalities are not considered by individuals when making their risk-cost calculations.

> Collective action problems like this are usually resolved with some kind of coordinating authority. In some environments that authority can be normal social suasion, but in others it needs to be explicitly regulatory.

The main coordinating authority in our society seems to me to be schools requiring kids to be vaccinated. That sets a hard ceiling on the percentage of non-vaccinated children, since parents who do not want to vaccinate have to either home school or pay for some form of private tutoring.

The question would be whether this needs to be a hard requirement, vs. simply an assessment of how many kids are actually vaccinated in the population and whether that percentage is low enough to have a significant negative impact on herd immunity.

But even that's not really the question, since, as I noted above, individuals can factor in how much herd immunity there is when making their own vaccination decisions. The only real coordination issue is due to the negative externalities: some percentage of people can't get vaccinated and so herd immunity is the only thing protecting them. So the real question is whether the percentage of people vaccinated because they voluntarily choose to get vaccinated after considering their individual costs vs. benefits is low enough that the risk to the people who can't get vaccinated is unacceptably high because of decreasing herd immunity.

I don't know if anyone has actually tried to analyze the issue this way.

Re: The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

#233

Post by pdonis »

unknownkadath wrote: post #188
pdonis wrote: post #63

The title says it all: the author thinks science is supposed to be an "authority". That way of thinking about science is precisely what has to stop.

But that's not what the article says.

> that's not what the article says.

Meaning, the article doesn't say science is supposed to be an authority? Let's see:

"It is tempting to think that scientific authority is natural and will soon reassert itself like a sturdy self-righting boat knocked over by a rogue wave. The ugly truth is that science is more like Facebook, whose positive features are also vulnerabilities. Precisely because it allows us to connect and share, Facebook creates opportunities for misuse. Similarly, science is an exemplary form of enquiry because it is technical, fallible, done in communities and able to reshape our values. But these very features allow detractors to reject the authority even of eminent experts."

Sure sounds to me like the author thinks science should be an authority.

"Early proponents of the authority of science had to understand the machine and develop countermeasures. Galileo, a rhetorical bulldozer, was a master at it. When his enemies appealed to theology, he went right back at them by citing their own authorities in neat ripostes, such as “The Bible tells us the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go!” This strategy is harder in today’s world."

In other words, bullshit arguments from authority are harder to make today than they were in Galileo's time. And the author thinks this is a problem.

Re: The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

#235

Post by tropo »

Nasrudith wrote: post #202
pdonis wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's this trend of elevating skepticism to denial simply for political reasons Well, there's just as much of a trend of claiming your position is "science" when it isn't, simply for political reasons. For example, by any reasonable standards, economics is not a science; yet people who question the current orthodoxy in economics, for example by questioning whether having the Federal Reserve print money is really a g…

Economics should be fact based at least. I personally would call it a science but a soft one from there being so many variables and interpretations. It does produce some hard facts - mostly in the form of "what not to do" We already know that hyperinflation relative to growth is a way to ruin an economy quickly for instance. Similarly the issue with federal reserve denialism is that they have rhetoric but not much un…

Precious metal is a terrible choice because inflation is then determined by the random occurrence of discoveries of new mines and new mining technology.

The federal reserve is a terrible choice because unaccountable bureaucrats with their own agenda are given the power to juice or crash the economy, and they appear to threaten/reward presidents with this power.

Just printing money is a terrible choice because the executive can just run the presses instead of taxing, and thereby cause hyperinflation.

The USA has tried all 3 methods.

That last one has the most potential I think. It could be restricted to reduce misbehavior, perhaps with a time delay before changes take effect.

Re: The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

#236

Post by unknownkadath »

pdonis wrote: post #233
unknownkadath wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not what the article says.

> that's not what the article says. Meaning, the article doesn't say science is supposed to be an authority? Let's see: "It is tempting to think that scientific authority is natural and will soon reassert itself like a sturdy self-righting boat knocked over by a rogue wave. The ugly truth is that science is more like Facebook, whose positive features are also vulnerabilities. Precisely because it allows us to connect…

Words have multiple meanings. What you are doing is dishonest strawmanning by conflating multiple meanings of the word "authority."

Re: The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

#237

Post by bookofjoe »

vharuck wrote: post #126
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy if you're deciding between two masses for an electron. In that case you've already decided that some theory which describes electrons is the one for you--so in that context one is a fact that the other is just plain false. But it gets tricky in cases where you're deciding between facts whose enclosing theories are incompatible. Is gravity a force, or is it an acceleration? Each is a fact in its own theory--…

>Is gravity a force, or is it an acceleration? Each is a fact in its own theory--the more relevant question has to do with your situation: which theory is more useful? I would call that a model, not a fact. And, as the saying goes, all models are wrong. If it's impossible to do an experiment that shows one model to be better than another in a situation, then the choice is meaningless. Both are fine.

Is light a wave, or is it a particle?

Re: The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

#238

Post by asdffdsa »

lkrubner wrote: post #2

About this: " Hanging in the Louvre Museum in Paris is an imposing painting, The Preaching of St Paul at Ephesus. In this 1649 work by Eustache Le Sueur, the fiery apostle lifts his right hand as if scolding the audience, while clutching a book of scripture in his left. Among the rapt or fearful listeners are people busily throwing books into a fire. " Okay, but in the USA, over the last 60 years we've seen an astoni…

Is this unexpected? Unvetted authority took a big hit when it created totalitarian states and initiated some of the biggest atrocities and genocides ever witnessed in human history.

Re: The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

#239

Post by tabtab »

matt4077 wrote: post #172
tabtab wrote: post #127

A bigger problem is when and how to rely on "subject experts". My car mechanic knows far more about cars than I do, but he/she may also be biased into recommending unnecessary costly repairs to line her/her pocket. Climate change skeptics often question the financial motivation of climatologists. It's certainly something to consider, but they rarely propose alternatives. For example, a committee could be set up to in…

Climate researchers mostly have tenure. They cannot be fired for going against majority opinion. And in most countries except the US, they do not rely on outside funding to any significant degree. So participating in a giant fraud would actually be the most dangerous option for them, financially. Instead, they could expose it and, if convincing, would at the very least make a lot of money on book deals and the lectur…

I agree with you, but that's not enough to convince roughly 40% of the country who think the results stem from financial influence.

Thus, I'd like to ask that 40%: what kind of commission or study technique would you be satisfied with?

Re: The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back

#240

Post by effie »

MockObject wrote: post #168
yters wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't trusting authority contrary to trusting science? The point of science is that we can verify truths for ourselves without relying on authority. Hence, if any authority, 'scientific' or otherwise, asserts their authority instead of providing individually verifiable evidence of its claims, then we can say they are being unscientific, regardless of title.

> Hence, if any authority, 'scientific' or otherwise, asserts their authority instead of providing individually verifiable evidence of its claims, then we can say they are being unscientific, regardless of title. Indeed, the motto of the Royal Society is "Take nobody's word for it". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba

Folk-wisdom version: 'talk is cheap'.
Post reply on HN