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

261–270 of 402 posts

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

#261

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

pdonis wrote: post #121
__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--…

> 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…

> Once you do an experiment and record certain results, those results don't change.

You seem to believe that facts are like rocks: You can look at a rock with one pair of glasses, and then you can put a different pair of glasses on and be reasonably assured that you're looking at the same rock. This works because the laws of physics give us a context in which rocks can be individuated. Reality is a convenient authority for this sort of thing.

So far as I can tell, there is no such authority for facts. What wider context is there to appeal to if you want to know whether you're looking at the same fact in a different light, or a new fact? If you know of such a method, I am sincerely interested to know it.

Consider the Michelson Morely experiment. Initially, it established that the velocity of the aether relative to the Earth was 0. Now, we look back on it and say that it established that the speed of light in certain directions does not depend on certain orbital characteristics of the earth. I don't think it's so crazy to imagine a future where a new means of interpreting experiments has taken hold, and from which we would give yet a third description for the experiment established. I think this situation is simpler if these all count as separate facts.

> The facts of gravity didn't change when discovered General Relativity. All that changed was the theoretical model.

Do "the facts of gravity" include the predictions made by the theory of gravity? Because in a number of notable cases they did in fact change when Einstein's theory became the one we use for gravity.

Speaking of Einstein, before he pubished his paper on special relativity, wasn't it a fact that the velocity of a bullet fired from a train (relative to the track) is the sum of the train's velocity and the bullet's velocity? (i.e. the only relevant transformations re: velocity are galilean transformations)? We may not have noticed that this seemingly absolute fact was actually only a fact according to the galilean theory of motion, because no competing theories were available. But once alternatives became available, it was necessary to relativize the fact and add the "according to" part.

Given that we can't know which facts might later need to be relativized, isn't the safer move to assume that all of them are in scope for this kind of change? If we managed to install in everyone a proper respect for scientific authority, would Einstein have had the courage to disregard the fact about how velocities are added?

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

#262

Post by pdonis »

Barrin92 wrote: post #163
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.

I don't think that's the point of science at all to be honest. The point of scientific endeavour is to discover facts about the world. That's a really hard job, and the majority of people are not scientists, and even a trained scientist cannot verify the overwhelming majority of existing science by themselves, which means that science, like any other sufficiently large human collaboration, requires institutions, trus…

This is fine as long as each individual has the choice of which scientific conclusions to follow and they individually bear the consequences of their choices.

It is no longer fine when public policy decisions potentially costing trillions of dollars and affecting billions of people are riding on scientific conclusions. Then the claim that "well, we're just discovering facts about the world" no longer holds water. Nor does the claim that "well, science requires institutions, trust, and authority, so just trust us, the scientists". Members of the public have to be able to independently evaluate the claims so they can make informed decisions about what public policies to support.

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

#263

Post by jimmy1 »

matt4077 wrote: post #85
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…

It's not so much "authority" but "trust" that has gone down. There used to be institutions that were regarded as the gold standard for truth: the FDA, top science journals, the CDC, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and so on. These weren't necessarily regarded as infallible . But it was widely recognized that they undertook a best effort to get at the truth, and would tend to err on the side of caution. That trust is…

I believe it s neither "authority" nor "trust" that has fallen, but rather nihilism that has taken a sharp rise. Who cares about your authority, or trusting you outside of my purposes? It's all meaningless in the end.

How many times have you seen this statement on this board alone: "Given the passage of enough time after your death, anything you did won't matter." or some form or fashion.

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

#264

Post by jimbokun »

sideshowb wrote: post #18
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…

None of your points 1,2,3 highlight a loss of authority so much as its transfer between different institutions: religion, state, teacher, parent. Ok, maybe transferring authority to individuals as in (1) could be counted as a loss, but in a topic so personal that it would be ridiculous for somebody to claim authority over others in it anyway.

"religion, state, teacher, parent"

Nope, all of these are in simultaneous rapid decline in esteem and status.

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

#265

Post by x0f1a »

charliesharding wrote: post #5

The way in which public considers science today is much more analogous to the way the public considered religion during the time of Galileo. Think of the way people are castigated for not believing in scientific "truths". I see signs in peoples yard saying that "in this house, we believe science is real". As someone who has studied biochemistry for years, this kind of reverence for science is truly troubling. The one…

I’ve concluded something similar lately. Humans always needed stable shared rules that envolve slowly to have funcional societies with multiple generations. This was attained with a shared culture plus religion. The science was not considered the main driver for these social rules. Since the fall of the religions in the west we have been using science to partially rationalize our view of the world, as result science became a battleground for ideologies and consequently became corrupted, it lost its neutrality. Each side of the spectrum wants to use science to support their personal beliefs. I start to have this crazy idea that to save science we have to stop using it in political discussions, so far I think political discussions should rely only in democracy, continuity and shared values. Funny thing is that we tried before to replace replace religion during the French Revolution: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason Lacking common moral values from one authority we look for it in another, now we have science being used as religious authority instead of being the refuge of questioning and doubt.

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

#266

Post by TimTheTinker »

xvector wrote: post #241
TimTheTinker wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> religion that puts food on their table, makes their planes stay in the sky and makes them healthy again when they fall sick Your phrasing makes it sound like you're conflating science and physical reality... that's kind of a pet peeve of mine (sorry). Science provides some of the knowledge required for engineers and doctors to do their jobs, but it's the work they do with that knowledge that accomplishes those thin…

I think that is very pedantic. Of course science != physical reality. However, in general discussion no one is going to say > "potentially flawed but workable approximation of natural 'rules' that allow us to to manipulate natural phenomenon in a manner that results in food on our table, planes in your sky, and cures for our sicknesses" No, it's much more reasonable to say > science that puts food on our table, plane…

> I think that is very pedantic.

I know it is... hence the apology.

But in practice, I don't think it would be inaccurate to say the terms "science" and "natural world" are being used interchangeably in common vernacular. That bugs me. "Science" is not what you see when you look through a telescope or microscope.

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

#267

Post by mensetmanusman »

Replace ‘scientific authority’ and replace with any institution.

The collapse of the news (economically-classifieds, technologically-fake news from Russia, literarily-the best jobs are outside of media organizations, locality - no local news, etc.) has caused people to lose faith in every institution.

The fun is in predicting where this ends up...

Especially now that fake video news will easily be disseminated soon.

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

#268

Post by adrianratnapala »

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…

Point #3 is actually a sign of increasing authoritarianism.

You can make an argument that as older forms of authority (family, church) have weakened, we have been placed at the mercy of the remaining forms (governments, employers). But in this mixed picture how do we know whether science goes in the winners or losers column?

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

#269

Post by mensetmanusman »

stdbrouw wrote: post #76
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A dogmatic belief in anything is detrimental. It takes wisdom to understand this. Many followers of science lack this. Scientific method is a great tool - for the type of questions that it is designed to deal with - and a disaster waiting to happen if used for other areas of inquiry.

> Scientific method is a great tool - for the type of questions that it is designed to deal with - and a disaster waiting to happen if used for other areas of inquiry. What other areas of inquiry would that be?

What the Germans did during WW2: which race is better, etc., etc.

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

#270

Post by pdonis »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #261
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…

> Once you do an experiment and record certain results, those results don't change. You seem to believe that facts are like rocks: You can look at a rock with one pair of glasses, and then you can put a different pair of glasses on and be reasonably assured that you're looking at the same rock. This works because the laws of physics give us a context in which rocks can be individuated. Reality is a convenient authori…

> So far as I can tell, there is no such authority for facts.

Huh? You just described it: reality is the authority.

> I think this situation is simpler if these all count as separate facts.

No, they are different theoretical descriptions of the facts. The facts are the particular experimental apparatus Michelson and Morley used and the particular numbers they recorded when they made their measurements.

> Do "the facts of gravity" include the predictions made by the theory of gravity?

Of course not. Predictions aren't facts. They're things that you compare with facts in order to test theoretical models.

> Speaking of Einstein, before he pubished his paper on special relativity, wasn't it a fact that the velocity of a bullet fired from a train (relative to the track) is the sum of the train's velocity and the bullet's velocity?

No. As far as I know nobody at that time had made accurate enough measurements of the velocity of anything to be able to test the Newtonian prediction vs. the relativity prediction. But that doesn't mean the Newtonian prediction was correct before relativity was discovered. It certainly doesn't mean that something changed about the world described by physical models when physicists switched from using the Newtonian model to using the relativity model. All that changed was the model: the world the model was describing didn't change.

> Given that we can't know which facts might later need to be relativized

Facts never need to be relativized. Relativizing is something that happens when you switch theoretical models. You seem to be consistently confusing facts with models.

Post reply on HN