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

Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 77 posts

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#31

Post by nanairo »

zeteo wrote: post #18

'You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe.' Right. The difference lies in the way that trust is achieved. The "I trust X because Y trusts X" transitivity is very easy to jump on, but often disastrous; just ask Bernie Madoff's investors. If you read in the newspaper that "X is one of the foremost scientists in his field", it is also dangerous to rely on just this pronouncement, and blindly tr…

I see what you mean but I think you are overlooking how easy it is to muddy the waters. You come up with a good evidence of evolution. Great: but it will take the anti-evolution just one guy that makes a somehow plausible alternative scenario, or finds one whole in your argument and suddenly people are back to square one.

Despite we are _not_ back on square one. Between a theory that almost works (like evolution) and one that is pure conjecture, the fact that there's a whole in the former all it shows is that we need to improve the theory.

It is the same thing in climate modelling. It takes a nobody to say something which sound somehow plausible for the scientist to need to prove themselves again, often taking several years and a lot of effort. Most scientist, including at the IPCC, do describe hypothetical scenarios with all their doubts, including error bars etc... They also state all their assumptions, and their full method.

Then one guy says: "Hey, it's been crazy cold in England this winter... so much for global warming", or "between 2001-2002 the global temperature went down" and suddenly everyone feel they are back to "we don't know". But why? The data from the IPCC is the result of many different models, with many different assumptions. The opposition has provided no better model: all they need to do to keep the status quo is point out some small unknown or flaw. That's WRONG!

And btw, climate science is possibly one of the hardest disciplines around: you are making a prediction in the future of a chaotic system. But the anti-science groups can find objections just as easily to pretty much any bit of science they dislike.

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#32

Post by nanairo »

ErrantX wrote: post #4

Singh has, I think, won the first battle in two very long wars. The first is, of course, the science one. The other being our idiotic libel laws. From this it's clear he's very switched on too (well, that was probably not in doubt but still). This, in particular, is an important point we face: ''Scientists aren’t necessarily good communicators, because they aren’t trained to be good communicators. A researcher could…

About your last quote, I think what we need is to have scientist dedicated to the communication side of science: aka scientific journalists. I know there are a few, but we need a lot more, and like many bits of science they'll need to be sometimes paid with public money.

This seems to me the only way that you can keep the scientist working on the science, and still answer all the questions that people have. Basically large groups need their own public relation department. :)

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#33

Post by josefresco »

edanm wrote: post #15
josefresco wrote: post #10

I know this really wasn't the platform for Simon to defend or assert his views but he certainly does a poor job of it. It seems the interviewer was soft-balling questions simply because he won in court. Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true. I do…

"I think Simon needs a little more years under his belt (wisdom) and maybe another PhD in history to make him aware of this historically painful fact." Just out of curiosity (really!), are you older than him / have a degree in history? I actually agree with most of what you said, it just seems odd to assume he is wrong because he does't have some prerequisites, not just that he might disagree with you (and possibly b…

Simon might be a shining example of the un-scientist (smart but able to talk to real people) but the article didn't portray him this way. My comment about history and wisdom was based on my own experiences as I get older. When someone is young and smart, they tend to debate with such passion it blinds them from listening to the opposing viewpoint and working to a resolution. Scientists need to learn to communicate and convert the non-believes (bad word I know) without falling back on "I'm smarter and hold more degrees so I must be right". Lay the evidence on the table, hold a debate, and listen. The most important being the listen part. Sure you can dismiss the ignorant, but not in a society where the ignorant make decisions that effect all of us. I'm rambling now ... off to the next reply.

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#34

Post by kd0amg »

cstuder wrote: post #28
alexandros wrote: post #9

I fear that as the scientifically correct action keeps getting further and further divorced from the 'common sense' action on any given issue, the two worlds will continue to divide, and as the distance increases, science will get harder and harder to follow. The bridging has to be done by cultural evolution, so that the prejudices that form by 18 are not as counter-science as they are now, but even so, they cannot b…

If you're interested in Science Fiction, you might want to read Neal Stephensons 'Anathem'. It plays exactly with your scenario: Scientific groups isolating themselves intentionally from the 'secular' world. Funny enough, their scientists look like priest to the common people. And the common people are basically required to blindly accept what these priest... well... preach. Science turns into religion. It's always s…

And for a rather different take on science-as-religion, try A Canticle for Leibowitz.

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#35

Post by nanairo »

latortuga wrote: post #27
nanairo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it's this kind of answers that make scientific explanations so hard. "Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true." First of all: if they have an advanced degree in a subject such as medicine than I think they deserve that you drop your hidden i…

I liked your post but I just wanted to mention a (minor) correction that we have a common ancestor with apes, we did not evolve "from" monkeys.

I stand corrected. :)

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#36

Post by josefresco »

praptak wrote: post #14
josefresco wrote: post #10

I know this really wasn't the platform for Simon to defend or assert his views but he certainly does a poor job of it. It seems the interviewer was soft-balling questions simply because he won in court. Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true. I do…

"Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true." I don't think he is advocating that. Trusting scientists because they use controlled experiment, peer review and other similar tools is quite a different thing than trusting them based on authority.

You may be right (I know little of Simon) but the average person doesn't see the experiment, or peer review. They just see the authority.

Just like our ideal legal system, to prove someone guilty it has to be done beyond a level of reasonable doubt. Science should be scrutinized in a similar manor.

Often I feel scientists are disproportionately hurt when someone attacks their conclusions. They need to get over their own emotional shortcomings and find a solution to the problem. Much like people need to get beyond "common sense" and reason with the facts.

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#37

Post by josefresco »

ugh wrote: post #25
josefresco wrote: post #10

I know this really wasn't the platform for Simon to defend or assert his views but he certainly does a poor job of it. It seems the interviewer was soft-balling questions simply because he won in court. Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true. I do…

Authority can be useful. I know, it’s usually scoffed at because there is a fallacy named after it. Yet there is no conceivable way in which you can be an expert in all the big fields and little niches of science. You have to use the authority shortcut. You have to find people who you can trust and let them figure it out for you. That’s just a reality of the human condition. All Singh says is that you should trust pe…

I couldn't agree more about your statement regarding authority. But oppose the behavior of trusting only those who "deal" with a subject every day. History shows many medical and scientific advances were made by smart people working outside their field.

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#38

Post by nanairo »

josefresco wrote: post #33
edanm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think Simon needs a little more years under his belt (wisdom) and maybe another PhD in history to make him aware of this historically painful fact." Just out of curiosity (really!), are you older than him / have a degree in history? I actually agree with most of what you said, it just seems odd to assume he is wrong because he does't have some prerequisites, not just that he might disagree with you (and possibly b…

Simon might be a shining example of the un-scientist (smart but able to talk to real people) but the article didn't portray him this way. My comment about history and wisdom was based on my own experiences as I get older. When someone is young and smart, they tend to debate with such passion it blinds them from listening to the opposing viewpoint and working to a resolution. Scientists need to learn to communicate an…

True. No scientist should feel he can just wave his degree without presenting evidence. However I think you overlook just how much distrust there is of scientists.

A scientist doesn't start on equal footing with the "guru". People (who like anti-science) are always suspecting scientist to be talking some random bullshit with big words to confuse them, or can come up with conspiracy theories to shoot them down. Scientist can go on TV and show all the pretty pictures of graphs showing their argument, but it takes a guy with no clue to say: "Oh, but you forgot X" or "That graph is deceiving because..." and suddenly the scientist is playing defensively again.

And when a scientist dare stop playing the game then if he just stop replying he is accused of being in an ivory tower and being arrogant, and if he start attacking the other theory then he is accused of having created his own religion/faith because "that's not the evidence-based arguments that a scientist should do". It's a lose-lose.

I am not saying there is no way out, just that for a scientist to drive his message home takes a LOT more than just showing he has some evidence.

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#39

Post by nanairo »

josefresco wrote: post #36
praptak wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true." I don't think he is advocating that. Trusting scientists because they use controlled experiment, peer review and other similar tools is quite a different thing than trusting them based on authority.

You may be right (I know little of Simon) but the average person doesn't see the experiment, or peer review. They just see the authority. Just like our ideal legal system, to prove someone guilty it has to be done beyond a level of reasonable doubt. Science should be scrutinized in a similar manor. Often I feel scientists are disproportionately hurt when someone attacks their conclusions. They need to get over their…

I don't think scientist are so much hurt as lost: when you have years of evidence pointing in one direction, and someone replies with a completely unscientific argument (take a lot of pseudo-science for example) what is he supposed to do?

Science has its own epistemological methods. You don't prove something beyond a level of reasonable doubt because that's a) vague, b) really difficult (rarely science proves anything), c) the scientist never claims that his theory cannot be improved, i.e. it's perfect/finished.

On the other hand scientific agreement comes when a theory explains current data and can predict many new situations, and these were tested not just by the author but also by other people in other places with other apparatus. Every article is also checked for the assumptions and methodology that are stated in each paper. The scientific method cannot prove anything but has its own ways of knowing things...

... which is why it is so hard to give a scientific answer against some wacko unscientific theory.

The fact that the person doesn't see experiments or peer reviews is no excuse: that is the way science proceed, and it's open to anyone to scrutinise. You seem to suggest that scientist shouldn't just scrutinise each other's work but also answer any complain/criticism from someone who has no clue about the field. But you know, there's a reason the scientist spent 4 years of Uni and maybe more later: how can society know "beyond a level of reasonable doubt" what the scientist have agreed upon if they don't have the tools to understand it?

Re: Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science

#40

Post by zeteo »

nanairo wrote: post #31
zeteo wrote: post #18

'You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe.' Right. The difference lies in the way that trust is achieved. The "I trust X because Y trusts X" transitivity is very easy to jump on, but often disastrous; just ask Bernie Madoff's investors. If you read in the newspaper that "X is one of the foremost scientists in his field", it is also dangerous to rely on just this pronouncement, and blindly tr…

I see what you mean but I think you are overlooking how easy it is to muddy the waters. You come up with a good evidence of evolution. Great: but it will take the anti-evolution just one guy that makes a somehow plausible alternative scenario, or finds one whole in your argument and suddenly people are back to square one. Despite we are _not_ back on square one. Between a theory that almost works (like evolution) and…

It's true that there's a certain amount of fuzziness, but also there's a gradient of trust between 100% and zero. Predictions that consistently come true start to dwarf alternative explanations after a while. Darwin said that the great apes are our closest living relatives, and 150 years later research finds the genetic code similarities in the 90+% range. That's pretty strong.

On the other hand, it is indeed possible that the field of study is a chaotic system, and accurate predictions impossible. But then I will argue that's not a branch of natural science, but rather of history. A good historian can tell you in small details the reasons why Lincoln got elected in 1860, but is as clueless as the next guy as to the next presidential election. Would you trust him if he said Republicans are always best?

Similarly, there's a lot of great work done in historical climatology, with pollen analysis, ice cores etc. and we can find out a great many things about the past. Computer models can be built to fit this history perfectly (as I'm sure that even I can code some curve that spits out the order of Democrat and Republican presidents, or even last year's Dow Jones). But unless we see these models also making verifiable and accurate predictions (without 50% margins of error! what if chimp genome turned out to be 49% identical to ours?), it might well be that the system is inherently chaotic and muddy. Then it might simply not lend itself to scientific analysis, at least not with our present methods.

Post reply on HN