Any field of science should be talked about by someone who has a deep knowledge of that field. Unless he knows Evolutionary Psychology, Anthropology, and Economics very well, making generic comments about all these fields isn't a good way to prove his very point on science.
Why I Hate Science
31–40 of 41 posts
Re: Why I Hate Science
#32"It's not unusual in school to hear this religion of science put another way, science is the beautiful application of reason and logic that slowly and inexorably moves from ignorance to truth. "Bullshit." At this point, I stopped taking you seriously. No. That is exactly what science is: an ongoing dialogue between scientists, using experiments to collect data to validate (improve certainty of) or disprove theories,…
"slowly and inexorably moves from ignorance to truth."
I don't think that's what science is. It moves in fits and starts, has fads that come and go. Sure, if you average over long enough time it looks like smooth progress, but it's really not.
Re: Why I Hate Science
#33Part of his rant is about things that are generally not considered to be "science". Economics is usually categorized separately as "social science" (look! Wikipedia agrees! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics ). It's ironic that someone who "no beg[s], scientists to adopt much stricter standards of disseminating information" is so cavalier about lumping together very different fields of study. This appears to be w…
I was told once: "If it is dictated by the universe then it is science. If you get a vote, it is not."
I don't understand your point. Whether aliens built the pyramids is not a matter of opinion, it's a question that has a factual answer. Nevertheless it's arguably not science.
Re: Why I Hate Science
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he understands the difference. His point is that most people don't .
I don't think so. Take this statement for example: Science needs a new set of ethics. It needs to be clear when reporting medical studies what types of methods were used, what was brought into the study a priori, the sample size, and how it was reviewed. Scientists should be clear when they are speaking on matters of reproducible science -- such as the absorption spectrum of CO2, the Greenhouse principle, the fact th…
First, Isn't what he wants in medical studies completely standard practice?
It probably is (I don't have a habit of reading medical articles.) But there are still people writing papers like "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" (see http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-dam...) so it's not clear that implies that they have their shit together...
Re: Why I Hate Science
#35Daniel, please stop using link-bait titles and openers. It makes it far more difficult for me to evaluate the actual ideas you're talking about, because I have to separate the link-bait stuff from your real points. (The "bait" from the "switch.") That takes more mental effort than I'm willing to afford an essay that starts off being disingenuous.
But without the link-bait, why would anyone ever post them to HN? [EDIT: typo fixed]
He posted it himself, so that would hardly be affected.
Re: Why I Hate Science
#36"It's not unusual in school to hear this religion of science put another way, science is the beautiful application of reason and logic that slowly and inexorably moves from ignorance to truth. "Bullshit." At this point, I stopped taking you seriously. No. That is exactly what science is: an ongoing dialogue between scientists, using experiments to collect data to validate (improve certainty of) or disprove theories,…
You haven't addressed his actual point, which is that progress is not inexorable—it may not even be monotonic—and it certainly does not occur through the pure application of reason and logic.
Your view is of course a very popular one. In fact, that's what he's saying is the problem. But it's far from the only philosophy of science that's out there. And it's a particularly naïve one in my opinion. It's a shame that as soon as you encounter someone with a different philosophy you stop taking them seriously; otherwise you might learn something.
Personally, I no longer have much time for the "inexorable progress through reason and logic" theory, which essentially boils down to the idea that if you just make sure you follow the One True Scientific™ Method to the letter then the right outcome is guaranteed. I've seen people claim that if you just make sure you follow the Waterfall Method to the letter then good software is guaranteed to come out of it. I don't have much time for that either. Before you complain about the comparison, note that both are essentially projections of the same philosophy (logical positivism) into different spheres.
I attempted to summarise some of the history and why it matters here: http://www.zerobanana.com/essays/politics-of-reason/ but in short, I disagree that the problem is just with journalists (or just with scientists, for that matter). It's a problem for all of us as a society in how we think about science.
Re: Why I Hate Science
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was told once: "If it is dictated by the universe then it is science. If you get a vote, it is not."
I don't understand your point. Whether aliens built the pyramids is not a matter of opinion, it's a question that has a factual answer. Nevertheless it's arguably not science.
The point of the quote is that if the the decision is made by some person somewhere, then it isn't science. The "you" is everyone. The quote is meant to be taken at the micro / personal level not at the macro / universal level.
Re: Why I Hate Science
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he understands the difference. His point is that most people don't .
I don't think so. Take this statement for example: Science needs a new set of ethics. It needs to be clear when reporting medical studies what types of methods were used, what was brought into the study a priori, the sample size, and how it was reviewed. Scientists should be clear when they are speaking on matters of reproducible science -- such as the absorption spectrum of CO2, the Greenhouse principle, the fact th…
[deleted]
Re: Why I Hate Science
#39"It's not unusual in school to hear this religion of science put another way, science is the beautiful application of reason and logic that slowly and inexorably moves from ignorance to truth. "Bullshit." At this point, I stopped taking you seriously. No. That is exactly what science is: an ongoing dialogue between scientists, using experiments to collect data to validate (improve certainty of) or disprove theories,…
Debates among scientists sometimes look almost indistinguishable from public debates on science. The difference is in the premise: in the former case the merit of the methods is questioned, and in the latter case the merit of science itself is questioned.
My feeling was this critique was of the former kind, particularly with regards to scientists' communication. His view is fairly similar to that of most academics I know, though less nuanced.
In that light, I think you may have misinterpreted this particular comment.
The word "truth" is a diabolical invention that has a fairly subjective interpretation that changes when you start looking into what it means. However, once you dig deep enough, you find the inevitable: There is no spoon.
Empirical science is not about truths. It's about models. It's about modelling our world 'as well as we can'. The theory of relativity does not explain how the universe is architected, it's just a model that makes predictions. Any conclusions about the nature of the universe drawn from the structure of the model or any valuations of the model are entirely your own.
What does "as well as we can" mean? Here it comes down to merit. Accuracy is a virtue, but accuracy often implies complexity and limited applicability (e.g., simulations are relatively accurate, but only concern a single set of situations). Practicality is a virtue, because few people use relativity to calculate gravity. Correctness is a virtue, but probability can make things much simpler. Simplicity is a virtue, but not for any fundamental reasons. Generality is a virtue, but often comes at the cost of accuracy. Completeness is a virtue, but we do not know how to achieve it. Communicability is a virtue, because many good models are forgotten for lack of sex appeal. Usefulness is perhaps the greatest virtue, but it's always too early to judge that. As scientists, we are constrained by the same reality that all systems face: There is no right solution.
Why make models if they don't reveal any truths? Two reasons. One is that they (sometimes) allow us to calculate things, which is the most powerful concept in human civilization. It allows us to build bridges, launch satellites into orbit, produce the materials that we need, etc. without relying solely on trial-and-error. The second reason is that while the model does not reveal the truth, it does reveal a piece of the mathematics or processes that play a role in shaping the system being studied. Usually the model only reveals one aspect of the system, while in reality all things are related and influence each other and no calculable formula could describe it. However, it gives us a sense of direction, like a compass, rather than a map.
Once you grasp these subtleties of science, you become much more careful about your claims. Not so much because you think they might be flawed, that option should already be off the table, but because you know your claims do not (intend to) fairly represent the complexity of the truth. Part of the author's frustration, which many in the sciences department would share, seems to be that some scientists don't see or willfully ignore the subtlety when making claims in public. This leads people to misrepresent science as a magical truth producing machine, and make preposterous claims that distract attention from what science actually does: create models, for whatever purpose they have.
Re: Why I Hate Science
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think so. Take this statement for example: Science needs a new set of ethics. It needs to be clear when reporting medical studies what types of methods were used, what was brought into the study a priori, the sample size, and how it was reviewed. Scientists should be clear when they are speaking on matters of reproducible science -- such as the absorption spectrum of CO2, the Greenhouse principle, the fact th…
First, Isn't what he wants in medical studies completely standard practice? It probably is (I don't have a habit of reading medical articles.) But there are still people writing papers like "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" (see http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-dam... ) so it's not clear that implies that they have their shit together...
This is one of the problems with the perception of science -- which is that scientists always are right. They're not. Falsifying existing claims is part of science. If no claims were ever debunked then I'd be suspicious that it was more faith than science.
With that said, sloppy research does happen. And Ioannidis has pointed this out. But pointing out that there's a high correlation between people who eat blueberries and IQ, in one study is useful. It's not a conclusive -- especially since there was no hypothesis going in. But it gives the pretext for double-blind studies. It advances science.
Of course, there is also flat out corruption, which I have no answers for. That's just part of human life.