The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back • Hacker News Board

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

#381

Post by pdonis » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 2:21 AM UTC

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #380

pdonis wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Suppose you have two theories, and you run an experiment whose results produce two assertions, each couched in the language of their respective theories, (I'd call these assertions facts). I wouldn't. An experiment will produce one set of "assertions", about what was done and what happened. Those are facts. Different theories might add different "assertions" on top of that, but that doesn't change what was done and…

If we water down the label "fact" so that it represents mere sense data--just the perception of an interferometer's output that happens to not vary based on time or orientation--then what good are facts anyway? For them to be useful, they need to be in some way convincing, don't they?

> If we water down the label "fact" so that it represents mere sense data

Not just sense data, but the records of sense data: the records of what was done and what happened during the experiment. Those records make it possible for other people besides the experimenters to know what was done and what happened. Without that the facts would be useless because only the experimenters themselves would ever know them.

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

#382

Post by __MatrixMan__ » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 2:32 AM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #372

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reality is the authority Suppose you have two theories, and you run an experiment whose results produce two assertions, each couched in the language of their respective theories, (I'd call these assertions facts). You say that reality is the authority on whether the two assertions represent the same underlying fact or different underlying facts, but it's not like there's some oracle that I can consult in the matter…

> It was initially poor style to relativize this fact You're confusing facts with models again. The statement you give is not a fact: it's a prediction based on a theoretical model. Einstein proposed a different theoretical model, which we now know makes more accurate predictions. But no facts changed during this process. Thinking that switching models changed the facts is like thinking that switching from a less acc…

Ok, so I'm trying to get my head around what you mean by a fact. You've said:

> Michelson and Morley had a particular experimental setup and procedure and recorded particular numbers when they ran the experiment.

I believe that the facts you're referring to must be on page 685 of this document:

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/MorleyMiller1905.pdf

Can sense be made of it without first embracing the theory, for example, which indicates that light is made up of waves?

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

#383

Post by agent008t » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 9:20 AM UTC

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…

I agree with your first paragraph, but the rest of your post contradicts it. The effect of Central Bank policies of the last decades is yet to be seen. Consider, for example, the UK productivity puzzle, where productivity has remained stagnant since 2008. One of the versions that was, if I remember right, expressed by Andy Haldane of BoE, was that loose monetary policy allowed a large number of uncompetitive businesses to survive, lowering total productivity.

The primary function of central banks when they were established was to prevent bank runs, acting as a lender to banks. But what if, for example, we had full reserve banking instead of fractional reserve? Would that not eliminate bank runs, make the economy more stable, ensure interest rate serve as a valid signal of consumer time preferences and of the demand for capital, and eliminate the need for a central bank?

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

#384

Post by __MatrixMan__ » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 1:34 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #372

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reality is the authority Suppose you have two theories, and you run an experiment whose results produce two assertions, each couched in the language of their respective theories, (I'd call these assertions facts). You say that reality is the authority on whether the two assertions represent the same underlying fact or different underlying facts, but it's not like there's some oracle that I can consult in the matter…

> It was initially poor style to relativize this fact You're confusing facts with models again. The statement you give is not a fact: it's a prediction based on a theoretical model. Einstein proposed a different theoretical model, which we now know makes more accurate predictions. But no facts changed during this process. Thinking that switching models changed the facts is like thinking that switching from a less acc…

So the city has a layout, independent of me, and that layout is, as you say, a fact.

In order to recognize a particular patch of ground as a street, and not--say--an oddly shaped rock, I must recognize that it goes somewhere, so even though the facts are authoritative, I can only view them through their correspondence with a model (which is in this case, a map--either on paper or in my mind). Building that correspondence constitutes a successful test of the model.

So my belief about the best route to take to work is determined by my model which is more or less correct based on its correspondence with these facts.

Am I using the words your way now?

And if so, would you agree that "points A and B are 1 mile apart" is an example of a fact--or at least is a model that seems likely to be confirmed by contact with a fact?

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

#385

Post by Kaiyou » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 2:33 PM UTC

rumcajz wrote: post #314

balabaster wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is a public perception problem. The reason that a troubling number of people no longer believe in science isn't that scientific method is flawed or that people don't believe in scientific method. The bigger concern is the way that scientific studies are mounted, paid for by interested parties that have conflicts of interest to produce results favourable to a desired outcome and then they're presented a…

I don't understand medicine much. I would prefer to believe my doctor. However, if my doctor suggests using homeopathics I will start questioning any other advice they might give me.

Not everything under the umbrella term homeopathics these days is useless. Of course, that's not necessarily something Big Pharma likes to hear.

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

#386

Post by Kaiyou » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 2:34 PM UTC

yeahitslikethat wrote: post #244

balabaster wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is a public perception problem. The reason that a troubling number of people no longer believe in science isn't that scientific method is flawed or that people don't believe in scientific method. The bigger concern is the way that scientific studies are mounted, paid for by interested parties that have conflicts of interest to produce results favourable to a desired outcome and then they're presented a…

That's why I believe in science, but I don't believe in people. People will and have corrupted every institution ever created.

I for once welcome our future AI Overlords.

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

#387

Post by Kaiyou » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 3:49 PM UTC

lutorm wrote: post #303

roenxi wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if someone understands nothing about science at all, and worships it like a religion, at least they had the good sense of picking a religion that puts food on their table, makes their planes stay in the sky and makes them healthy again when they fall sick. Religion has proven capable of welding large communities together, and that sort of shared belief system wins wars. If you ignore the fact that the doctrine i…

I think the last 200 years of history has demonstrated that science is a superior strategy, but it isn't obvious enough to be hand-waved. If you're talking about wars, you really think a hypothetical civilization with a technological development level of ca.1819 would have even a sliver of a chance against modern weapons?? I think history shows that not to be the case. But I think that misses the point. The real issu…

One might think some birds pitted against soldiers with guns wouldn't stand a chance, but one would be wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War

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

#388

Post by pdonis » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #382

pdonis wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was initially poor style to relativize this fact You're confusing facts with models again. The statement you give is not a fact: it's a prediction based on a theoretical model. Einstein proposed a different theoretical model, which we now know makes more accurate predictions. But no facts changed during this process. Thinking that switching models changed the facts is like thinking that switching from a less acc…

Ok, so I'm trying to get my head around what you mean by a fact. You've said: > Michelson and Morley had a particular experimental setup and procedure and recorded particular numbers when they ran the experiment. I believe that the facts you're referring to must be on page 685 of this document: http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/MorleyMiller1905.pdf Can sense be made of it without first embracing the theory, for exa…

> I believe that the facts you're referring to must be on page 685 of this document

The azimuths and wavelengths at the top of that page are facts, yes. Also, the description on the preceding pages of how the experiment was conducted contains plenty of facts.

The rest of p. 685 after the azimuths and wavelengths is all interpretation using a theoretical model.

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

#389

Post by x220 » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 6:01 PM UTC

burfog wrote: post #88

x220 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The way in which public considers science today is much more analogous to the way the public considered religion during the time of Galileo. I wish. In the US a huge number of people (large enough to be dangerous) reject climate change consensus, think that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, are "skeptical" about vaccinating their children (I use quotes because skepticism implies reasonableness), think that t…

Have you ever seriously thought about why people might reject a climate change consensus? It's easy to dismiss people as being dumb or misled, but the forcefulness of this rejection suggests otherwise. There have been a few incidents of fraud committed in support of that consensus, undermining credibility, but the biggest problem is that the consensus comes with a plan of action that is completely unacceptable to man…

So people reject a claim not because it's false but because they don't like the consequences of accepting that claim? That's the modus operandi of totalitarian ideologies. It's hardly a reasonable justification.

>At this point, nobody is doing science.

Do you have a background in scientific research? I see no point debating further unless you do.

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

#390

Post by burfog » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 8:48 PM UTC

x220 wrote: post #389

burfog wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever seriously thought about why people might reject a climate change consensus? It's easy to dismiss people as being dumb or misled, but the forcefulness of this rejection suggests otherwise. There have been a few incidents of fraud committed in support of that consensus, undermining credibility, but the biggest problem is that the consensus comes with a plan of action that is completely unacceptable to man…

So people reject a claim not because it's false but because they don't like the consequences of accepting that claim? That's the modus operandi of totalitarian ideologies. It's hardly a reasonable justification. >At this point, nobody is doing science. Do you have a background in scientific research? I see no point debating further unless you do.

The modus operandi of totalitarian ideologies is to use science as an excuse to achieve some goal, such as totalitarian control of the economy.

To be clear: the people you see as being on "your team" are totalitarian, and you are cheerleading for them.

If the only way to stop a totalitarian take-over of the economy is to reject a claim, then that is what must be done. How else? How would it be possible to accept that global warming is human caused and also possible for humans to stop, yet ensure that nothing is done about it?

In other words, the requirement is to prevent eco-fascist totalitarian control of the economy. How can that be realistically achieved without rejecting the claim? If accepting the claim leads to eco-fascist totalitarian control of the economy, as it seems to, they the only possible solution is to reject the claim.

I suspect you actually want a totalitarian take-over of the economy, no matter the science. Global warming is a convenient excuse. Your desire for that political change gives you a bias toward believing that global warming is both disastrous and avoidable. It also happens to be a belief expressed in the New Zealand shooter's manifesto; he was an eco-fascist.

Also, LOL, I'm not going to dox myself with a credential war with an x220 on the internet.