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

Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

chem.tufts.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 141 posts

Re: Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#41

Post by gizi »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #22
JackFr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that many people trying to convince me about science are woefully unaware of their own assumptions and are typically ignorant of some basic philosophy. In particular, I accept that the scientific method is a reliable path to knowledge, that is, it reliably leads to a true understanding of true things. However it does not follow that the scientific method is the only way to knowledge. It also does not fol…

I hear this a lot: morality is above science. I don't believe it for a moment. Just look at those that believe in ignorance over wisdom, or death over life - they do very, very badly. Empirically these moral codes are useful and effective. That's science right there.

Science is a method, producing statements about facts. A type of behaviour is not a fact (e.g. "killing someone"). It is statement. Therefore morality produces statements about statements. How could a method dealing with statements about facts ever be in competition with a method dealing with statements about statements? That is impossible. In other words, by comparing morality and science, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Re: Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#42

Post by gizi »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #32
gizi wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science id defined by its method: to set up experiments in order to look for counterexamples for a theorem. It is pretty much impossible to set up experiments in economics. While I agree that sociology and anthropology do not satisfy the definition of science, economics does not either. Where are the experiments? Without experiments, no science.

That's an antique notion. There are plenty of rigorous experiments being done in all of those fields.

For every theorem in sociology, for example, can you show us what experiment they set up, and what results they obtained and how we can repeat their experiment in order to find counterexamples for their theorem? From there, I will acknowledge the scientific status of that one, single theorem. I will still consider every other statement in sociology to be non-science. Seriously, they must produce such data for every single one of their theorems. Physics does that. Chemistry does that. Why would sociology be entitled to the same scientific status without putting in the same effort?

Re: Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#43

Post by calinet6 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #22
JackFr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that many people trying to convince me about science are woefully unaware of their own assumptions and are typically ignorant of some basic philosophy. In particular, I accept that the scientific method is a reliable path to knowledge, that is, it reliably leads to a true understanding of true things. However it does not follow that the scientific method is the only way to knowledge. It also does not fol…

I hear this a lot: morality is above science. I don't believe it for a moment. Just look at those that believe in ignorance over wisdom, or death over life - they do very, very badly. Empirically these moral codes are useful and effective. That's science right there.

This, and most of the other arguments in the whole thread, are so highly simplistic. The links between science and humanity are many and complex, and vice versa. There is no winner, there is no right side. They build on each other, enhance each other, and neither science not the humanities has any real meaning in isolation.

Really, the whole dichotomous argument between the two is absolutely ridiculous. We need fewer people on the sides and more who are truly bridges.

Re: Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#44

Post by cinquemb »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #38
cinquemb wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are a vast majority doing good work. Your cell phone is a towering testament to this. To be fair, try making the converse argument: how many religious zealots avoid bias? Zero. Lets not condemn science on the basis of a strawman ("some scientists somewhere are not very good") Yet to uphold what people consider science today, you use one example. As if the vast majority of scientists had anything to do with th…

I leave other examples to the reader. Hint: point at anything near you. It was the result of science. As for honoring the religious who supported science. I say, to the degree they pursued religion, they shortchanged their scientific accomplishments. Consider what else Newton might have done, had he abandoned his alchemy and astrology.

From wikipedia:

"Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[2]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

From such definition, if I could point at every person and say it was the result of systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of a testable explanations and predictions about the universe, it wouldn't be a stretch for one to think that such seems to be in favor of an omniscient being :P

Consider that there was probably some function of Newtons alchamey and astrology experience that allowed him to put forth other ideas that we are willing accept from testable hypothesis… or that had their been no Newton, the phenomena that he described, would have still existed, yet people at that time would continued to have no testable understanding of it.

Re: Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#45

Post by darkmighty »

RodericDay wrote: post #19
mdpopescu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... and, of course, the rebuttals to this were mostly of the "no true Scotsman" flavor. "It's not the fault of scientists, it's the bad media". Let's ignore http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ (Why Most Published Research Findings Are False) and many other similar results - we have to defend scientists because! Look - I'm an engineer. I use a sort-of Bayesian reasoning: I started from what I learned…

I'm an engineer too, and I fully agree with you. My particular peeve is engineers who kowtow to economics, putting it in a much higher pedestal than sociology or anthropology, because it is "mathy". The implicit assumptions are usually along the lines of "the assumptions seem obvious enough, and look at all those formulae in the transformations thereof!"

Try telling that to this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjVDqfUhXOY

Re: Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#46

Post by spydum »

calinet6 wrote: post #43
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this a lot: morality is above science. I don't believe it for a moment. Just look at those that believe in ignorance over wisdom, or death over life - they do very, very badly. Empirically these moral codes are useful and effective. That's science right there.

This, and most of the other arguments in the whole thread, are so highly simplistic. The links between science and humanity are many and complex, and vice versa. There is no winner, there is no right side. They build on each other, enhance each other, and neither science not the humanities has any real meaning in isolation. Really, the whole dichotomous argument between the two is absolutely ridiculous. We need fewer…

you have to wonder if there is some magnetism in people which draws them to polarizing topics (both to build polarizing arguments, and to engage in them). Maybe it's as simple as we are highly competitive, and in the absence of competition, we create rifts just so we can establish who is greater?

Re: Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#47

Post by darkmighty »

gizi wrote: post #42
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an antique notion. There are plenty of rigorous experiments being done in all of those fields.

For every theorem in sociology, for example, can you show us what experiment they set up, and what results they obtained and how we can repeat their experiment in order to find counterexamples for their theorem? From there, I will acknowledge the scientific status of that one, single theorem. I will still consider every other statement in sociology to be non-science. Seriously, they must produce such data for every s…

You're confusing science with mathematics. There are no theorems in science, it's all experimental. We have certainty on a few basic principles or models and make inferences based on those models.

I'm not going to defend sociology specifically because I don't know the field or it's state, but in every science (e.g. chemistry), you make a model for some restricted case to fit some data and you make assumptions on the scope of the model. Otherwise you couldn't say pretty much anything about anything: "We tested that proton and that one has a mass of X units. We can't say anything about this proton, thogh." -- the evidence piles up that the model has widespread vality. In the same sense, we can make assumptions on the scope of models. Of course, I imagine we have no hope for the time being of uniting the basic physical laws to that of sociology, simply because we don't have the power to understand the human brain just yet. I don't think refraining from modelling behavior is useful, and it will probably even help us better model the brain and generalize it's behavior towards "better" intelligence (AI).

Re: Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#48

Post by jmaygarden »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #18
mdpopescu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... and, of course, the rebuttals to this were mostly of the "no true Scotsman" flavor. "It's not the fault of scientists, it's the bad media". Let's ignore http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ (Why Most Published Research Findings Are False) and many other similar results - we have to defend scientists because! Look - I'm an engineer. I use a sort-of Bayesian reasoning: I started from what I learned…

So we think that is a dangerous thing? Believing the best, tested results of experiments (science) is not superior to random religious tracts written thousands of years ago? The critical difference between treating science as a religion, and treating religion as a religion, is that the science people have a good chance of being right. Its rational and reasonable to be uncritical of scientific results - the scientist…

This is painful to read. It leads to a statement like the following.

"The foremost scientific authority claims that the Earth is flat. There is no need to be critical of this scientific finding. All opposing viewpoints must be shunned, and proponents of those contrarian ideas ridiculed and ruined."

Re: Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#49

Post by pdonis »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #20
cinquemb wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In any case, my original argument wasn't about the scientists; my argument was: most people treat science as a religion. They feel very superior to the religious people who are accepting everything they are told uncritically and then turn around and accept everything that is prefixed with "science says". We had a subject in my lab yesterday that after the experiment had a "heated" debate where he put physics vs rel…

Its easy to be smug about science; its so often right. If you don't have time to research the subject yourself, I'd always advise taking the side of the scientist.

> If you don't have time to research the subject yourself, I'd always advise taking the side of the scientist.

If you don't have time to research the subject yourself, it means you don't care about the answer anyway. So why should you take any side? Why not just accept that you don't know?

Re: Isaac Asimov: The Relativity of Wrong (1989)

#50

Post by [deleted] »

mdpopescu wrote: post #15
mdpopescu wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of the people you're caricaturing here. I understand science, and mathematics, and logical thinking, which is why I believe (most) people blindly follow science as if it were a religion. (For a very recent example, see this article - io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800 ) See also Scott Adams' musings on the subject: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/109880240641/sciences-bigge…

... and, of course, the rebuttals to this were mostly of the "no true Scotsman" flavor. "It's not the fault of scientists, it's the bad media". Let's ignore http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ (Why Most Published Research Findings Are False) and many other similar results - we have to defend scientists because! Look - I'm an engineer. I use a sort-of Bayesian reasoning: I started from what I learned…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN