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

When do we have a scientific fact?

blog.oup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 119 posts

Re: When do we have a scientific fact?

#91

Post by matheusd »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #83
Certhas wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please elaborate on why you insist that the word has no use? There are things that are merely probable, and there are things that are beyond doubt. Not using the word fact for the latter is useless pageantry if the "well, technically..." kind. The existence of atoms is not merely probable, after millenia of debate the question is settled. Everyone can perform an experiment to verify it. This ability is very…

> The existence of atoms is not merely probable, after millenia of debate the question is settled. Everyone can perform an experiment to verify it. Except atoms aren't atomic: they can be further subdivided. In the original sense of the word, we still don't know whether there are atoms. > It means we have a statement for which we can generate additional evidence at will. No matter what your threshold for evidence nee…

> Except atoms aren't atomic: they can be further subdivided

Those are two different facts:

  1. Atoms exist
  2. Atoms can be divided
GP was attesting to #1 being a scientific fact for which "no matter your threshold for evidence needed, it can be met". If you object to the word "atoms" on the grounds of it having a specific meaning from 2K years ago, replace that with "the modern standard model of particle physics".

>> > It means we have a statement for which we can generate additional evidence at will.

> Reading the same book over and over again only gives you evidence about what the book says

"Generate additional evidence at will" is packing a lot of stuff, but in my read it means "Generate a hypothesis", "Model a new experiment that can disprove it to the desired or available precision", "Review the experimental setup for any defects", etc etc.

"Generate additional evidence at will" when applied to the "scientific fact that atoms exist" means that any new experiment that you design and perform will be compatible to that fact. There is no evidence whatsoever that atoms (at their "level of abstraction") do not exist.

The only way I see out of that is if you're _so_ reductionist to the point where you accept that the _only_ thing that exists is whatever is at the lowest level of reality (quantum fields, quantum foam, whatever), but then I guess neither you nor I exist to be discussing this.

Re: When do we have a scientific fact?

#92

Post by kuhewa »

n4r9 wrote: post #89
Certhas wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please elaborate on why you insist that the word has no use? There are things that are merely probable, and there are things that are beyond doubt. Not using the word fact for the latter is useless pageantry if the "well, technically..." kind. The existence of atoms is not merely probable, after millenia of debate the question is settled. Everyone can perform an experiment to verify it. This ability is very…

The atomic model is certainly beyond a significant level of doubt. Surely it is not totally beyond question however. There remains a very small chance that an alternative model of the universe is consistent with the experiments you have in mind, and better explains the outcomes of other (as yet unperformed) experiments.

A good but not perfect example would be Newtonian gravitation. Pre-relativity, if it wasn't for the weird precession of the perihelion of Mercury, one could have easily used a form of this argument to claim Newtonian gravity is a fact because you can do an experiment at any moment to demonstrate it by watching an apple fall from a tree. It's been done millions of times, and the acceleration always follows an elegant equation!

We can't always know what we don't know, so falsifiability must remain on the table.

Re: When do we have a scientific fact?

#93

Post by mistermann »

college_physics wrote: post #47

When we use a single word for a complex phenomenon (in this instance, the "scientific fact") we bound to have endless discussions talking past each other. The focus on "95%" gives away that the focus of the article is on a preliminary stage of scientific inquiry, where uncertainties around the measurement (observation) process are dominant and the explanatory framework of what is happening is sketchy (statistical) in…

> When we use a single word for a complex phenomenon (in this instance, the "scientific fact") we bound to have endless discussions talking past each other.

I think of it as "what data type(s) would I need to store this information", and the epistemic status(es) (maybe with reasoning, etc) would be a part of that.

Re: When do we have a scientific fact?

#94

Post by kuhewa »

matheusd wrote: post #88
Certhas wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please elaborate on why you insist that the word has no use? There are things that are merely probable, and there are things that are beyond doubt. Not using the word fact for the latter is useless pageantry if the "well, technically..." kind. The existence of atoms is not merely probable, after millenia of debate the question is settled. Everyone can perform an experiment to verify it. This ability is very…

This is an excellent comment! And this is a *very* strong threshold to reach: > No matter what your threshold for evidence needed is, it can be met. I'm fearful of mentioning any specific current scientific controversy, but it seems to me that many of the current politically charged topics fail to meet this very strong threshold. I guess I'm thanking you because while I had an intuitive sense for this, I didn't know…

I think the relevant wording here is "problem of induction". You can generate evidence at will and meetn any threshold of evidence for the statement "all swans are white". Anyone can perform the experiment by traveling around the northern hemisphere and find millions of white swans.

It would still be silly to call that statement a fact, because it only requires a single swan sighting in Australia to falsify it.

Re: When do we have a scientific fact?

#95

Post by wizzwizz4 »

matheusd wrote: post #91
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The existence of atoms is not merely probable, after millenia of debate the question is settled. Everyone can perform an experiment to verify it. Except atoms aren't atomic: they can be further subdivided. In the original sense of the word, we still don't know whether there are atoms. > It means we have a statement for which we can generate additional evidence at will. No matter what your threshold for evidence nee…

> Except atoms aren't atomic: they can be further subdivided Those are two different facts: 1. Atoms exist 2. Atoms can be divided GP was attesting to #1 being a scientific fact for which "no matter your threshold for evidence needed, it can be met". If you object to the word "atoms" on the grounds of it having a specific meaning from 2K years ago, replace that with "the modern standard model of particle physics". >>…

> "Generate additional evidence at will" when applied to the "scientific fact that atoms exist" means that any new experiment that you design and perform will be compatible to that fact. There is no evidence whatsoever that atoms (at their "level of abstraction") do not exist.

You're describing certainty. This is a prediction, not reality. A new experiment you design and perform might not be compatible with the existence of atoms; that's the whole point of running experiments! (Of course, I have the same prediction; the proton-neutron-electron theory of atoms seems like a pretty solid one, at this point.)

Certainty does have interesting properties, from a Bayesian perspective: if you are certain of something, there is no finite amount of evidence that'll convince you otherwise. (Of course, humans aren't ideal Bayesian reasoners; you can usually provide enough evidence to convince a certain person otherwise, if they are actually wrong.)

Re: When do we have a scientific fact?

#96

Post by mythrwy »

sega_sai wrote: post #76

As a scientist I disagree. I would rather call just facts as facts, and the rest can still be called theories/models/understanding. I.e. only stuff that is directly observed can be a fact. For sure I think the evidence of human caused global warming is overwhelming and is based on to large degree simple physics, I would still not call that a fact. I think relabeling some theories as facts is potentially dangerous and…

Agreed. Gravity is a theory. An apple fell on my head is a fact.

Re: When do we have a scientific fact?

#97

Post by yawboakye »

begs the question, cui bono? obviously, the orthodoxy. the author is clear in his example of who cares about the so-called scientific facts: governments and policymaking agencies. from where i sit, it appears we're looking for another weapon in the arsenal to overruling the individual's free will to, importantly, harm themselves against their (and usually our) better judgement. coming off the back of the recent vaccine debacle, it has a certain curiosity to it. if "vaccines help" were a scientific fact, then we'd probably be in the clear to force straighten people's arms and hit several shots into their veins, for their own good.

Re: When do we have a scientific fact?

#98

Post by TeMPOraL »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #72
kuhewa wrote: post #67

This article reminder me of this classic from 1994 by Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution as a fact and theory". [1] I adore SJG but this is one essay where I disagreed. Actually started the first day of a research design course in a pretty heated debate with the dead wood professor where this essay was the topic of discussion, he couldn't wrap his head around taking epistemological or practical issue with the label of scie…

There are two worlds colliding here. The scientific world is primarily oriented towards finding stable consensus truths that are independent of individual bias. The political world is primarily oriented towards persuasion and behaviour modification - either for personal gain, or (more rarely) to promote fairness, equality, and perhaps even opportunity. To politicians, scientific facts are only one of many available t…

> Ideally you frame the "debate" to make disagreement literally unthinkable, while also making all supporters feel as if their beliefs are entirely their own, arrived at rationally and objectively.

The important prerequisite, and what I think is one of the major differentiator between your "scientific world" and "political world": promoting the idea of the debate itself, as an activity that's meaningful and useful in discovering the right solutions and objective facts about reality. The thing is, a debate is actually the exact opposite of that - it's entirely orthogonal to objective reality. But it sure does work well to build and reinforce "us vs. them" divisions and group people into conflicting sides.

In the "scientific world", you don't do debates. It's obvious they're a stupid waste of time. In this world, you collate what you know, share the connections you see and the reasoning you use, and try to tease out some underlying structure from all of it, that's mapping reality better than the one you had before.

Re: When do we have a scientific fact?

#99

Post by kuhewa »

matheusd wrote: post #91
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The existence of atoms is not merely probable, after millenia of debate the question is settled. Everyone can perform an experiment to verify it. Except atoms aren't atomic: they can be further subdivided. In the original sense of the word, we still don't know whether there are atoms. > It means we have a statement for which we can generate additional evidence at will. No matter what your threshold for evidence nee…

> Except atoms aren't atomic: they can be further subdivided Those are two different facts: 1. Atoms exist 2. Atoms can be divided GP was attesting to #1 being a scientific fact for which "no matter your threshold for evidence needed, it can be met". If you object to the word "atoms" on the grounds of it having a specific meaning from 2K years ago, replace that with "the modern standard model of particle physics". >>…

> Generate additional evidence at will" when applied to the "scientific fact that atoms exist" means that any new experiment that you design and perform will be compatible to that fact.

There's a word for this, as I think it's fair to say any evidence of atoms still takes some inference and isn't a direct observation. The word is theory [1]. That is why we refer to the idea that matter is made of atoms as 'atomic theory',

Gould: "facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Re: When do we have a scientific fact?

#100

Post by yawboakye »

Certhas wrote: post #81
kuhewa wrote: post #67

This article reminder me of this classic from 1994 by Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution as a fact and theory". [1] I adore SJG but this is one essay where I disagreed. Actually started the first day of a research design course in a pretty heated debate with the dead wood professor where this essay was the topic of discussion, he couldn't wrap his head around taking epistemological or practical issue with the label of scie…

Could you please elaborate on why you insist that the word has no use? There are things that are merely probable, and there are things that are beyond doubt. Not using the word fact for the latter is useless pageantry if the "well, technically..." kind. The existence of atoms is not merely probable, after millenia of debate the question is settled. Everyone can perform an experiment to verify it. This ability is very…

historically, i.e. speaking philosophically, only things known a priori can be considered facts. if the knowledge is arrived at by experiment, we have to defer to the quality of our senses (or the senses of our measuring instruments). not feeling the heat (or our measuring instruments not picking them up) doesn't mean heat is produced by certain activities. seen this way, what you'd call facts after rigorous experiments is essentially the perspective of the observer and the quality of our measuring tools at this point in time. as both improve, new facts will be observed. then what happens to the old fact? no longer facts? if so, why were they called facts to begin with? the word fact derives from the latin factum. immutability is conferred since factum implies that the event has been sealed by time. if it's bound to change, let's call it something else, shall we?
Post reply on HN