Researchers looking for mRNA were ridiculed by colleagues(macleans.ca)
macleans.ca
Researchers looking for mRNA were ridiculed by colleagues
https://www.macleans.ca/society/science/scientists-mrna-covid-vaccines/
208 comments
I've been ridiculed for stating verifiable facts, even by teachers. There's something about people when you challenge something they believe to be true or untrue, they'll immediately resort to ridiculing the person stating it.
I always try to avoid doing this myself and ask how they came to their conclusion. If the answer is "do your own research" however, as is very popular with the 'skeptic' community, I discard it immediately.
I always try to avoid doing this myself and ask how they came to their conclusion. If the answer is "do your own research" however, as is very popular with the 'skeptic' community, I discard it immediately.
This happens all the time. Many axioms people take for granted have been arrived at by simple osmosis coupled with a desire to conform. Truly independent thought can lead you to conclusions that are simply unacceptable in polite company. This can make you rich but it can also cancel you.
Like getting downvoted on HN for proposing TSLA or Bitcoin as good investments over the past 10 years.
[deleted]
I have a theory that is related, but a little bigger in a sense.
Essentially, I think people desperately cling to what they know. You can lose your job, your spouse, and your hair, but you know what you know. You (hopefully) will always have that. So when someone tries to take away something that was supposed to be yours forever, people get extremely defensive. I have witnessed this in politics a lot in the past decade.
Essentially, I think people desperately cling to what they know. You can lose your job, your spouse, and your hair, but you know what you know. You (hopefully) will always have that. So when someone tries to take away something that was supposed to be yours forever, people get extremely defensive. I have witnessed this in politics a lot in the past decade.
I think it's called Cognitive Dissonance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
It is a common and appealing idea that good ideas always start with ridicule and resistance. It is an appealing fantasy especially for the great many people who like to imagine they are very clever but are not. However, it is important to keep in mind that for every crazy idea that ends up working, there were 999 crazy ideas that were just that, crazy.
Some amount of resistance to crazy ideas is appropriate. If the idea works the resistance will be overcome eventually. If we accepted every crazy idea enthusiastically a lot of effort would be wasted.
Some amount of resistance to crazy ideas is appropriate. If the idea works the resistance will be overcome eventually. If we accepted every crazy idea enthusiastically a lot of effort would be wasted.
> the resistance will be overcome eventually
Like 50-60 years in this case :-(
Like 50-60 years in this case :-(
Sometimes. Not all major breakthroughs involve rocking the boat. Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem springs to mind. As far as I know, it was celebrated by everyone in the field.
I agree what you are trying to say but Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is not an idea but it finished product. It took Wiles years to finish the proof. If he told someone about the idea behind the proof in the initial phase without anything concrete and was not able to finish the proof, do you think the idea would be perceived?
> Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is not an idea but it finished product
I don't think that distinction is the relevant one. The point is that it extended existing thought, rather than overturning it.
> If he told someone about the idea behind the proof in the initial phase without anything concrete and was not able to finish the proof, do you think the idea would be perceived?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. There's a reason mathematics journals are only interested in finished theorems rather than idle speculation, but I don't see how that's relevant.
I don't think that distinction is the relevant one. The point is that it extended existing thought, rather than overturning it.
> If he told someone about the idea behind the proof in the initial phase without anything concrete and was not able to finish the proof, do you think the idea would be perceived?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. There's a reason mathematics journals are only interested in finished theorems rather than idle speculation, but I don't see how that's relevant.
[deleted]
[deleted]
If you don't think Wiles was rocking the boat, then I am not sure what qualifies in your opinion.
I already answered this. Wiles' proof didn't overturn anything, it only extended what was known. Again, as far as I know, it was celebrated by everyone in the field. No career was ended by the discovery.
Examples of a developments that rocked the boat would be the theory of evolution, quantum mechanics, and irrational numbers. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number#Ancient_Gree...
Examples of a developments that rocked the boat would be the theory of evolution, quantum mechanics, and irrational numbers. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number#Ancient_Gree...
He was clearly rocking the boat. His career was only not ended because he went so smartly about what he was doing.
I don't know what you're talking about. Wiles received an avalanche of awards for his achievement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wiles#Awards_and_honour...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wiles#Awards_and_honour...
Yes, once he had proved it. You usually get an avalanche of awards once you successfully rocked the boat.
There was a long time where he didn't have a proof yet, but it was OK, because he told no-one that he was actually working on one. If he had told people openly that THIS what he chose to spend his time on, without actually having the proof yet, he would have been ridiculed, because it seemed like such an utterly hopeless enterprise at the time.
There was a long time where he didn't have a proof yet, but it was OK, because he told no-one that he was actually working on one. If he had told people openly that THIS what he chose to spend his time on, without actually having the proof yet, he would have been ridiculed, because it seemed like such an utterly hopeless enterprise at the time.
By rock the boat, I mean a discovery/publication that bothers a lot of people in the field. I am not referring to major breakthroughs in general.
Wiles' discovery was a tremendous breakthrough, but it didn't upset anyone. Another example of an entirely uncontroversial breakthrough is [0]. This is in contrast to the three examples of controversial discoveries that I gave above.
> If he had told people openly that THIS what he chose to spend his time on, without actually having the proof yet, he would have been ridiculed, because it seemed like such an utterly hopeless enterprise at the time.
I'd hope the field would be supportive of 'long shot' projects like this, but sure, I could believe many mathematicians would be skeptical.
[0] https://www.quantamagazine.org/computer-scientists-break-tra...
Wiles' discovery was a tremendous breakthrough, but it didn't upset anyone. Another example of an entirely uncontroversial breakthrough is [0]. This is in contrast to the three examples of controversial discoveries that I gave above.
> If he had told people openly that THIS what he chose to spend his time on, without actually having the proof yet, he would have been ridiculed, because it seemed like such an utterly hopeless enterprise at the time.
I'd hope the field would be supportive of 'long shot' projects like this, but sure, I could believe many mathematicians would be skeptical.
[0] https://www.quantamagazine.org/computer-scientists-break-tra...
[deleted]
I don't understand this quote, could you explain it?
Sometimes the reason you invent something original is because you noticed something that no one else has noticed before. In that case, your idea could be "stolen" by someone noticing what you noticed, and publishing it first.
But sometimes (and the quote suggests that this happens way more frequently) the reason is that other people noticed that before you, and for some reason they all concluded "this is not going to work", and went looking elsewhere. You were "merely" the first person who continued searching in the same direction, and succeeded to finally find something useful.
In the latter case, when you announce your invention, the people who previously looked in the same direction and gave up, are likely to reiterate their reasons for giving up. Sometimes they genuinely believe that what you did is impossible, i.e. that your results are wrong, and you only made some mistake or fraud that makes it seem to work. (In their defense, people make mistakes and frauds all the time, so it makes sense to assume that you most likely are another one.) Sometimes it's that they backed "this is not possible" with their professional prestige, so accepting your invention would mean lessening their prestige. (This is a wrong reason to oppose you, but people who will oppose you for this reason will often be very powerful.)
Plus there is the usual resistance of people against trying to do new things, when the old things seem to work okay, and the new things seem like a lot of work or learning.
But sometimes (and the quote suggests that this happens way more frequently) the reason is that other people noticed that before you, and for some reason they all concluded "this is not going to work", and went looking elsewhere. You were "merely" the first person who continued searching in the same direction, and succeeded to finally find something useful.
In the latter case, when you announce your invention, the people who previously looked in the same direction and gave up, are likely to reiterate their reasons for giving up. Sometimes they genuinely believe that what you did is impossible, i.e. that your results are wrong, and you only made some mistake or fraud that makes it seem to work. (In their defense, people make mistakes and frauds all the time, so it makes sense to assume that you most likely are another one.) Sometimes it's that they backed "this is not possible" with their professional prestige, so accepting your invention would mean lessening their prestige. (This is a wrong reason to oppose you, but people who will oppose you for this reason will often be very powerful.)
Plus there is the usual resistance of people against trying to do new things, when the old things seem to work okay, and the new things seem like a lot of work or learning.
That explanation is way too complicated. People start taking stuff serious when
a) they see the immediate benefit b) it fits into their belief system c) it is socially validated
Original stuff usually violates all three points.
a) they see the immediate benefit b) it fits into their belief system c) it is socially validated
Original stuff usually violates all three points.
They take it seriously, whether they like it or not: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -Ghandi
[deleted]
People worry a lot about having their ideas stolen. In reality, most new ideas get enormous push back. Not only are they not stolen, but people will call you a loon for voicing them.
See Semmelweis, Galileo, et al.
See Semmelweis, Galileo, et al.
As an aside, that Aiken quote is brought up by people trying to get you to tell you your ideas. Or that ideas themselves don't have much value because if they were "new" ones, you would have to shove them down their throats.
I am not Galileo when I argue that our linear pricing model is an active blocker to product adoption and that we need to move to sublinear one asap in a bullshit corp meeting.
I wish I was. Lots of good ideas get lifted all the time, in the context of the Aiken quote, new is outside of the overton window, it flips problems on their heads. Some of the new ideas actually do have to get shoved, because also in this definition of new, it isn't really about quality. It is about newness.
We should solve the metaproblem of people not accepting the Scientific Method. It ultimately comes down to proof, verifiability, falsifiability and the techniques we choose to get there. Ridicule and rejection of concepts because they are new, I think are wholly human social traits.
How do we get answers to questions we can't even think of asking? And how do we expand the ways in which we ask questions?
I am not Galileo when I argue that our linear pricing model is an active blocker to product adoption and that we need to move to sublinear one asap in a bullshit corp meeting.
I wish I was. Lots of good ideas get lifted all the time, in the context of the Aiken quote, new is outside of the overton window, it flips problems on their heads. Some of the new ideas actually do have to get shoved, because also in this definition of new, it isn't really about quality. It is about newness.
We should solve the metaproblem of people not accepting the Scientific Method. It ultimately comes down to proof, verifiability, falsifiability and the techniques we choose to get there. Ridicule and rejection of concepts because they are new, I think are wholly human social traits.
How do we get answers to questions we can't even think of asking? And how do we expand the ways in which we ask questions?
I've had some of my ideas "stolen." I was doing volunteer work and happy to share my ideas but on the expectation that it would help me make business connections, network, establish a reputation as someone who is smart and knows things.
The individual "stealing" them did their best to make sure no one knew where he was getting his ideas, which robbed me of the benefits of sharing those ideas as volunteer.
He also badly botched them all.
This is in line with the meme that "Ideas are worthless. Execution is everything." Me saying "You should do X!" utterly failed to result in X actually happening by someone not who was not me. That pithy one-liner failed to convey sufficient information to result in the production of the X I was envisioning when I said it.
The example I typically give is the word "chair." If I say "chair," what kind of chair do I mean? Am I thinking of a wooden kitchen chair while you are thinking of an overstuffed living room wing chair?
I had a similar thing happen at my corporate job where a new manager met very privately with me, implemented my proposal without giving me credit and bastardized it so badly that I wouldn't have wanted my name associated with her terrible, terrible program that completely missed the point of what I had proposed.
Years ago, I started a project to try to develop language for talking about ideas themselves and to make the kinds of distinctions you are talking about. We use the same word -- "idea" -- to talk about radical new theories and to talk about more prosaic details of how to get things done, business-wise: "It was my idea to paint it blue, not green."
I think we really need better ways to make such distinctions.
As an aside....etc etc
As an aside, I generally bring up Semmelweis and the like because I'm one of those unfortunate souls the world has decided is a loon. I don't have any answers for you because my methods for discovery and proof of concept fall outside of accepted scientific methods.
Silly me: I wasn't trying to make a scientific discovery backed up by evidence. I was just trying to not die and to be less tortured by my defective body.
People can basically take my word for that or not. Most people choose "not."
I don't have a ready solution for that.
The individual "stealing" them did their best to make sure no one knew where he was getting his ideas, which robbed me of the benefits of sharing those ideas as volunteer.
He also badly botched them all.
This is in line with the meme that "Ideas are worthless. Execution is everything." Me saying "You should do X!" utterly failed to result in X actually happening by someone not who was not me. That pithy one-liner failed to convey sufficient information to result in the production of the X I was envisioning when I said it.
The example I typically give is the word "chair." If I say "chair," what kind of chair do I mean? Am I thinking of a wooden kitchen chair while you are thinking of an overstuffed living room wing chair?
I had a similar thing happen at my corporate job where a new manager met very privately with me, implemented my proposal without giving me credit and bastardized it so badly that I wouldn't have wanted my name associated with her terrible, terrible program that completely missed the point of what I had proposed.
Years ago, I started a project to try to develop language for talking about ideas themselves and to make the kinds of distinctions you are talking about. We use the same word -- "idea" -- to talk about radical new theories and to talk about more prosaic details of how to get things done, business-wise: "It was my idea to paint it blue, not green."
I think we really need better ways to make such distinctions.
As an aside....etc etc
As an aside, I generally bring up Semmelweis and the like because I'm one of those unfortunate souls the world has decided is a loon. I don't have any answers for you because my methods for discovery and proof of concept fall outside of accepted scientific methods.
Silly me: I wasn't trying to make a scientific discovery backed up by evidence. I was just trying to not die and to be less tortured by my defective body.
People can basically take my word for that or not. Most people choose "not."
I don't have a ready solution for that.
> I started a project to try to develop language for talking about ideas themselves and to make the kinds of distinctions you are talking about.
Sounds wonderful! An IDE for concepts and definitions. Now it would have to have a visualizer and a bunch of NLP.
And when I say, "the colorless green ideas sleep furiously" it could synthesize an abstract picture of ideas (shapes) being various shades of grey, the ideas a new (green) and growing but the pace at which they stir starts to grow. A colorless idea is one which describes a technique or a capability but without a goal or context. To hammer, a hammer, a specific hammer, a specific hammer to build a house ... join, flatten, temporary, permanent, to move.
I could see a system like this being used in very delicate negotiations. It never occurred to me how difficult bidirectional translation could be with all the semantic nuance, history, idioms, etc. And then have personalities and intellects involved. The translators are the true heros of non-war.
Always enjoy your take.
Sounds wonderful! An IDE for concepts and definitions. Now it would have to have a visualizer and a bunch of NLP.
And when I say, "the colorless green ideas sleep furiously" it could synthesize an abstract picture of ideas (shapes) being various shades of grey, the ideas a new (green) and growing but the pace at which they stir starts to grow. A colorless idea is one which describes a technique or a capability but without a goal or context. To hammer, a hammer, a specific hammer, a specific hammer to build a house ... join, flatten, temporary, permanent, to move.
I could see a system like this being used in very delicate negotiations. It never occurred to me how difficult bidirectional translation could be with all the semantic nuance, history, idioms, etc. And then have personalities and intellects involved. The translators are the true heros of non-war.
Always enjoy your take.
I am pretty sure I made up the word memome a bit over 5 years ago, but now when I google I get hits for it other than my site.
I did a bit of work on the project back in November and since talking with you I have done some updates and made it public. There isn't much there at the moment but I think I know what I am doing now, which I didn't know five years or so ago.
https://memomeproject.blogspot.com/
I did a bit of work on the project back in November and since talking with you I have done some updates and made it public. There isn't much there at the moment but I think I know what I am doing now, which I didn't know five years or so ago.
https://memomeproject.blogspot.com/
Also Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, who was attacked for suggesting that doctors wash and change clothes between doing postmortem exams and new births.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2675443/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2675443/
Ah, there's Galileo, again. A lot of that stuff is mostly myth. If you actually read about what happened instead of the bigoted Enlightment-era pamphlet pulp that's been absorbed by our textbook writers (horrifying to ask how much of that stuff is actually credible), you'll find that, first, he was a promoter of heliocentrism, a view that did not originate with him but one which he embraced following Copernicus and which goes back to at least Aristarchus. Second, at the time, heliocentrism was not better supported than geocentrism or one for which there was extraordinary incentive or pressure to adopt or address, nor was it some idea people (typically supposed to be Church prelates) were somehow afraid of, though FWIW, Copernicus was afraid of academic opinion, not the reaction of the Church (he himself was a member of the clergy and had corresponded with one or two popes, bishops, etc, about his work). The so-called Galileo affair spanned decades during which Galileo insulted and harassed political and Church authorities which, frankly, give the impression of being rather slow to anger. One contention that Galileo (who died a Catholic, btw) had concerned the language in the Bible that spoke of the rising or setting Sun. If heliocentrism is correct, then why is the Bible speaking of the rising and setting Sun? I don't know about you, but that strikes me as a pretty stupid question. To this day, we speak of the rising and setting of the Sun. It's descriptive language, not a scientific description, and the Bible is no scientific textbook. Maybe monomania is to blame for thinking that it is.
W.r.t. Semmelweis, I don't know how this played out, so you'll have to fill me in. I would make an initial distinction, though. The first is that once a theory achieves widespread acceptance, it's not surprising that honest people will be slow to absorb something that they can't account for. It takes time to process evidence. Think how absurd it would be to just throw away something that's made sense up until now. You have to reconcile new observations and do the work of accounting for everything accounted for by the previous theory plus the new thing. Throwing it away just like that leaves you with nothing to work with. The second distinction is that a lot of people build their egos out of knowing something and the feeling of dominance they get from it. "I'm hot shit and superior to you because I know X." Then you get these little cliques and cults of affirmation which adds another barrier because now you face the Lomanesque risk of no longer being liked.The coward cannot bear that possibility so he "defends" his tribe to protect himself. Of course, he isn't really acting for his own good or the good of others, just his own comfort.
But in general, yes, academic fads and prejudices do exist. Try being a conservative at a major university today, especially in a humanities department.
W.r.t. Semmelweis, I don't know how this played out, so you'll have to fill me in. I would make an initial distinction, though. The first is that once a theory achieves widespread acceptance, it's not surprising that honest people will be slow to absorb something that they can't account for. It takes time to process evidence. Think how absurd it would be to just throw away something that's made sense up until now. You have to reconcile new observations and do the work of accounting for everything accounted for by the previous theory plus the new thing. Throwing it away just like that leaves you with nothing to work with. The second distinction is that a lot of people build their egos out of knowing something and the feeling of dominance they get from it. "I'm hot shit and superior to you because I know X." Then you get these little cliques and cults of affirmation which adds another barrier because now you face the Lomanesque risk of no longer being liked.The coward cannot bear that possibility so he "defends" his tribe to protect himself. Of course, he isn't really acting for his own good or the good of others, just his own comfort.
But in general, yes, academic fads and prejudices do exist. Try being a conservative at a major university today, especially in a humanities department.
Ah, there's Galileo, again. A lot of that stuff is mostly myth.
He was subjected to house arrest for advocating for a "new" idea. We now accept heliocentrism as the correct answer. It's not terribly important to me if it was, in fact, his idea...etc. etc. He's the best known example of "scientist says something we now currently accept as scientific fact -- and there is hell to pay for him during his lifetime."
W.r.t. Semmelweis, I don't know how this played out,
He was a physician in charge of two clinics who had studies backing up his "crazy" idea that physicians should properly sterilize their hands before delivering babies if they wanted to reduce mortality rates. He was essentially driven crazy, thrown in an insane asylum and beaten to death by the guards in short order.
I view it in simpler terms as "He was effectively murdered." because although he had studies, he had no explanation for how and why, so it was rejected out of hand.
This was maybe two decades or so before we accepted germ theory and modern sterilization techniques for surgeries and so on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
He was subjected to house arrest for advocating for a "new" idea. We now accept heliocentrism as the correct answer. It's not terribly important to me if it was, in fact, his idea...etc. etc. He's the best known example of "scientist says something we now currently accept as scientific fact -- and there is hell to pay for him during his lifetime."
W.r.t. Semmelweis, I don't know how this played out,
He was a physician in charge of two clinics who had studies backing up his "crazy" idea that physicians should properly sterilize their hands before delivering babies if they wanted to reduce mortality rates. He was essentially driven crazy, thrown in an insane asylum and beaten to death by the guards in short order.
I view it in simpler terms as "He was effectively murdered." because although he had studies, he had no explanation for how and why, so it was rejected out of hand.
This was maybe two decades or so before we accepted germ theory and modern sterilization techniques for surgeries and so on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
My take on it is that he means really new / radical ideas are very uncomfortable for most people. They will reject them and you’ll have to work really hard to show them why it will be worth the pain and good for them in the end. So don’t worry about someone pinching that idea - the hard work is not the idea, it’s the convincing.
It probably means that false ideas spread quickly but you have to work hard to make people accept original ideas.
The first part is not included. That's just our current context adding some extra sauce :D
A very effective person I know would gaslight people in meetings to think his ideas were actually theirs.
That is a common technique taught in rhetoric and management courses. People are quite fond of their own ideas and implicitly devalue the ideas of others. Therefore, if you don't care about owning an idea but care about getting it done, just talk the leader or the whole group into thinking it was theirs. It is actually quite easy, because most people are sufficiently vain to accept this without resistance.
That is not what gaslighting means.
That's not the form that gaslighting usually takes, but it does seem pretty similar to what's usually involved. And based on the definition on wikipedia:
> Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment
Other than the goal being "seeds of doubt", manipulating someone into thinking something untrue is really not far from gaslighting.
> Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment
Other than the goal being "seeds of doubt", manipulating someone into thinking something untrue is really not far from gaslighting.
From the same article:
> The goal of gaslighting is to gradually undermine the victim's confidence in their own ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, right from wrong, or reality from delusion, thereby rendering the individual or group pathologically dependent on the gaslighter for their thinking and feelings.
Is the described behaviour manipulative? Sure. But compared to everything I know of gaslighting and the intents behind it I don't see much similarity, not with more context than a single sentence at least. Did the manager do it to help people's careers? Did he try to lure them into a satanic cult? There's a wide range of unknowns.
> The goal of gaslighting is to gradually undermine the victim's confidence in their own ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, right from wrong, or reality from delusion, thereby rendering the individual or group pathologically dependent on the gaslighter for their thinking and feelings.
Is the described behaviour manipulative? Sure. But compared to everything I know of gaslighting and the intents behind it I don't see much similarity, not with more context than a single sentence at least. Did the manager do it to help people's careers? Did he try to lure them into a satanic cult? There's a wide range of unknowns.
That's what I said though. The goal may be different, but the process is the same. And while it's not what it originally meant, using gaslighting to mean "manipulating someone into thinking something untrue" is probably pretty common.
Intention does matter to be fair. It's murder versus manslaughter.
I would also add that in gaslighting, the victim is unwilling and unknowing. In the described manipulation, the victim is willing to be manipulated and often even knows that it is being manipulated. So while gaslighting needs quite some effort to convince the victim of something, this injection of an idea is helped by the victims' will to own the idea and deceive others and themselves to that end.
You must have missed the update
It's amazing how much you can get done if you don't worry about taking the credit.
And then the selfless employee is not promoted.
throughout my 20+ year career in biology I was repeatedly reminded of what I call "the protein bias" where DNA and RNA are treated as boring molecules that just exist to support proteins. I was an RNA researcher for a while and it's an absolutely fascinating molecule and over the years people have built up more and more evidence that RNA influences biology in deep ways that aren't fully appreciated.
It's funny about the magnesium in the article- getting the Mg concentration right when working with delicate nucleic acids is absolutely key to good results.
It's funny about the magnesium in the article- getting the Mg concentration right when working with delicate nucleic acids is absolutely key to good results.
Personally, I think it’s best if scientists lean towards the conservative/skepticism side, to filter out scams or bad science. But there should be a balance between that and allowing new ideas to surface. Do you think it’s taken too far?
I think the opposite - hold the highest standards for the quality of the data and it's interpretation, but we need to allow the wildest of hypotheses to be tested without judgement. Conservatism at the hypothesis step is the biggest reason science today sucks if you ask me. I'll say the job of being conservative belongs to engineers, and is one of the main differentiators between science and engineering.
The most amazing discoveries even in the recent times often come from scientists testing some of the wildest hypothesis - a rotation student in Andrew Fire's lab thinking he's injecting RNA into the gonad of a worm when he was stupidly injecting them into its mouth, or when a young Yamanaka had no clue basically and did a random experiment in his new lab adding a bunch of genes to cells to see if they do something.
I've sat through sessions seeing scientists laughed at for their wild hypotheses, by what I can only call as old, over-congratulated high school valedictorians who are only actually good at playing politics and writing grants, with a self professed love of science and discovering things that's as genuine as a Republican saying he is all for facts.
Let the crazies risk their lives on the wildest hypotheses. Fund them as long as they are systematic and methodical in their efforts to prove them. That's how you make science take the leaps it needs to be truly transformative for civilization. That's how I intend to do science and I learned clearly that I don't belong in academia. I have no intention of even swinging the science bat if I'm not at least trying to shoot for the moon!
The most amazing discoveries even in the recent times often come from scientists testing some of the wildest hypothesis - a rotation student in Andrew Fire's lab thinking he's injecting RNA into the gonad of a worm when he was stupidly injecting them into its mouth, or when a young Yamanaka had no clue basically and did a random experiment in his new lab adding a bunch of genes to cells to see if they do something.
I've sat through sessions seeing scientists laughed at for their wild hypotheses, by what I can only call as old, over-congratulated high school valedictorians who are only actually good at playing politics and writing grants, with a self professed love of science and discovering things that's as genuine as a Republican saying he is all for facts.
Let the crazies risk their lives on the wildest hypotheses. Fund them as long as they are systematic and methodical in their efforts to prove them. That's how you make science take the leaps it needs to be truly transformative for civilization. That's how I intend to do science and I learned clearly that I don't belong in academia. I have no intention of even swinging the science bat if I'm not at least trying to shoot for the moon!
The large problem is the limited funding. If there is only funding for 10% of applications and a large portion of the success hinges on previous success and your experience on this topic, then you automatically breed conservatism.
This problem of limited funding is due to the unnatural influence of Capitalism and unnatural existence of too many billionaires absorbing the majority of what would be disposable income and tax revenues that would otherwise fund any nation's infrastructure, including federal science initiates. We're learning now the entire Texas power grid failure dates back to G.W. Bush's state government dismantling Texas power upon the council of Enron's financial advisers. The majority of our problems in society is due to overt greed and it's influence on key infrastructure - power, education, law, law enforcement, food safety... it goes on and on. This is the reason we have regulations, because without them the greedy would have us eating Plutonium Pops for breakfast, and washing it down with Petro-plastic Orange Drink.
Exactly Right! I think this mindset is fundamental to advancing Science. One of the reasons i feel that "doing" Science has fallen out of favour with the public is because the "Researchers" are not being daring and brave enough to "dream up" far fetched hypotheses and in general not pushing the envelope. Most are just regular "salaried employees" with no great dreams/ambitions.
/s I know, most of the people I know came for the money but stayed for the science.
Those "salaried employees" started life as curious people, yeah some of them might be looking at the world with a blurrier lens. But they were constructed, the system made those people. While they make the problem worse, they are symptom not a cause.
Those "salaried employees" started life as curious people, yeah some of them might be looking at the world with a blurrier lens. But they were constructed, the system made those people. While they make the problem worse, they are symptom not a cause.
The same exact process you painted has a direct analog in tech businesses right now.
I think the problem is the hierarchy.
A development organization is an amplifier that brings a new capability into existence. Currently, organizations have to get big to amplify what their qualities. But to get big to achieve its goals it needs to be hierarchical, and because the hierarchy and the practitioners are the same folks, the org structure becomes the product.
The goal of the organization is to maintain its structure. Innovation happens when you have less structure. How do we scale, and maximize the organizational power while enabling create autonomy?
I think the problem is the hierarchy.
A development organization is an amplifier that brings a new capability into existence. Currently, organizations have to get big to amplify what their qualities. But to get big to achieve its goals it needs to be hierarchical, and because the hierarchy and the practitioners are the same folks, the org structure becomes the product.
The goal of the organization is to maintain its structure. Innovation happens when you have less structure. How do we scale, and maximize the organizational power while enabling create autonomy?
At the same time, labs and researchers and equipment cost real money. There are opportunity costs. There some good reasons to not spend money on wild conjectures.
Eh, you can allocate a percentage of resources on wild conjectures, since many of our biggest discoveries have been made that way. No need to shut them down and ridicule them.
So do you pick the wildest conjecture to test, or one of the somewhat more plausible ones? And how much money should go into one before you move on?
> So do you pick the wildest conjecture to test, or one of the somewhat more plausible ones?
20% of the former, 80% of the latter.
> And how much money should go into one before you move on?
3% of the available funds each year.
Hope this helps!
20% of the former, 80% of the latter.
> And how much money should go into one before you move on?
3% of the available funds each year.
Hope this helps!
>3% of the available funds each year
So after years without results you'll continue propping up the one long shot you picked?
My larger point is that you're treating this like there are just a couple wild conjectures that need just a bit of money. There are vast amounts of alternative ideas, and often the necessary experiments will not be cheap. While ridiculing them isn't right, the idea that obviously we should fund them is ridiculous.
So after years without results you'll continue propping up the one long shot you picked?
My larger point is that you're treating this like there are just a couple wild conjectures that need just a bit of money. There are vast amounts of alternative ideas, and often the necessary experiments will not be cheap. While ridiculing them isn't right, the idea that obviously we should fund them is ridiculous.
> the idea that obviously we should fund them is ridiculous.
Ridiculous like feeding people mold to see if they get sick less, or injecting people with the pus of other people to inoculate them?
The discovery of antibiotics alone has paid for all the moonshots you can fund, even if none of them work out.
Ridiculous like feeding people mold to see if they get sick less, or injecting people with the pus of other people to inoculate them?
The discovery of antibiotics alone has paid for all the moonshots you can fund, even if none of them work out.
The discovery of antibiotics happened by accident while performing a completely different study, following that example we shouldn't fund these projects at all.
And you severely underestimate the number of moonshots there are. Imagine trying to find penicillin by the method you describe. There are thousands of species of mold, many of which are harmful to humans. The genus penicillium alone has over 300 species. Such a study would take decades while costing a fortune before reaching any results.
And you severely underestimate the number of moonshots there are. Imagine trying to find penicillin by the method you describe. There are thousands of species of mold, many of which are harmful to humans. The genus penicillium alone has over 300 species. Such a study would take decades while costing a fortune before reaching any results.
Look at it stochastically, that particular set of events, yeah random chance, super rare. But with similar behaviors, could we make similar discoveries? Hell ya!
And they all feed back on each other. Then some other idea might enable us to discover penicillin by some entirely other serendipitous route. There isn't a single path to the future.
And they all feed back on each other. Then some other idea might enable us to discover penicillin by some entirely other serendipitous route. There isn't a single path to the future.
So after years without results you'll continue propping up the one long shot you picked?
You need basic research to move science and technology forward. And you need to accept that the majority of the research will have no direct result for a long time or ever.
The history of flight spans back 2000 years.
Semi conductors date back to the late 1800s. And don’t forget that to even get to the beginnings of understanding semi conductors, a bunch of basic stuff needed to be figured out first.
Darwin took 2 decades collecting evidence and writing On the Origin Of Species.
You need basic research to move science and technology forward. And you need to accept that the majority of the research will have no direct result for a long time or ever.
The history of flight spans back 2000 years.
Semi conductors date back to the late 1800s. And don’t forget that to even get to the beginnings of understanding semi conductors, a bunch of basic stuff needed to be figured out first.
Darwin took 2 decades collecting evidence and writing On the Origin Of Species.
>The history of flight spans back 2000 years
And at some point we stopped trying to make fake birds wings to flap our way to flight, as our understanding grew to the point where we knew it was incredibly unlikely to work.
Yes, basic research is necessary and developments sometimes take a long time. That doesn't mean you should keep following a route that repeatedly leads to a dead end. And every hypothesis isn't equally deserving of funding.
And at some point we stopped trying to make fake birds wings to flap our way to flight, as our understanding grew to the point where we knew it was incredibly unlikely to work.
Yes, basic research is necessary and developments sometimes take a long time. That doesn't mean you should keep following a route that repeatedly leads to a dead end. And every hypothesis isn't equally deserving of funding.
[deleted](1)
Yet the venture funds are absolutely fine with spending money on wildest moonshots that have one in a million chance of becoming the next Facebook
Sure let's spend it on what, MOD-ENCODE version two? That's super useful and curing cancer and tuberculosis left and right eh!
UBI can free scientists from grants, but democratization of hypotheses will become populistization.
Also, engineering leads science at time: this works but we don't know why.
Also, engineering leads science at time: this works but we don't know why.
> UBI can free scientists from grants
No it would not. The money necessary to find a lab is orders of magnitude higher than any reasonable UBI.
No it would not. The money necessary to find a lab is orders of magnitude higher than any reasonable UBI.
I'm a theoretical physicist. UBI would absolutely free me and most of my colleagues from grant writing (and IT freelancing, which frankly has better ROI at this point). I do basically all of my research on a mildly high end home computer and bits of paper.
The theoretical physicists I know get their funding from teaching and don’t need grants.
That varies by country and sometimes even by university. In some universities there are far fewer teaching positions than staff scientist jobs, particularly when you count research institutes, while in others a typical teaching load without additional funding hovers somewhere around the poverty line.
In my case it's both, so instead of teaching I take half-time IT consulting gigs here and there, which pay enough for me to be able to do science even if I had no funding at all. I still get some grants, mostly because you're looked at funny if you don't, but I'm done losing sleep over them, plus if I finally decide to give up academia I'll have an easy transition.
In my case it's both, so instead of teaching I take half-time IT consulting gigs here and there, which pay enough for me to be able to do science even if I had no funding at all. I still get some grants, mostly because you're looked at funny if you don't, but I'm done losing sleep over them, plus if I finally decide to give up academia I'll have an easy transition.
But they need teaching, a day job, right?
While teaching helps consolidate your own understanding, and is useful and satisfying, it's a matter of degree.
While teaching helps consolidate your own understanding, and is useful and satisfying, it's a matter of degree.
Some do, but not all scientists need expensive labs. Some equipment is getting cheaper too.
Bio lab equipment is getting cheaper as in $100K's instead of $1M's, not as in “can be bought with UBI”.
With the amount of computations you needs to do this days, no UBI is going to cover that.
How about a co-op of scientists pooling money to rent the kinds of AI chips the big players are starting to put out? I’m sure there are holes in that argument too; but c’mon, this is hacker news. If we don’t try to overcome the hard challenges then what’s the point of this community? ;)
> How about a co-op of scientists pooling money to rent the kinds of AI chips the big players are starting to put out?
What is really expensive and complicated for now is “wet” data collections: it is a finicky process stuffed to the brim with very expensive machinery, consumables, lab space and manual workers. Computing power is not really a limitation nowadays, you can comparably get a whole lot of bangs for your bucks.
Concerning the sharing part, equipment pooling is definitely already happening, at least at the local scale. And what is getting more and more developed is the “platform” concept, where some labs/teams slowly transition from doing research to producing data according to a standardized protocol (genome sequencing, genotyping, ChIP-seq, etc.) for other teams doing the research.
What is really expensive and complicated for now is “wet” data collections: it is a finicky process stuffed to the brim with very expensive machinery, consumables, lab space and manual workers. Computing power is not really a limitation nowadays, you can comparably get a whole lot of bangs for your bucks.
Concerning the sharing part, equipment pooling is definitely already happening, at least at the local scale. And what is getting more and more developed is the “platform” concept, where some labs/teams slowly transition from doing research to producing data according to a standardized protocol (genome sequencing, genotyping, ChIP-seq, etc.) for other teams doing the research.
Years ago, genome sequencing was getting exponentially cheaper, and supposedly would be desktop-priced soon. Did that not happen?
I noticed companies moving into the space, like 23andme, and wondered if they might work in combination to keep consumer prices high...
I noticed companies moving into the space, like 23andme, and wondered if they might work in combination to keep consumer prices high...
> I noticed companies moving into the space, like 23andme
23andme is not doing sequencing, they're doing genotyping. And they are doing so using relatively old and well-established method; so I highly doubt they will be a force of innovation in the sector for the coming times.
23andme is not doing sequencing, they're doing genotyping. And they are doing so using relatively old and well-established method; so I highly doubt they will be a force of innovation in the sector for the coming times.
How much effort do you think we should put into testing homeopathy?
Given the extremely wide evidence basis from existing data (there's millions of worldwide users) I'd argue no more than has been, and that the current data is sufficient to show its lack of effectiveness without any additional effort. But had the obviously-silly hypothesis (adding a tiny bit of something bad can have a good effect) been rejected from the start in a different context we'd never have gotten vaccines (which originate from a similar hypothesis in a different context).
The problem with homeopathy is not that it's a crazy idea. It's that it's been extensively shown not to work and is still being pushed as a good idea.
The problem with homeopathy is not that it's a crazy idea. It's that it's been extensively shown not to work and is still being pushed as a good idea.
> It's that it's been extensively shown not to work
This is going off-topic, but I really think it depends on your definition of "not to work".
If people essentially throw in low-cost placebos to cure themselves of headaches and other minor ailments, while believing that this is exactly what they need, I consider this a net-positive for society compared to giving them actual medication that costs more with potential side-effects/harms.
Obviously, the fun ends when quacks prescribe homeopathy for serious stuff that needs actual treatment (in Germany, there was a case a few years ago where such a quack tried to treat his wife's breast cancer - obviously, this is beyond what should be legal). But for minor things that aren't too big of an issue even if left untreated, letting people use homeopathy if they're into that - why not.
This is going off-topic, but I really think it depends on your definition of "not to work".
If people essentially throw in low-cost placebos to cure themselves of headaches and other minor ailments, while believing that this is exactly what they need, I consider this a net-positive for society compared to giving them actual medication that costs more with potential side-effects/harms.
Obviously, the fun ends when quacks prescribe homeopathy for serious stuff that needs actual treatment (in Germany, there was a case a few years ago where such a quack tried to treat his wife's breast cancer - obviously, this is beyond what should be legal). But for minor things that aren't too big of an issue even if left untreated, letting people use homeopathy if they're into that - why not.
But it is known, that placebos work.
It is also known, that placebos work better, if people believe; they are medicine.
Thats why Homeopathy "works"
"in Germany, there was a case a few years ago where such a quack tried to treat his wife's breast cancer - obviously, this is beyond what should be legal). "
But this, I see actually different. People of clear mind, should have any right to choose their treatment of choice. So informing them on the best options, yes! Telling them of the mechanism of fraudsters who prey on peoples hopes, yes! But in the end maybe not forbidding them if they choose - for whatever reason - less standard methods.
Maybe the placebo works in their case. Maybe the alternative treatment with the roots of plant X had by chance an actual unknown effective drug in it. Who knows. But I know that telling people to follow standards is not allways the best way.
Btw. because if a recent case I know there are homeophatic cancer clinics in germany. So it seems to be legal?
I know of other alternative cancer treatment by the very weird "Dr. Hamer" who cannot be practised in germany if the patient actually has cancer. And I think this is not helping to disprove scams. (because I know people who are into it)
It is also known, that placebos work better, if people believe; they are medicine.
Thats why Homeopathy "works"
"in Germany, there was a case a few years ago where such a quack tried to treat his wife's breast cancer - obviously, this is beyond what should be legal). "
But this, I see actually different. People of clear mind, should have any right to choose their treatment of choice. So informing them on the best options, yes! Telling them of the mechanism of fraudsters who prey on peoples hopes, yes! But in the end maybe not forbidding them if they choose - for whatever reason - less standard methods.
Maybe the placebo works in their case. Maybe the alternative treatment with the roots of plant X had by chance an actual unknown effective drug in it. Who knows. But I know that telling people to follow standards is not allways the best way.
Btw. because if a recent case I know there are homeophatic cancer clinics in germany. So it seems to be legal?
I know of other alternative cancer treatment by the very weird "Dr. Hamer" who cannot be practised in germany if the patient actually has cancer. And I think this is not helping to disprove scams. (because I know people who are into it)
> People of clear mind, should have any right to choose their treatment of choice. So informing them on the best options, yes! Telling them of the mechanism of fraudsters who prey on peoples hopes, yes! But in the end maybe not forbidding them if they choose - for whatever reason - less standard methods.
In theory, I agree with you. People should be clearly told "there is evidence that X works, and there is no evidence that Y works, however you are free to try Y at your own risk". And then they would make their choice.
But I am afraid that it wouldn't work so well in practice. First, there is the problem of who is this authoritative voice that tells people "X works, Y does not". Is it government? (Will it not become subject of political fighting? Like, depending on who wins the election, evolution either exists or does not exist, masks either help or do not help against COVID, etc.) Or is it some professional organization of experts? Then the fraudsters will make their own alternative organizations, that for a layman will look exactly the same. -- At the end, the layman has no idea whom to trust.
Second, the fraudster talking to you can be more persuasive than a website you read, simply because they can adapt their argument to your knowledge. Even if the website says "X works, Y does not", the fraudster can explain like "by 'Y does not work' they actually refer to Y1, but what I am selling is Y2 which is not the same thing", and there will be no one there to say "actually, Y refers to both Y1 and Y2" or "Y2 is just Y1 under a new name". For a layman it is difficult to evaluate when two things are or are not the same.
So at the end, either fraud is legal, or illegal. "Legal, but you have been warned, so use your best judgment" does not work for people with average intelligence and average expertise.
In theory, I agree with you. People should be clearly told "there is evidence that X works, and there is no evidence that Y works, however you are free to try Y at your own risk". And then they would make their choice.
But I am afraid that it wouldn't work so well in practice. First, there is the problem of who is this authoritative voice that tells people "X works, Y does not". Is it government? (Will it not become subject of political fighting? Like, depending on who wins the election, evolution either exists or does not exist, masks either help or do not help against COVID, etc.) Or is it some professional organization of experts? Then the fraudsters will make their own alternative organizations, that for a layman will look exactly the same. -- At the end, the layman has no idea whom to trust.
Second, the fraudster talking to you can be more persuasive than a website you read, simply because they can adapt their argument to your knowledge. Even if the website says "X works, Y does not", the fraudster can explain like "by 'Y does not work' they actually refer to Y1, but what I am selling is Y2 which is not the same thing", and there will be no one there to say "actually, Y refers to both Y1 and Y2" or "Y2 is just Y1 under a new name". For a layman it is difficult to evaluate when two things are or are not the same.
So at the end, either fraud is legal, or illegal. "Legal, but you have been warned, so use your best judgment" does not work for people with average intelligence and average expertise.
"First, there is the problem of who is this authoritative voice that tells people "X works, Y does not""
Isn't that a problem with your solution?
"So at the end, either fraud is legal, or illegal"
(In my scenario common doctors tell people of the treatments.)
Also, people offering alternative treatment are often very convinced that they are offering indeed the superior solution and the others are commiting fraud.
Isn't that a problem with your solution?
"So at the end, either fraud is legal, or illegal"
(In my scenario common doctors tell people of the treatments.)
Also, people offering alternative treatment are often very convinced that they are offering indeed the superior solution and the others are commiting fraud.
None, for the most part. If data exists that already disproves your hypothesis then there's not much to work on here is there?
It sounds like you’re judging wild ideas. I though you didn’t want that?
It’s rather simple. The wild idea shouldn’t be judged until it had been refuted with data.
It is not that simple. We already have a replication crisis; some data out there is wrong, possibly the one that refute some wild idea.
In the ideal world, everything would be replicated and retested at least a few times. Practically, we do not have the resources, and sometimes other interests come into play. For example, those of some industry to fund studies that refute some wild idea that threatens their business. How many studies on safety of sugar are paid by Coca Cola?
In the ideal world, everything would be replicated and retested at least a few times. Practically, we do not have the resources, and sometimes other interests come into play. For example, those of some industry to fund studies that refute some wild idea that threatens their business. How many studies on safety of sugar are paid by Coca Cola?
We do have a replication crisis. But what you're saying is that because we have a replication crisis all prior data about basically everything is moot. As far as I know the replication crisis is most predominant in psycology and social sciences. In biology the replication crisis a bit more interesting, and while it needs addressing, it's fair to say that homeopathy seems to have been reasonably thoroughly debunked. However, in the spirit of exactly what I said above, never say never. If someone proposes a new type of experiment that can explore the homeopathy hypothesis further, that should definitely be at least slightly encouraged. The question is, what experiment DO YOU want to do? Double blind control trial? More basic than that, at the molecular level!
> . But what you're saying is that because we have a replication crisis all prior data about basically everything is moot.
That was not my intention. My intention was to say that a single study might not be good enough as a refutation. BTW one of the largest proponents of re-checking studies that were once considered reliable is a medical doctor, John Ioannidis. It is not just soft science that suffers from the problem.
Given that we are really short on money (and, with regard to ideas, always will be - it is cheaper to produce ideas than to test them even cursorily, much less thoroughly), every proposed mechanism will have large downsides. I do not have a proposal.
That was not my intention. My intention was to say that a single study might not be good enough as a refutation. BTW one of the largest proponents of re-checking studies that were once considered reliable is a medical doctor, John Ioannidis. It is not just soft science that suffers from the problem.
Given that we are really short on money (and, with regard to ideas, always will be - it is cheaper to produce ideas than to test them even cursorily, much less thoroughly), every proposed mechanism will have large downsides. I do not have a proposal.
Homeopathy hasn’t been proven to not work in cancer. I mean, there is no double blinded randomized trial of say healing crystals. Should we still fund such a trial? I mean, there is no data to refute it.
If someone wanted to test the ability to shrink tumors through prayer that shouldn’t be judged?
If it can truly be tested, then it should be tested! But how do you truly test it? Even if God isn't real, acts like prayer give you emotional support and that can have a very real effect! So if you merely want to test whether an act like prayer is effective, then that's simple and probably already done and also probably shows some effect. However if you want to prove that prayer in a particular method to a particular God is effective, that's tricky. If someone can design an elegant enough study then it should be tested!
If they could build a mathematical model and simulations...Why not? Seems like a low-effort experiment.
You’d need to run a double blinded randomizes controlled trial with enough patients to test the effect.
And it would be wildly unethical to use prayer which by any reasonable understanding of cancer biology would not work.
And it would be wildly unethical to use prayer which by any reasonable understanding of cancer biology would not work.
Why does it have to replace therapy? One arm can be prayer + therapy and another can just be therapy
Ok, that would address the unethical part, but still, does that sound like a good use of limit research dollars?
This is one of those instances where judgement is a good thing. Don’t run such a silly trial. Spend the money on something that actually has a chance to work.
This is one of those instances where judgement is a good thing. Don’t run such a silly trial. Spend the money on something that actually has a chance to work.
Yes, it's taken too far. Multiple times in RNA biology people have made legitimate discoveries and were required to implement heroic methods to make their case. The first two I think of are Tom Cech whose grad student demonstrated that RNA can be an enzyme with extremely reliable evidence but they had to put in a few years of work to actually get the community to agree. Similarly, Harry Noller had very strong evidence the heart of the ribosome was an RNA machine and it took 40 years and a crystal structure before the community finally accepted it. A similar case happened with DNA with the Avery experiment which was as good a proof as you'll ever get in biology, but it wasn't until Hershey Chase that the general community overcame the skepticism that DNA could be the molecule of heredity.
Scientists should be skeptics of their own conservatism. Much "conservatism" is in the name of defending egos.
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” - Max Plank
It'd be nice to not wait a generation.
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” - Max Plank
It'd be nice to not wait a generation.
Right, there are plenty of such examples from physics. I was wondering if biology is the same. But it actually sounds worse.
I think computer science is doing much better nowadays. The “NoSQL” movement for example was particularly impressive, it’s something that wouldn’t fly in most other sciences.
I think computer science is doing much better nowadays. The “NoSQL” movement for example was particularly impressive, it’s something that wouldn’t fly in most other sciences.
NoSQL is much more about software engineering than computer science, and software engineering is ridiculously susceptible to fads in a way no mature engineering discipline should be. And almost never are those fads actually new ideas, because trends work cyclically rather than linearly. Most SWEs are just too ignorant of the history of their own trade to realize that.
Except that NoSQL has been around for decades. It just went by a different name in the 1960s.
I think computer science benefits from the relatively low cost and widespread availability of hardware and software tools. You don't necessarily need huge financial backing to explore a new idea in many areas. Of course there are exceptions (super computing, quantum computing, etc), but the barrier to entry for curious beginners seems much lower than other scientific fields.
We're onto NewSQL now.
Great, got literally anything which is making a testable prediction to advance physics? No? Then come back when you do.
Physics isn't advancing because everything is degenerate to the standard model - any bold new idea still fails to predict an accessible experimental regime which would rule out alternatives.
Physics isn't advancing because everything is degenerate to the standard model - any bold new idea still fails to predict an accessible experimental regime which would rule out alternatives.
Physics is a special case. Either we are unimaginative or we have truly started reaching the limits of what can and cannot be found. I think it's a mix of both but also I'm not a physicist so don't listen to me too much.
You might accuse me of calling Physicists of being unimaginative but I truly believe that to be the case. The most fascinating topic in this regard is the alcubierre drive; before that concept became famous when I asked any Physicist if we are truly stuck in our solar system for eternity due to light speed limit they said yes, it's actually mathematically absurd to even think of any other possibility. Then this topic comes, and as impossible as it sounds it's at least not absurd mathematically (absurd physically still, sure but I feel theres a difference). So it's wierd that more Physicists are not grabbing at crazy tails like this and truly push what their imagination can conjure up.
You might accuse me of calling Physicists of being unimaginative but I truly believe that to be the case. The most fascinating topic in this regard is the alcubierre drive; before that concept became famous when I asked any Physicist if we are truly stuck in our solar system for eternity due to light speed limit they said yes, it's actually mathematically absurd to even think of any other possibility. Then this topic comes, and as impossible as it sounds it's at least not absurd mathematically (absurd physically still, sure but I feel theres a difference). So it's wierd that more Physicists are not grabbing at crazy tails like this and truly push what their imagination can conjure up.
The scientist fighting against the establishment is always a popular twist on a discovery. That's why popular science articles often emphasise this aspect. The reality is much more complex and the above happens very rarely. Regarding physics for example, give me the last theory that went against the establishment and took a generation to be accepted. I really can't think of any in the last 80 years. Maybe EPR, or Bells inequality, but that took so long, because experiments could only be done quite recently. I would also argue it is not really a case of research against the establishment.
Also let's remember that the researchers mentioned by others above, were all running successful labs despite their ideas not being widely accepted. The reason why these theories take so long to be accepted is more a case of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" than "we don't like the theory".
Also let's remember that the researchers mentioned by others above, were all running successful labs despite their ideas not being widely accepted. The reason why these theories take so long to be accepted is more a case of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" than "we don't like the theory".
>Regarding physics for example, give me the last theory that went against the establishment and took a generation to be accepted.
Everett branches ("many worlds")?
Everett branches ("many worlds")?
That's not science in the strict sense, but interpretation (so more philosophy).
AFAIK, so far nobody has come up with a way to devise a test that could falsify any of the interpretations of quantum theory, which really is required to be a valid scientific theory.
Moreover, there has never been much dogma around interpretations of quantum theory. A highly recommended read is Ghost in the Atom by Paul Davies, which consists of interviews with many physicists about their quantum interpretations. It shows that people have had a wide variety of interpretations for a long time. The many world interpretation has become more popular, but it was already around in the 80s and certainly not being ridiculed.
AFAIK, so far nobody has come up with a way to devise a test that could falsify any of the interpretations of quantum theory, which really is required to be a valid scientific theory.
Moreover, there has never been much dogma around interpretations of quantum theory. A highly recommended read is Ghost in the Atom by Paul Davies, which consists of interviews with many physicists about their quantum interpretations. It shows that people have had a wide variety of interpretations for a long time. The many world interpretation has become more popular, but it was already around in the 80s and certainly not being ridiculed.
Indeed. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions lays this out well
I think there's a wide gulf between healthy skepticism and mockery or dismissal. It should be totally acceptable (if not laudable) to investigate unpopular or long-tail ideas. Sure, a lot of them will not amount to anything, but you also have a chance of discovering something totally unexpected.
From the article:
>Other researchers “rolled their eyes in horror” when he presented his theory, Jacob recalled in his memoir, The Statue Within. “With a little encouragement, my audience would have jeered and left,” he wrote.
Skepticism and contempt are distinct and disparate feelings.
>Other researchers “rolled their eyes in horror” when he presented his theory, Jacob recalled in his memoir, The Statue Within. “With a little encouragement, my audience would have jeered and left,” he wrote.
Skepticism and contempt are distinct and disparate feelings.
conservative and skeptical are not the same thing
Science should be absolutely progressive in that ALL questions are asked and ALL hypotheses are tested, with a significant amount of skepticism and critical analysis.
Science should be absolutely progressive in that ALL questions are asked and ALL hypotheses are tested, with a significant amount of skepticism and critical analysis.
Right, maybe “conservative” was not the best choice of word as it has many meanings. I was thinking about “cautious”, not “traditionalist”. Sorry for the confusion, I’m not a native speaker.
The dichotomy of 'skepticism' vs 'open-mindedness' doesn't capture all that is important about scientific inquiry (specifically, both of those are important of course).
One approach to Science I think is really illustrative is Wheeler's[1] 'radical conservatism': you should accept, and seek, radical ideas, under a skeptical, formal, foundation.
So for example, if someone proposes a "free-energy" device with some outlandish explanation, that a priori isn't radical conservatism, because while the proposal is radical, it clashes with the conservative basis of local energy conservation of all modern physics (or maybe with the 2nd law of thermodynamics).
However, for example in General Relativity, the question of energy conservation at extremely large scales is not well settled. So that's something you could explore, without letting the fear of ridicule stop you (for breaking energy conservation), as long as you retain solid foundations[2]. Not only that, but this kind of outlandish idea is often how science moves forward, not by making the most obvious hypotheses about established theories (which we already largely know the answer for!) -- but it's difficult to naively distinguish from crackpottery.
By solid foundations, I mean you can even revise your physical principles, as long as they explain available evidence and you're able to formalize them to a good degree. Also by 'radical' it is meant that we shouldn't judge ideas by whether they are outlandish or not (Feynman writes extensively about this in his talks) -- Nature doesn't seem to be particularly concerned with seeming outlandish[3]. So to get rid of this bias, you can flip the coin and go after outlandish ideas (ideally simply unbiased, but it's a strategy).
See Kip Thorne's memoir, which I haven't read to completion but I'm sure is good:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1901/1901.06623.pdf
[1] (the great friend from Feynman and with enormous contributions)
[2] In GR there is some very non-intutive large scale behavior: you can move without reaction mass in vacuum, which naively would seem radical, and violating conservation of momentum. However, it's allowed, and proven!:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/886/swimming-in-...
[3] In reality, what defines what's "bizarre", "outlandish", "unintuitive" for us, are (1) Our previous experiences in the world, (2) Our coded instincts and neural architecture. There's no guarantee those will be valid when extrapolated to a different domain: objects at very small scales, very large scales, very high energies, etc.
One approach to Science I think is really illustrative is Wheeler's[1] 'radical conservatism': you should accept, and seek, radical ideas, under a skeptical, formal, foundation.
So for example, if someone proposes a "free-energy" device with some outlandish explanation, that a priori isn't radical conservatism, because while the proposal is radical, it clashes with the conservative basis of local energy conservation of all modern physics (or maybe with the 2nd law of thermodynamics).
However, for example in General Relativity, the question of energy conservation at extremely large scales is not well settled. So that's something you could explore, without letting the fear of ridicule stop you (for breaking energy conservation), as long as you retain solid foundations[2]. Not only that, but this kind of outlandish idea is often how science moves forward, not by making the most obvious hypotheses about established theories (which we already largely know the answer for!) -- but it's difficult to naively distinguish from crackpottery.
By solid foundations, I mean you can even revise your physical principles, as long as they explain available evidence and you're able to formalize them to a good degree. Also by 'radical' it is meant that we shouldn't judge ideas by whether they are outlandish or not (Feynman writes extensively about this in his talks) -- Nature doesn't seem to be particularly concerned with seeming outlandish[3]. So to get rid of this bias, you can flip the coin and go after outlandish ideas (ideally simply unbiased, but it's a strategy).
See Kip Thorne's memoir, which I haven't read to completion but I'm sure is good:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1901/1901.06623.pdf
[1] (the great friend from Feynman and with enormous contributions)
[2] In GR there is some very non-intutive large scale behavior: you can move without reaction mass in vacuum, which naively would seem radical, and violating conservation of momentum. However, it's allowed, and proven!:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/886/swimming-in-...
[3] In reality, what defines what's "bizarre", "outlandish", "unintuitive" for us, are (1) Our previous experiences in the world, (2) Our coded instincts and neural architecture. There's no guarantee those will be valid when extrapolated to a different domain: objects at very small scales, very large scales, very high energies, etc.
What's the "right balance" between Type I and Type II errors when assessing the quality/potential of new research?
I disagree almost 100% with this. The most novel scientific ideas are so wild they're almost in crackpot territory. Novel ideas in general are ideas no one has ever explored before. And while most science is incremental, most science is also...not very useful or interesting. I'm sure that scientific funding could be cut 50% without any noticeable negative impact, assuming the right 50% were cut. (That is of course the difficult question, so I'm not literally advocating this).
Conservativism is a very bad trait to have in scientific roles. It's not as bad as being dumb, not being curious or not intensely seeking the truth, but on a system level it will steer the ship in the wrong direction.
Paul Graham recently wrote some essays that explored these ideas in a much clearer and more precise way. To me they were just nagging in the back of my mind for a long time. Recommended reading if you've got a few minutes. http://paulgraham.com/think.html
Conservativism is a very bad trait to have in scientific roles. It's not as bad as being dumb, not being curious or not intensely seeking the truth, but on a system level it will steer the ship in the wrong direction.
Paul Graham recently wrote some essays that explored these ideas in a much clearer and more precise way. To me they were just nagging in the back of my mind for a long time. Recommended reading if you've got a few minutes. http://paulgraham.com/think.html
I just did some science at college and thought DNA and protein cool and RNA the dull go between but now find it interesting that RNA may have been the original life on earth and predated all the other stuff. Wikipedia:
>...the evidence for an RNA world is strong enough that the hypothesis has gained wide acceptance. The concurrent formation of all four RNA building blocks further strengthened the hypothesis.
>Like DNA, RNA can store and replicate genetic information; like protein enzymes, RNA enzymes (ribozymes) can catalyze (start or accelerate) chemical reactions that are critical for life. One of the most critical components of cells, the ribosome, is composed primarily of RNA...
>...the evidence for an RNA world is strong enough that the hypothesis has gained wide acceptance. The concurrent formation of all four RNA building blocks further strengthened the hypothesis.
>Like DNA, RNA can store and replicate genetic information; like protein enzymes, RNA enzymes (ribozymes) can catalyze (start or accelerate) chemical reactions that are critical for life. One of the most critical components of cells, the ribosome, is composed primarily of RNA...
I took a course on DNA computing and it blew my mind.
Representing Turing machines as mixtures of chemical in a test tube, and having an RNA strands behavior encode a program is precisely where I see biological computing headed. It was really wild how forward thinking the research seemed, but how primitive the results they could get was due to the limitations of biology.
Representing Turing machines as mixtures of chemical in a test tube, and having an RNA strands behavior encode a program is precisely where I see biological computing headed. It was really wild how forward thinking the research seemed, but how primitive the results they could get was due to the limitations of biology.
That is interesting, I have had the exact opposite experience. People saying that genes and their regulatory circuits are all that matter and that proteins are boring byproducts of that. I guess it is a matter of what sub-community you find yourself in.
Proteins are practical.
I have to ask what the hell is wrong with them - even if considering proteins as an end all you would at least consider DNA and RNA peripherally useful to look into to figure out the process of their creation and constraints.
To go with a clumsy metaphor living wheels and axle style of locomotion cannot be plausibly grown and moved by known organic structures - it would have to use it. Knowing more what can be produced would help figure out what cannot and commonalities. The reaction doesn't make any sense even for protein folding obsessived.
To go with a clumsy metaphor living wheels and axle style of locomotion cannot be plausibly grown and moved by known organic structures - it would have to use it. Knowing more what can be produced would help figure out what cannot and commonalities. The reaction doesn't make any sense even for protein folding obsessived.
I'm doing my PhD on topics related to mRNA and took a seminar class with Meselson in college. Really crazy how quickly our field has gone from obscure to mainstream this last year.
“The mRNA slips into our cells, carrying instructions to make antibodies that target SARS-CoV-2”.
No. The mRNA has instructions to reproduce part of the structure of the virus. Our immune system creates antibodies to the foreign and inert bits of virus.
No. The mRNA has instructions to reproduce part of the structure of the virus. Our immune system creates antibodies to the foreign and inert bits of virus.
I don't have much confidence in the scientific accuracy of a "long read" article that begins with the mind numbing trope of a storybook personal anecdote. 80% of this article is free of useful or relevant information. The parts that anyone would ever remember could be summed up in 3 paragraphs. I really hate this trend in journalism but I suppose it exists for a reason, as people won't read things that aren't "entertaining".
> part of the structure of the virus.
Specifically the spike protein that's been talked about everywhere. There is no actual COVID-19 virus involved.
It would be like cloning only your fingers, and using those finger clones to train fingerprint scanners. Later on, when the real human comes along, those scanners would recognize you. Those finger clones wouldn't be able to do anything else meaningful and would eventually decay away.
Specifically the spike protein that's been talked about everywhere. There is no actual COVID-19 virus involved.
It would be like cloning only your fingers, and using those finger clones to train fingerprint scanners. Later on, when the real human comes along, those scanners would recognize you. Those finger clones wouldn't be able to do anything else meaningful and would eventually decay away.
> Researchers looking for mRNA were ridiculed by colleagues
Sounds like textbook Structure of Scientific Revolutions?
Sounds like textbook Structure of Scientific Revolutions?
Interestingly, the early days of deep learning also followed this pattern. Some context [1].
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/hoo6m8/d_m...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/hoo6m8/d_m...
Yup. I honestly believe The Structure of Scientific Revolutions should be required reading
It was in ~2008 at the school I was at
This makes for a good story but shouldn’t be surprising. You don’t have to go far to find people willing to ridicule a new idea in science. Most of the time it’s “why are you focusing on that area of research? It’s a dead end”.
It makes for a good story for the non-scientist, but as a scientist this is how it works. Until you can prove your theory it’s just a theory and it’s the job of other scientists to poke holes in it.
It makes for a good story for the non-scientist, but as a scientist this is how it works. Until you can prove your theory it’s just a theory and it’s the job of other scientists to poke holes in it.
I sometimes wonder who are these administrators who seem to consistently block scientific discovery?
Having worked as a research assistant some years back I was dismayed at how political scientific research was.
Nothing happened without the nod of a few well connected academics.
When I was a physicist, people adept of "alternative" things (telepathy, telekinesis, ...) were all saying that we are closed minded and that we do not let anything outside of what we know to be brought to light.
As I mentioned in a comment in the past, I had the chance to be a regular on the radio (90's) and said several times that I officially announced that I will switch the topic of my PhD thesis the moment when someone shows me a physical event that I cannot explain.
Oh boy, I saw my fair share of lunatics and fanatics, I spend nights in haunted houses, with children whose parents claim they have telekinesis capabilities etc.
Unfortunately, I did not switch, ended up with a standard PhD instead of the Nobel-yielding one about telekinesis or homeopathy.
To the people who were saying that we do not want to look at anything outside our comfort zone, I told an old joke:
"John was constantly praying to his god to let him win at the lottery. Day after day, he was praying and praying.
Then one day he saw a bright light and a loud voice said
JOHN, GIVE ME AN OPPRTUNITY, BUY A TICKET!!"
This is more or less this: show something unusual, please!
As I mentioned in a comment in the past, I had the chance to be a regular on the radio (90's) and said several times that I officially announced that I will switch the topic of my PhD thesis the moment when someone shows me a physical event that I cannot explain.
Oh boy, I saw my fair share of lunatics and fanatics, I spend nights in haunted houses, with children whose parents claim they have telekinesis capabilities etc.
Unfortunately, I did not switch, ended up with a standard PhD instead of the Nobel-yielding one about telekinesis or homeopathy.
To the people who were saying that we do not want to look at anything outside our comfort zone, I told an old joke:
"John was constantly praying to his god to let him win at the lottery. Day after day, he was praying and praying.
Then one day he saw a bright light and a loud voice said
JOHN, GIVE ME AN OPPRTUNITY, BUY A TICKET!!"
This is more or less this: show something unusual, please!
Are you sure that you are not the person in your joke: "The physicist John was constantly announcing on radio to let people show him a physical event that he cannot explain. He was a regular on radio and asked several times. Then one day he read this sentence on the internet: JOHN, PUT SOME WORK INTO YOUR RESEARCH, HE WHO SEEKS FINDS."?
The line "Oh boy, I saw my fair share of lunatics and fanatics, I spend nights in haunted houses, with children whose parents claim they have telekinesis capabilities etc." suggests that much seeking was done.
Yes, thank you for quoting. Way too much seeking, actually.
It was fun, though. You get to meet some very unusual people.
It was fun, though. You get to meet some very unusual people.
Did you ever find some genuine inexplicable phenomena?
No, despite being very open minded. I was a hard core physicist, but it would have been really cool to find something unusual (I did not have much hope, though).
Most people were in the category "I really saw it" and expected to just search "for that".
Some told that they or their relatives had special abilities. When I wanted to witness them they never happened, usually due to my "aura".
I spent a few nights in haunted houses. These were cool, the cracking at night was quite frightening. But ultimately it was not even B-grade horror (no slamming doors or anything). I saw rats once and this is what terrified me.
I met once an energothepeutist (he was "magnetizing" people's heads to cure them). It was on the radio, he came with a lady whom he cured. When he touched her neck, she collapsed. I asked him to touch my neck and make me collapse, he said it was dangerous, I told him that I officially agree to anything and take all the risks, he touched my neck ... (there is no music when you are on air, but the listeners do hear one, it was quite tense) ... I felt his fingers on my neck and yelled "aaaahhh!". He jumped 2 meters away. Of course I did not feel anything.
I particularly dislike the fraud kind (like the one above) who are putting people at risk (the ones that are sick and instead of medicine choose home - similar to the homeopaths). I was making special efforts to show how useless they are.
I had a lot of empathy for people who thought they saw something and wanted to understand whether this was true or not, I once met an old lady who thought that her dead husband was talking to her and I helped her to realize that these were various sounds in her appartement. She was really nice.
Unfortunately, many people will not believe anything even if it jumps to their face. This is BTW the same message I was being given by the ones that were showing me effects I could not objectively see or record.
One thing I did not agree to are "philippin healers" - they tell that they will extract your sick organs without you feeling anything. I did not want to do that because I feared that they would have some cutting devices under their nails (or something similar) and that this could get seriously dangerous.
Most people were in the category "I really saw it" and expected to just search "for that".
Some told that they or their relatives had special abilities. When I wanted to witness them they never happened, usually due to my "aura".
I spent a few nights in haunted houses. These were cool, the cracking at night was quite frightening. But ultimately it was not even B-grade horror (no slamming doors or anything). I saw rats once and this is what terrified me.
I met once an energothepeutist (he was "magnetizing" people's heads to cure them). It was on the radio, he came with a lady whom he cured. When he touched her neck, she collapsed. I asked him to touch my neck and make me collapse, he said it was dangerous, I told him that I officially agree to anything and take all the risks, he touched my neck ... (there is no music when you are on air, but the listeners do hear one, it was quite tense) ... I felt his fingers on my neck and yelled "aaaahhh!". He jumped 2 meters away. Of course I did not feel anything.
I particularly dislike the fraud kind (like the one above) who are putting people at risk (the ones that are sick and instead of medicine choose home - similar to the homeopaths). I was making special efforts to show how useless they are.
I had a lot of empathy for people who thought they saw something and wanted to understand whether this was true or not, I once met an old lady who thought that her dead husband was talking to her and I helped her to realize that these were various sounds in her appartement. She was really nice.
Unfortunately, many people will not believe anything even if it jumps to their face. This is BTW the same message I was being given by the ones that were showing me effects I could not objectively see or record.
One thing I did not agree to are "philippin healers" - they tell that they will extract your sick organs without you feeling anything. I did not want to do that because I feared that they would have some cutting devices under their nails (or something similar) and that this could get seriously dangerous.
Although I only completed my undergrad in physics, we may have had similar trajectories. I have seen one inexplicable thing but it was rather nebulous. If that is all the supernatural has to offer, it was pants.
The SRI at Stanford claims psi is very prevalent in the human population, but operates at low levels that require a large number of sensitive experiments to detect. Not saying they are right, but that could explain why these people were persuaded of paranormal activity, but it never popped out at you as a really obvious capability.
That reminds me a bit of PEAR, which also held that the "level" is so weak that it requires massive samples to detect. If I recall, in The Demon-Haunted World Sagan mentioned it as one of the three "psychic phenomenon" concepts he thought that it was worth examining further, not because he believed in them, but because the usual mechanisms of science had not yet completely removed all of the confounding factors to reduce the results to mere noise.
I read a similar article by Scott Alexander, about the fact some psi researchers could generate a reliable signal with their studies, but since he a priori ruled out the possibility of psi, he is convinced there is something wrong with the scientific process.
SRI International (no affiliation with Stanford since 1970) is a private company that does research for the US government and, later, private companies.
One of their activities was to look for paranormal activity. It all failed - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology_research_at_SRI
It was abandoned in the 90's as there were no tangible results.
One of their activities was to look for paranormal activity. It all failed - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology_research_at_SRI
It was abandoned in the 90's as there were no tangible results.
The fact that an idea is rejected is not, on its own, evidence that it's any good.
However, great ideas are often not "obviously" good, because if they were, someone would have done them already. And if they're not obviously good, they'll tend to be rejected when they're first discussed. This is even true when the idea is explained to experts in the relevant field field, because the experts think they know how things are done, and a really great idea is usually sufficiently different from their and habitual modes of thinking that it will seem inconsistent with what they have long "known" to be true.
If you have an idea and it's rejected, it probably should be. But if you have, in fact, thought it through in more depth than anyone else, and actually know more about its part of a field than the most experts in that field do, then it might be right.
You have to take full responsibility for deciding that; during the critical time of an idea's gestation, no one can take that responsibility for you. Eventually, if and when the idea is made real, it will be verified in the real world.
However, great ideas are often not "obviously" good, because if they were, someone would have done them already. And if they're not obviously good, they'll tend to be rejected when they're first discussed. This is even true when the idea is explained to experts in the relevant field field, because the experts think they know how things are done, and a really great idea is usually sufficiently different from their and habitual modes of thinking that it will seem inconsistent with what they have long "known" to be true.
If you have an idea and it's rejected, it probably should be. But if you have, in fact, thought it through in more depth than anyone else, and actually know more about its part of a field than the most experts in that field do, then it might be right.
You have to take full responsibility for deciding that; during the critical time of an idea's gestation, no one can take that responsibility for you. Eventually, if and when the idea is made real, it will be verified in the real world.
"progress in science is happening one funeral at a time"
It's so hard for people to let go of an idea. I remember reading about how a lot of Einstein's later ideas came from him trying to disprove Quantum theory, and that it takes ~50 years for a big idea to be accepted. ie, as you say, it's never accepted.
I was a student of Carl Woese, who studied mRNA in the 60s and 70s. He made the yuuge discovery of archaea being, not only the third domain, but closer related to humans than procaryotes. He wrote letters to Francis Crick too, which have been published.
Another interesting person who was thought to be kooky was Douglas Engelbart https://hackaday.io/page/9869-the-mother-of-all-tech-demos-a...
Another interesting person who was thought to be kooky was Douglas Engelbart https://hackaday.io/page/9869-the-mother-of-all-tech-demos-a...
this is the aspect of science that is not talked about in the media and among "science, fuck yeah" "big bang theory" bros. science is full of dogma, politics and downright dirtiness. people who do research are often showmen more than scientists, because the system selects for people who can sleazily promote their own research to win grants, or people who just hop onto whatever bandwagon is popular. and the worst part is that people who are blowing on the kindling of the next big breakthrough are not only discarded by the scientific establishment, they are ridiculed viciously. anyone who says we should "listen to science" needs to open a history book. dogma, dogma, dogma. its the most insidious parasite in the modern western world and has happily escaped completely the confines of its old religious home.
> anyone who says we should "listen to science" needs to open a history book. dogma, dogma, dogma
You're describing humans.
What makes science novel is its mechanism for challenging and disproving blowhards without tipping into anarchy. That makes dogmatic incumbents' positions less stable while, remarkably, maintaining the integrity of the system as a whole.
Science doesn't (or shouldn't) claim to negate our worst instincts. Simply to uniquely check them through its method.
You're describing humans.
What makes science novel is its mechanism for challenging and disproving blowhards without tipping into anarchy. That makes dogmatic incumbents' positions less stable while, remarkably, maintaining the integrity of the system as a whole.
Science doesn't (or shouldn't) claim to negate our worst instincts. Simply to uniquely check them through its method.
This is subtly one of my favorite comments in the history of Hacker News, and I've read a lot of good ones. We're at this weird historical moment where we are enjoying the many rewards of Enlightenment philosophy, but we've forgotten almost all of the stuff they wrote about the weaknesses of human nature. Everyone and their brother is throwing mud at the notions of reason and logic thanks to postmodernism, pointing out their hypocrisies and failures, ignoring the fact that that's the default. Of course human beings are contradictory and full of self-interested behavior and reasoning. They knew that in ancient Greece better than we do! The point is that we have demonstrated we can improve on the baseline condition, not that men have suddenly become angels. It's a false standard and enormously damaging.
I'm not sure I would consider the implementation of the methods in today's fields of science to be "without tipping into anarchy", but credit is certainly due to the platonic ideal of the scientific methods themselves.
Science is a very carefully defined field that includes little or no controls on the behavior of its members, as long as the behaviors that are controlled appear to be adhered to. We've ended up with Retraction Watch, collusion between journal editors and paper publishers, and endemic #metoo issues throughout the field. I would never voluntarily enter a science field that depends on publishing papers for advancement today, because by definition these concerns are excluded from our current answers to 'what is required to science?'.
As to the scientific methods they often practice in service of those fields, yes, and it's admirable how well those have persisted. We also have a massive reproducibility crisis across all human psych and social fields, so while the theoretical methods do earn credit for not being "anarchy", their implementations clearly aren't being held to the standards that we're praising here today.
Science is a very carefully defined field that includes little or no controls on the behavior of its members, as long as the behaviors that are controlled appear to be adhered to. We've ended up with Retraction Watch, collusion between journal editors and paper publishers, and endemic #metoo issues throughout the field. I would never voluntarily enter a science field that depends on publishing papers for advancement today, because by definition these concerns are excluded from our current answers to 'what is required to science?'.
As to the scientific methods they often practice in service of those fields, yes, and it's admirable how well those have persisted. We also have a massive reproducibility crisis across all human psych and social fields, so while the theoretical methods do earn credit for not being "anarchy", their implementations clearly aren't being held to the standards that we're praising here today.
You're describing 'science the method'. GP is describing 'science the community'.
Scientific method (mostly) works and bears fruit at longer timescales (40, 60, 100 years, or longer). In the meantime, over short to medium term, a handful of outcast scientists have to face ridicule, be sidelined, be shunned, be mocked, by pretty much the whole scientific community, a massive circle-jerk that exists for the purpose of citing each-other, giving each other awards, sucking up to, networking, and clinking champagne glasses with the handful of agencies doling out the pitiful amount of funding, most of which goes to waste. More often than not those outcasts can't go any longer and their work either disappears, or is usurped in the form of "You did this? ... I did this."
Scientific method (mostly) works and bears fruit at longer timescales (40, 60, 100 years, or longer). In the meantime, over short to medium term, a handful of outcast scientists have to face ridicule, be sidelined, be shunned, be mocked, by pretty much the whole scientific community, a massive circle-jerk that exists for the purpose of citing each-other, giving each other awards, sucking up to, networking, and clinking champagne glasses with the handful of agencies doling out the pitiful amount of funding, most of which goes to waste. More often than not those outcasts can't go any longer and their work either disappears, or is usurped in the form of "You did this? ... I did this."
What makes science great is the scientific method. Far too many people seem to forget it.
Coming up with a hypothesis and then finding some evidence isn’t science any more than alchemy is a form of science. Neither is cherry picking data and then retroactively creating a hypothesis (There was a big scandal surrounding this a few years ago). Even if you are right you need strong evidence of reproducibility for scientific claims to have any credibility. You need extremely strong reproducibility if you expect to make claims that may have implications for the health and safety of others.
Coming up with a hypothesis and then finding some evidence isn’t science any more than alchemy is a form of science. Neither is cherry picking data and then retroactively creating a hypothesis (There was a big scandal surrounding this a few years ago). Even if you are right you need strong evidence of reproducibility for scientific claims to have any credibility. You need extremely strong reproducibility if you expect to make claims that may have implications for the health and safety of others.
Perfectly put.
Many great examples, for psychology the Freudian Cabal vs Jung and other formulations, the bullying Bohr did to Heisenberg in the interpretation of quantum mechanics[0], and you'll read many accounts from Haidt and Pinker about the social sciences.
The consensus that materializes due to the various pressures at the time might not always be the best for advancement, and at worst it may take decades to overcome.
[0] https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/quantumdrama.htm
The consensus that materializes due to the various pressures at the time might not always be the best for advancement, and at worst it may take decades to overcome.
[0] https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/quantumdrama.htm
It feels to me that in some fields after WWII the movement towards logical/numeric theories vs ad hoc behavioral/historical ones lead to actual regressions.
Example from the 1940's through the 1970's it was believed that facial expressions were _learned_ behavior. The guys that proved that facial expressions are innate endured a lot of blowback and ridicule.
Example from the 1940's through the 1970's it was believed that facial expressions were _learned_ behavior. The guys that proved that facial expressions are innate endured a lot of blowback and ridicule.
I think it is actually the other way around. These stories are often emphasised more in the media than they exist (the human element). It's also a popular meme to say sucess in science now has more to do with showmanship.
Somehow there is the expectation that someone can sit in their office write down some theory and the world automatically realises the brilliance. That's not how it works, you have to go out into the world present your work, explain it and defend it. You might call it showmanship, but it is an absolutely necessary part of science and always was.
There are many problems in science today, the resistance to just adopt new theories and the requirements to communicate your research are not part of them.
Somehow there is the expectation that someone can sit in their office write down some theory and the world automatically realises the brilliance. That's not how it works, you have to go out into the world present your work, explain it and defend it. You might call it showmanship, but it is an absolutely necessary part of science and always was.
There are many problems in science today, the resistance to just adopt new theories and the requirements to communicate your research are not part of them.
Democracy is the worst form of government besides all the others.
Science is the worst form of knowledge gathering besides all the others.
Kelvin is a good example of a dogmatic blowhard in science. We may have named a unit after him, but all these years later people still remember how much folks like him pushed miasma theory rather than the idea that all the shit in the Thames gave you dysentary.
The folks in power weren’t going to suddenly replace all of the streets of London with proper sewers. And teach everyone to stop shitting in the street. That’s just too _uncomfortable_ to think about. So at first nothing happens. But science allows for the result to be written down, someone else goes “ah fuck shit gives you dysentary” and now blowhards like Kelvin are dead and there’s enough weakness exposed in the power structure, your ideas get put into practice. Cause it’s a good idea, it’s obvious, and a lot of the people who used to have a stake are dead.
It’s highly far from perfect. But there are very few mechanisms that are able to affect change after folks are long dead and buried.
Science is the worst form of knowledge gathering besides all the others.
Kelvin is a good example of a dogmatic blowhard in science. We may have named a unit after him, but all these years later people still remember how much folks like him pushed miasma theory rather than the idea that all the shit in the Thames gave you dysentary.
The folks in power weren’t going to suddenly replace all of the streets of London with proper sewers. And teach everyone to stop shitting in the street. That’s just too _uncomfortable_ to think about. So at first nothing happens. But science allows for the result to be written down, someone else goes “ah fuck shit gives you dysentary” and now blowhards like Kelvin are dead and there’s enough weakness exposed in the power structure, your ideas get put into practice. Cause it’s a good idea, it’s obvious, and a lot of the people who used to have a stake are dead.
It’s highly far from perfect. But there are very few mechanisms that are able to affect change after folks are long dead and buried.
> because the system selects for people who can sleazily promote their own research to win grants
It's quite common in most fields for success to go to those who are able to sell themselves well.
It's quite common in most fields for success to go to those who are able to sell themselves well.
You'd think people might've cottoned on by now that selling "yourself" (or, more likely, your product) is a skill, that it can be learnt, and it should be learnt.
If there's sleaze involved or dirty tricks that's not right, but if you've a good idea or product and you can't persuade someone to back you then I'm not sure why the complaint should be against those who can, especially with allegedly inferior ones.
If there's sleaze involved or dirty tricks that's not right, but if you've a good idea or product and you can't persuade someone to back you then I'm not sure why the complaint should be against those who can, especially with allegedly inferior ones.
The people using the dishonest tactics will tend to win out, same reason almost everyone in sports uses steroids. Being dishonest is just far, far too advantageous, which is why the "selling yourself" game is disgusting to many.
I highly doubt "almost everyone in sports" use steroids.
Do you doubt that even one does? Because if one does, it gives them such a ludicrous advantage that the others can't even be competitive if they don't.
modafinil and amphetamines give programmers a ludicrous advantage, and yet, "almost all" programmers aren't doing them.
The evaluation of programmers isn't nearly as objective as the evaluation of athletes, and I'm not convinced modafinil and amphetamines have a statistically significant advantage (how much does programming ability even matter for getting ahead anywhere?), let alone a ludicrous one. On the other hand, the advantage from steroids is ludicrous on multiple factors including stamina, recovery, strength etc. The advantage from cheating and lying in the science game is also very high in my experience, although difficult to measure.
I don't agree. I've tried those and many other options and never found anything that provided a consistent advantage. The best physical advantage probably comes from good sleep and exercise.
At the top level in all competitive sports almost everyone in on banned PEDs, they are simply too advantageous. Even the women take testosterone.
perhaps a little naive
The good news is that the retail direct investor revolution is changing this: people who are working in any technology field realized that they have a huge edge over general business analysts/hedge funds, and can often pick stocks better than just putting all money to IBM / Chevron / Goldman.
Combined with SPACS, ARK Invest, tech angel investors, sci-hub, Wikipedia, researchers with great ideas don't need to go to boring old conservative investors anymore.
Of course this may not help basic research, but the biotech infrastructure is getting much better.
Combined with SPACS, ARK Invest, tech angel investors, sci-hub, Wikipedia, researchers with great ideas don't need to go to boring old conservative investors anymore.
Of course this may not help basic research, but the biotech infrastructure is getting much better.
^This comment right here. This is what it was like to live through 1999.
I had to upvote you, even if you make fun of me, it's so funny :)
Maybe you're right. But the stocks are very far from overvalued as long as the bond bubble doesn't pop (which depends on the FED policy).
https://endlessmetrics.substack.com/p/s-and-p-500-m2-money-s...
Also I remember listening to Ark's interview with Moderna's CEO last April when nobody knew about that company.
Maybe you're right. But the stocks are very far from overvalued as long as the bond bubble doesn't pop (which depends on the FED policy).
https://endlessmetrics.substack.com/p/s-and-p-500-m2-money-s...
Also I remember listening to Ark's interview with Moderna's CEO last April when nobody knew about that company.
Haha. Fair enough. Thanks for being a good sport.
Your perspective could very well prove right, and mine wrong. Who's to say. Sometimes this time really is different. And us old guys will be the last to realize it.
Your perspective could very well prove right, and mine wrong. Who's to say. Sometimes this time really is different. And us old guys will be the last to realize it.
This is an excellent example of a “weak man” argument.
And yet here we are with 73 million doses distributed (in the US alone) of the most rapidly-developed vaccine in history, thanks to the fact that the scientific process was able to overcome the ugliness inherent in human society —- because humans have figured out a way to let our need to answer fundamental questions become more powerful than any of the silly things you mention.
The same mechanism is still at work.
The researchers who developed these modern mRNA vaccines will now become the defenders of the new status quo .
All their reputation hinges on the vaccines being DECLARED safe for human use.
Are they safe long-term? Who knows, it's a huge business now. So it's not in the best interest of the aforementioned scientists to look too hard for it might tarnish their current reputation, influence and abilities to receive funding or make profits.
Are they safe long-term? Who knows, it's a huge business now. So it's not in the best interest of the aforementioned scientists to look too hard for it might tarnish their current reputation, influence and abilities to receive funding or make profits.
I get the impression anthropology is particularly bad.
cronyism is rampant in academia
calylex(2)
LOL. It's extraordinarily easy to criticize when you aren't holding anything up as a suggestion or point of comparison -- but it's also extraordinarily pointless. Sometimes our best alternative is still pretty far from perfect. That's just how life works, and if you let this type of situation cloud your decision making you're in for a rough time in more aspects of life than this one.
I find this article kinda funny from nowdays perspective. There so many things, more controversial or less controversial. where other side being ridiculed big time, when they dont agree on “scientic” dogmas. Starting from begining of universe, tackling global warming/green stuff, lets not even talk about covid19 related issues, from origins or how to surpress it.
Lets face it, since we are living in one united info space, there are less and less thougth diverity how to do things in same field
Lets face it, since we are living in one united info space, there are less and less thougth diverity how to do things in same field
There is a lot of thought diversity, it is easier than ever to find crackpot theories.
The difference is that as science advances, it is becoming harder and harder to simply understand what's going on.
Research on the beginning of the universe involve taking into account huge amount of observation data. Come up with a theory and you are going to get questions like "how do you take into account this spectrum density of that oddball galaxy no one but specialists heard about?". And if you don't come up with a satisfactory answer, then your theory is simply wrong, especially if the official theory explains this.
Global warming? People on TV make is sound easy, far from it. We suspected it long ago but definite evidence is relatively recent. It involves complex statistical models and again, because it is real science, tons of observation. How to tackle it is even harder because you add a political/economic dimension to it. Scientists can say "if we do that, this will happen", and they are not even sure, but if the "solution" involves, say, killing half of the human population, this is clearly unacceptable (and you are going to piss off the Avengers).
Covid19 research is actually a bit looser than usual because of the emergency, but again, hard stuff. But it is interesting to see that scientists tried whacky stuff, and these mostly failed.
The difference is that as science advances, it is becoming harder and harder to simply understand what's going on.
Research on the beginning of the universe involve taking into account huge amount of observation data. Come up with a theory and you are going to get questions like "how do you take into account this spectrum density of that oddball galaxy no one but specialists heard about?". And if you don't come up with a satisfactory answer, then your theory is simply wrong, especially if the official theory explains this.
Global warming? People on TV make is sound easy, far from it. We suspected it long ago but definite evidence is relatively recent. It involves complex statistical models and again, because it is real science, tons of observation. How to tackle it is even harder because you add a political/economic dimension to it. Scientists can say "if we do that, this will happen", and they are not even sure, but if the "solution" involves, say, killing half of the human population, this is clearly unacceptable (and you are going to piss off the Avengers).
Covid19 research is actually a bit looser than usual because of the emergency, but again, hard stuff. But it is interesting to see that scientists tried whacky stuff, and these mostly failed.
My dad (U Arizona professor of public health) interviewed Matthew Meselson at length, mostly about topics other than the mRNA discovery. Anyone interested can find the interview here: https://mobile.twitter.com/sci_history/status/11478796146704...
[deleted]
> The mRNA slips into our cells, carrying instructions to make antibodies that target SARS-CoV-2.
This isn't correct at all.
This isn't correct at all.
Any time some idiot spouts "the science is settled" just point them to this.
I just want to thank the person who posted the Biontech / Friedman / RNA herpes vaccine story here on HN in October ‘19. Got in on BNTX @ 15.
Time to break out the Thomas Kuhn again.
Is there a list of those colleagues that did the ridiculing?
>Is there a list of those colleagues that did the ridiculing?
It doesn't matter anymore. Those names will now have switched over to the winning side, probably claiming they were agreeing in secret all along.
It doesn't matter anymore. Those names will now have switched over to the winning side, probably claiming they were agreeing in secret all along.
The benefit in investigating who exhibited the bad behavior, is to understand how to avoid such toxic circumstances.
There are feuds here and there in scientific fields, and those do not advance science.
There are feuds here and there in scientific fields, and those do not advance science.
Love the 90 years old have the interest to lead cello. It is this interest in spite of obstacle that get us to here.
However still one has to know technology itself is neutral. Now we can produce a drug that can disappear after its effect, that can patch the system without the main source code involved ...
Is it dangerous? Who stop some outside western governance to make and try getting their piggy stronger ... then accidentally
However still one has to know technology itself is neutral. Now we can produce a drug that can disappear after its effect, that can patch the system without the main source code involved ...
Is it dangerous? Who stop some outside western governance to make and try getting their piggy stronger ... then accidentally
"Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats." -Howard H. Aiken