The Machine Stops: Science and Its Limits(lareviewofbooks.org)
lareviewofbooks.org
The Machine Stops: Science and Its Limits
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-machine-stops-science-and-its-limits/
15 comments
I also pulled up when reading that quote (and "explanation" is the name Strevens chose). But the next sentences show precisely what he means by "explanation" --
>> ...scientists [] resolve their differences of opinion by conducting empirical tests rather than by shouting or fighting or philosophizing or moralizing or marrying or calling on a higher power....
His usage of "empirical tests" lines up with what you (and others) call "prediction".
Summary: I don't think you're in disagreement with the book.
As a comparative, this review [1] notes "Strevens argues that modern science owes its success to the relinquishing of deep philosophical understanding in favor of the shallow power to predict empirical observations. [...]"
[1] https://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2020/12/28/the-knowledge-...
>> ...scientists [] resolve their differences of opinion by conducting empirical tests rather than by shouting or fighting or philosophizing or moralizing or marrying or calling on a higher power....
His usage of "empirical tests" lines up with what you (and others) call "prediction".
Summary: I don't think you're in disagreement with the book.
As a comparative, this review [1] notes "Strevens argues that modern science owes its success to the relinquishing of deep philosophical understanding in favor of the shallow power to predict empirical observations. [...]"
[1] https://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2020/12/28/the-knowledge-...
I also pulled up when reading that quote (and "explanation" is the name Strevens chose). But the next sentences show precisely what he means by "explanation".
When that situation arises, it's the fault of the writer. The classic remark on this is by Lewis Carroll: “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’. ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’. ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”.
When that situation arises, it's the fault of the writer. The classic remark on this is by Lewis Carroll: “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’. ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’. ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”.
You're right: predicting is the key goal, not "explaining". A similarly unhelpful word (which comes up a lot in proposals) is "understand". Often, "to understand X" often means little more than "to not be surprised by X". At one point, people explained and understood in terms of mystical thinking that we now regard as quaint and wrong-headed. A more robust approach is to predict, and then to check those predictions against new, or at least independent, observations.
These terms just mean different things. Very often, it's relatively easy to find a phenomenological model capable of performing quite good predictions. But, in order to find a physical model that can be broadly applied, we need to understand what is going on at a fundamental level.
At least in my field (mechanical and materials engineering), understanding means explaining in basis to well established fundamental laws, a prediction is not enough.
At least in my field (mechanical and materials engineering), understanding means explaining in basis to well established fundamental laws, a prediction is not enough.
For thousands of years mankind has found explanations for the world around us and the sky above us: the sun was eating the moon every morning, the stars are little holes in the black canvas of the night sky, the universe revolves around the earth.
It is only when we found scientific explanations, like those of Galileo, we were able to predict and understand correlations.
Makes me wonder if the Mayans knew about the stars and the planets, even though they could very well predict the sky above them.
It is only when we found scientific explanations, like those of Galileo, we were able to predict and understand correlations.
Makes me wonder if the Mayans knew about the stars and the planets, even though they could very well predict the sky above them.
I'm not sure that's all there is to it - at least some scientists are in it for the explanation: they want to know more about something. In this case the prediction is just a useful check that their proposed explanation is compatible with reality.
Of course, this isn't typically why science gets funded - we want the engineering applications that are enabled by our ability to calculate - but a version of science that's all prediction, no explanation seems very unappealing (not to mention sterile for further investigation).
Of course, this isn't typically why science gets funded - we want the engineering applications that are enabled by our ability to calculate - but a version of science that's all prediction, no explanation seems very unappealing (not to mention sterile for further investigation).
> at least some scientists are in it for the explanation
What the scientists are in it for is one thing. But what confidence non-scientist members of the public should have in claims made by scientists is another. The latter is what prediction is for: the better the predictive track record of the scientific claims, the higher the confidence they deserve.
What the scientists are in it for is one thing. But what confidence non-scientist members of the public should have in claims made by scientists is another. The latter is what prediction is for: the better the predictive track record of the scientific claims, the higher the confidence they deserve.
We've run out of the ability to measure easily.
As you indicated, the "human scale" things that we can experiment with to make predictions have been "plucked."
Now we have to make increasingly more complex tools (LHC etc...) for physical things we can't experience directly and our ethics prevents us from experimenting with those "soft" things.
As you indicated, the "human scale" things that we can experiment with to make predictions have been "plucked."
Now we have to make increasingly more complex tools (LHC etc...) for physical things we can't experience directly and our ethics prevents us from experimenting with those "soft" things.
>> seem to be unable to make reliable predictions.
String theory?
Perhaps science is those explanations confirmed by accurate prediction.
String theory?
Perhaps science is those explanations confirmed by accurate prediction.
Stepping away from science (research) for a minute, I think a far more silent “machine” that we implicitly depend on is the idea of industrial organization (a subtle blend of economics & technology) — industrial knowledge production (research), industrial engineering/technology from knowledge, industrial commercialization (startups, etc) — where “scaling” specialized entities becomes the paradigm, and hardly anyone understands the systemic complexity, or do much for themselves.
The lacunae in this model are far more subtle, and it is difficult to gauge when or how this might break down.
The lacunae in this model are far more subtle, and it is difficult to gauge when or how this might break down.
The scientific approach to knowledge (everything we know so far) is fundamentally limited in its ability to understand complex systems. Physics & co. are the low hanging fruit (tautologically)... modular systems so it’s very easy to isolate the system or control for external influences (so experiments are repeatable, and knowledge is generalizable), then nice linear/quadratic system models which are amenable to tractable mathematical modeling, etc.
If (for eg) I wanted similar (analogous to how well we understand mechanics) understanding of the health implications of going vegan, or dropping fertility (ref: post on HN front page currently) where would one even begin to research that question? Even assuming one can unilaterally bring to bear all of humanity’s collective resources on this problem, the scientific method is not powerful enough to generate timeless generalizable truths for this problem. It’s very possible that the ideal diet might easily change when we’re talking about humans living in a Martian colony, or a century into the future with different climate, or living in a different continent different from their native ethnicity.
Questions of that nature/complexity cannot strictly be answered “scientifically”. We continue with traditions (as a baseline) and occasionally experiment with tweaks and gather empirical evidence when we can, to iteratively improve our dietary practices (as our food technology improves).
If (for eg) I wanted similar (analogous to how well we understand mechanics) understanding of the health implications of going vegan, or dropping fertility (ref: post on HN front page currently) where would one even begin to research that question? Even assuming one can unilaterally bring to bear all of humanity’s collective resources on this problem, the scientific method is not powerful enough to generate timeless generalizable truths for this problem. It’s very possible that the ideal diet might easily change when we’re talking about humans living in a Martian colony, or a century into the future with different climate, or living in a different continent different from their native ethnicity.
Questions of that nature/complexity cannot strictly be answered “scientifically”. We continue with traditions (as a baseline) and occasionally experiment with tweaks and gather empirical evidence when we can, to iteratively improve our dietary practices (as our food technology improves).
[deleted]
The story referenced in this article, "The Machine Stops", by E.M. Forester is a pretty short read (25 pages). For people who like going into books/movies with no knowledge of plot summary, you can read it online before reading the article. (Or read it afterwards if it sounds interesting.)
https://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~koehl/Teaching/ECS188/PDF_files/...
https://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~koehl/Teaching/ECS188/PDF_files/...
The scientific revolution has indirectly produced a lot of bad things like nuclear wars, climate change, trash islands and more. I just get tired of ideological driven over-positive scientism which made me stop reading
Strevens’s Machine, the engine of modern science, runs on a single principle, a kind of speech code that he dubs “the iron rule of explanation.”
No. That's wrong. As Fred Hoyle once wrote, "Science is prediction, not explanation". This is key. Successful prediction means you got something right. That's objectively testable. Explanation is not testable in that way.
If you can't predict, you can't make an engineering technology. Electronics exists because physics is predictable.
The frustration is that the hard sciences have been so successful that most repeatable phenomena have been figured out. Now what? Physics is stuck trying to figure out cosmology, where you can't experiment, layers below the subatomic level such as superstrings, where you can't experiment, and how gravity interacts with other forces, where you can't experiment. Real progress is being made at very low energy levels down near absolute zero, though, where experiments are possible.
The "soft sciences", psychology, sociology, and economics, seem to be unable to make reliable predictions. Even getting repeatable experiments is tough. Are they even sciences? Maybe psychology should be shipped off to the medical school, economics to the business school, and sociology to the school of public administration.