Signs of the Times(kirstenhacker.wordpress.com)
kirstenhacker.wordpress.com
Signs of the Times
https://kirstenhacker.wordpress.com/2020/01/07/signs-of-the-times-2/
68 comments
Not entirely related with the article, will probably be downvoted knowing HN but the title makes something come to mind: Science is being so hold back by scientists that are too afraid to go beyond their model. Someone in a book wrote that Science is a religion too in a sense because it is as dogmatic as any religion. I tend to agree.
Except for all those times that scientists went beyond their model and overturned the previous models.
Overturned scientific models: Lyellian uniformitarianism, the pre-Agassiz model that the Earth was gradually cooling so Ice Ages couldn't have existed (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#History_of_research ), Newton's theory of gravitation, and classical statistical mechanics (the "ultraviolet catastrophe").
Plus, the wide-spread belief that "all models are wrong" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong - or the modified "all models are wrong, but some are useful".
Which doesn't match the dogmatism attributed to religion, does it?
Overturned scientific models: Lyellian uniformitarianism, the pre-Agassiz model that the Earth was gradually cooling so Ice Ages couldn't have existed (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#History_of_research ), Newton's theory of gravitation, and classical statistical mechanics (the "ultraviolet catastrophe").
Plus, the wide-spread belief that "all models are wrong" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong - or the modified "all models are wrong, but some are useful".
Which doesn't match the dogmatism attributed to religion, does it?
Well yeah, but those are all rather old results.
And your username contains three vowels.
That is, I fail to see what your comment adds to the topic of how dogmatism in science is equal to that of religion, causing scientists to be too afraid to go beyond their model.
I'll cherry pick some titles from the 9000+ results of a search for "a new model" on Goggle Scholar for the last year, at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=%22a+new+mo... :
> A new model for the biochemistry of pectin synthesis: GAUTs synthesize diverse HG glycans in structurally and functionally distinct plant cell wall polymers
> The needle model: A new model for the main hydration peak of alite
> Barriers to Hydraulic Fracture Height Growth: A New Model for Sliding Interfaces
> A new model for MR evaluation of liver function with gadoxetic acid, including both uptake and excretion
> A new model for esker formation sheds light on the processes within subglacial tunnels
> Theorizing Transgender Identity for Clinical Practice: A New Model for Understanding Gender
> Mutation of Murine Rpl5 reveals a New Model for Diamond Blackfan Anemia Characterized By Defective Erythropoiesis
How do I conclude that scientists are too afraid to go beyond their existing models?
That is, I fail to see what your comment adds to the topic of how dogmatism in science is equal to that of religion, causing scientists to be too afraid to go beyond their model.
I'll cherry pick some titles from the 9000+ results of a search for "a new model" on Goggle Scholar for the last year, at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=%22a+new+mo... :
> A new model for the biochemistry of pectin synthesis: GAUTs synthesize diverse HG glycans in structurally and functionally distinct plant cell wall polymers
> The needle model: A new model for the main hydration peak of alite
> Barriers to Hydraulic Fracture Height Growth: A New Model for Sliding Interfaces
> A new model for MR evaluation of liver function with gadoxetic acid, including both uptake and excretion
> A new model for esker formation sheds light on the processes within subglacial tunnels
> Theorizing Transgender Identity for Clinical Practice: A New Model for Understanding Gender
> Mutation of Murine Rpl5 reveals a New Model for Diamond Blackfan Anemia Characterized By Defective Erythropoiesis
How do I conclude that scientists are too afraid to go beyond their existing models?
It's salient to the topic because the blog post title implies a recent shift in the scientific zeitgeist. You cherry-picked three examples from the deep past. And look at your random examples: not a single physics article, and at least half of the 'new models' are in fields where so very little is known anyways that a new model is a low bar.
I won't say science is as dogmatic as religion, but it's far far more dogmatic than most practicing scientists would like to admit, which itself is more so than the 'lay person' or policymaker realizes.
I won't say science is as dogmatic as religion, but it's far far more dogmatic than most practicing scientists would like to admit, which itself is more so than the 'lay person' or policymaker realizes.
rafaelvasco top-level comment started "Not entirely related with the article" so I don't think it's clear what can or cannot be inferred based on the blog post title.
"And look at your random examples"
Okay, then to focus just on physics for the last 12 months: https://arxiv.org/search/advanced?advanced=&terms-0-operator...
> Bremsstrahlung emission of photons during nuclear reactions inside dense stellar medium is investigated in the paper. For that, a new model of nucleus is developed, where nuclear forces combine nucleons as bound system in dependence on deep location inside compact star.
> Therefore Monte Carlo generators, like the TAUOLA program, have to facilitate precision analysis as well as confront new models that constantly emerge with the availability of high statistics experimental data.
> Dust moments: towards a new modelling of the galactic dust emission for CMB B-modes analysis
> We introduce a new model for a pairwise repulsive interaction potential of vortices in a type-II superconductor, consisting of superimposed six- and 12-fold anisotropies.
You write "I won't say science is as dogmatic as religion"
But that's the argument that rafaelvasco made, and what I was objecting to.
> it's far far more dogmatic than most practicing scientists would like to admit
Can you present any evidence of that? Certainly there's the 1950 quote by Max Planck "This experience gave me also an opportunity to learn a fact - a remarkable one, in my opinion: 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." or the more succinct quip "Science progresses one funeral at a time" already brought up on this thread.
But the widespread reference to that idea suggests that many practicing scientists admit there is dogmatism.
And there are plenty of examples. One I learned in the 1990s was about H. pylori. Quoting https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-doctor-who-drank...
> The medical elite thought they knew what caused ulcers and stomach cancer. But they were wrong—and didn't want to hear otherwise.
Again, these stories go around, so I don't agree with your exaggerated "far far more dogmatic" statement.
"And look at your random examples"
Okay, then to focus just on physics for the last 12 months: https://arxiv.org/search/advanced?advanced=&terms-0-operator...
> Bremsstrahlung emission of photons during nuclear reactions inside dense stellar medium is investigated in the paper. For that, a new model of nucleus is developed, where nuclear forces combine nucleons as bound system in dependence on deep location inside compact star.
> Therefore Monte Carlo generators, like the TAUOLA program, have to facilitate precision analysis as well as confront new models that constantly emerge with the availability of high statistics experimental data.
> Dust moments: towards a new modelling of the galactic dust emission for CMB B-modes analysis
> We introduce a new model for a pairwise repulsive interaction potential of vortices in a type-II superconductor, consisting of superimposed six- and 12-fold anisotropies.
You write "I won't say science is as dogmatic as religion"
But that's the argument that rafaelvasco made, and what I was objecting to.
> it's far far more dogmatic than most practicing scientists would like to admit
Can you present any evidence of that? Certainly there's the 1950 quote by Max Planck "This experience gave me also an opportunity to learn a fact - a remarkable one, in my opinion: 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." or the more succinct quip "Science progresses one funeral at a time" already brought up on this thread.
But the widespread reference to that idea suggests that many practicing scientists admit there is dogmatism.
And there are plenty of examples. One I learned in the 1990s was about H. pylori. Quoting https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-doctor-who-drank...
> The medical elite thought they knew what caused ulcers and stomach cancer. But they were wrong—and didn't want to hear otherwise.
Again, these stories go around, so I don't agree with your exaggerated "far far more dogmatic" statement.
I've seen plenty of cases (in published books), related by real people, in which scientists, or academic people, face to face with raw data about a phenomenon, data that didn't make sense given what they learned, chose to ignore the data, and walk away without investigating it further. This goes contrary to what Science represents. It happens all the time. That's what I was talking about in my original post that's all. Of course it's not the absolute norm for all Scientific Community but it's abundant. This is pure dogmatism. Dogmatism originates from the same state of mind, which is Fear.
Sure. People are people, and scientists can and often are resistant to change.
(BTW, I do dislike your use of the reified term "Science". That's a mythical pedestal which nobody can stand on.)
You write "Of course it's not the absolute norm for all Scientific Community but it's abundant".
You then also mean that dogma is also not the absolute norm for religions, but it's abundant, right?
Which leads us to a quagmire, since dogma, formally speaking, "is an official system of principles or doctrines of a religion." (Quoting Wikipedia.)
Though you mean something more like "it is applied to some strong belief whose adherents are not willing to discuss it rationally." (Same Wikipedia entry.)
I gave a list of several scientific principles which were thought to be correct, then demonstrated to be incorrect, and where there are now few adherents. I could easily list more.
What are the equivalents in religion to, say, the Planck's introduction of quantum mechanics to solve the ultraviolet catastrophe problem?
(BTW, I do dislike your use of the reified term "Science". That's a mythical pedestal which nobody can stand on.)
You write "Of course it's not the absolute norm for all Scientific Community but it's abundant".
You then also mean that dogma is also not the absolute norm for religions, but it's abundant, right?
Which leads us to a quagmire, since dogma, formally speaking, "is an official system of principles or doctrines of a religion." (Quoting Wikipedia.)
Though you mean something more like "it is applied to some strong belief whose adherents are not willing to discuss it rationally." (Same Wikipedia entry.)
I gave a list of several scientific principles which were thought to be correct, then demonstrated to be incorrect, and where there are now few adherents. I could easily list more.
What are the equivalents in religion to, say, the Planck's introduction of quantum mechanics to solve the ultraviolet catastrophe problem?
Science: Merely an habit of mine of writing things upper case.
Well, you're overthinking, really. I understand. People tend to to that a lot this days. Terms, meanings etc, so many things. I only said in my original post that the resistance to change and thinking outside of the norm is as prevalent in science as is in religion. I'm not attacking or defending anything really. They're human, institutions, and so they're fallible;
Well, you're overthinking, really. I understand. People tend to to that a lot this days. Terms, meanings etc, so many things. I only said in my original post that the resistance to change and thinking outside of the norm is as prevalent in science as is in religion. I'm not attacking or defending anything really. They're human, institutions, and so they're fallible;
Perhaps the charge can be reversed, and you are underthinking?
I was calling you out for your both-siderism. I still am.
Two switch out of having only two camps, I pose this variants:
Is resistance to change and thinking outside of the norm as prevalent in physics as it is in phrenology?
I think empirical evidence shows that phrenology - "measuring the contour of the skull can predict personality traits" to quote Wikipedia - is pure bunkum. Therefore, I think that anyone who holds that opinion does so from dogmatic faith.
But your both-siderism suggests that phrenologists are no more dogmatic than physicists. Which I disagree with - see my earlier examples where physicists rejected earlier widely-held views given evidence to the contrary.
My conclusion is that different institutions have different levels of dogmatism, so a claim of equivalence cannot easily be made without some sort of basis for the claim.
As another example, I think that as an institution evolutionary psychology has a higher level of dogmatism than solid state physics, and as evidence I can point to articles like "Is Evolutionary Psychology Possible?" by Subrena E. Smith, doi:10.1007/s13752-019-00336-4 and the lack of corresponding articles for solid state physics.
I was calling you out for your both-siderism. I still am.
Two switch out of having only two camps, I pose this variants:
Is resistance to change and thinking outside of the norm as prevalent in physics as it is in phrenology?
I think empirical evidence shows that phrenology - "measuring the contour of the skull can predict personality traits" to quote Wikipedia - is pure bunkum. Therefore, I think that anyone who holds that opinion does so from dogmatic faith.
But your both-siderism suggests that phrenologists are no more dogmatic than physicists. Which I disagree with - see my earlier examples where physicists rejected earlier widely-held views given evidence to the contrary.
My conclusion is that different institutions have different levels of dogmatism, so a claim of equivalence cannot easily be made without some sort of basis for the claim.
As another example, I think that as an institution evolutionary psychology has a higher level of dogmatism than solid state physics, and as evidence I can point to articles like "Is Evolutionary Psychology Possible?" by Subrena E. Smith, doi:10.1007/s13752-019-00336-4 and the lack of corresponding articles for solid state physics.
Well, shall we go our separate ways in our way of thinking then. Neither I or you are wrong. I'm just seeing the forest and you the tree.
I'm just saying there is a lot of sample bias. Have you spent 15 years in the trenches doing laboratory science? If not, I hate so say it, you really don't know. You also don't have a grasp of how silly your superficial google searches are.
No. I've spent 25 years working with research chemists, physicists, and biologists, and authored or co-authored several scientific papers.
To be fair, working on computational methods, not experimental laboratory science.
To be clear, nothing in this thread nor in the linked-to essay was specifically about laboratory science.
Your ad hominem argument is noted, and giggled at.
To be fair, working on computational methods, not experimental laboratory science.
To be clear, nothing in this thread nor in the linked-to essay was specifically about laboratory science.
Your ad hominem argument is noted, and giggled at.
it's not an argument. I'm just telling you what's ahead for you. Expect to be disappointed by the scientific community in the years ahead. I'll repeat so you can giggle some more: You really don't know.
Nor you I.
You present you opinions without basis. I present my opinions with a bit of evidence. You ignore the evidence. Who is being dogmatic?
You present you opinions without basis. I present my opinions with a bit of evidence. You ignore the evidence. Who is being dogmatic?
Newton’s theory of gravitation wasn’t tossed out; general relativity produces Newtonian gravity within certain parameters. Lots of theories are perfectly valid in a limited domain, while not being “fundamental”.
I said nothing about "tossed out". The topic concerns scientists going "beyond" the model
Your true statements about Newtonian gravity is aptly described by the last quote I gave - "All models are wrong, but some are useful".
Your true statements about Newtonian gravity is aptly described by the last quote I gave - "All models are wrong, but some are useful".
What relevant measure would you use to support your claim that 'science is hold back'? And what arguments support your claim that scientists are by far the root cause to this?
'scientific progress' is a paradox. There is no absolute way of measuring the velocity at which science advances. You can't translate this into a value on a speed-o-meter and then make assertions based on what the dial says.
The entire point of science is the discovery of new knowledge and insights about reality. It's the pursuit of trying to know the unknown. Inherently, it's not possible to know up front (a) how long it will take to validate your thesis and (b) whether validating your thesis will yield the result you hoped to find (i.e. a cure for cancer)
Looking back at science in the past and then comparing that to today's state of affairs is hindsight bias.
"But, it used to be that scientists got more funding to do research. Think about the Race to the Moon!"
But then you forget that science isn't practiced in a vacuum. Never has. Scientists happen to work in earnest on particular questions because the external circumstances are aligned in a way that enables - or disenfranchises - them to work on those questions.
Older research always predicates current research. For example, there would have been little point to assume that machine learning could have been a thing in the late 1800's as neither Von Neumann nor Turing had come around to set the stage. Science begets science, and you can't rush that retroactively.
Then there's politics and economics. Full time science comes at a premium. Science happens where there's money. Either through public grants, in academic institutions or large institutions with a sizable R&D section. As such, the type of science that dominates an era depends largely on the zeitgeist.
Reducing science to pure quantitative research or the empirical method is intellectual dishonest as well. Any research is based on a foundation of need, curiosity and imagination.
As such, the number of papers published or conferences attended are very much skewed reflection of the generated value.
'scientific progress' is a paradox. There is no absolute way of measuring the velocity at which science advances. You can't translate this into a value on a speed-o-meter and then make assertions based on what the dial says.
The entire point of science is the discovery of new knowledge and insights about reality. It's the pursuit of trying to know the unknown. Inherently, it's not possible to know up front (a) how long it will take to validate your thesis and (b) whether validating your thesis will yield the result you hoped to find (i.e. a cure for cancer)
Looking back at science in the past and then comparing that to today's state of affairs is hindsight bias.
"But, it used to be that scientists got more funding to do research. Think about the Race to the Moon!"
But then you forget that science isn't practiced in a vacuum. Never has. Scientists happen to work in earnest on particular questions because the external circumstances are aligned in a way that enables - or disenfranchises - them to work on those questions.
Older research always predicates current research. For example, there would have been little point to assume that machine learning could have been a thing in the late 1800's as neither Von Neumann nor Turing had come around to set the stage. Science begets science, and you can't rush that retroactively.
Then there's politics and economics. Full time science comes at a premium. Science happens where there's money. Either through public grants, in academic institutions or large institutions with a sizable R&D section. As such, the type of science that dominates an era depends largely on the zeitgeist.
Reducing science to pure quantitative research or the empirical method is intellectual dishonest as well. Any research is based on a foundation of need, curiosity and imagination.
As such, the number of papers published or conferences attended are very much skewed reflection of the generated value.
Specifically in mathematics, Grigori Perelman abandoned the field due to political favoritism by Shing-Tung Yau.
In more *systemic terms, a cabal of researchers focused effort (and more importantly, limited funding) to only one aspect of alzheimers research: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225
In more *systemic terms, a cabal of researchers focused effort (and more importantly, limited funding) to only one aspect of alzheimers research: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225
Sorry, 'science is held back' is the correct term. Thank you.
It's incorrect to compare science to religion.
In science, there are no facts that are presented as being undeniably true. Rather, all scientific facts can be independently derived and understood to be true by any person. This emphasis on reproducibility means that no scientific lesson has to be taken on faith, eliminating any sense of dogma.
Furthermore, as our understanding of the world improves, we often challenge dated scientific ideas and prove them wrong using empirical evidence. If science was truly dogmatic this would never happen, because dogma requires facts to be presented as being undeniably true, forever.
In science, there are no facts that are presented as being undeniably true. Rather, all scientific facts can be independently derived and understood to be true by any person. This emphasis on reproducibility means that no scientific lesson has to be taken on faith, eliminating any sense of dogma.
Furthermore, as our understanding of the world improves, we often challenge dated scientific ideas and prove them wrong using empirical evidence. If science was truly dogmatic this would never happen, because dogma requires facts to be presented as being undeniably true, forever.
It's absolutely correct as they both originate from the same place: The need to understand reality. They just took different approaches. Both have a lot to give to one another. I mean religion in a general sense. Those that say otherwise are too focused on one side and ignoring the other. Both of them have distortions, dogmas and bs of course.
I agree that people could benefit from an understanding of both, but I'm finding it hard to see how the actual body of scientific work could be improved by incorporating religion in any way.
Not religion, but there are ancient texts, that are sacred for several religions, not the Bible, which contain a lot of Wisdom and insight that i think science could benefit upon by exploring and studying it, instead of ignoring it as mere mysticism. Well there are/were some scientists exploring it but they're the minority;
If reproducibility is so important then why are we in the middle of a reproducibility crisis? [1]
If reproducibility was really that important then the scientific body would be more focused on replicating results rather racing to being the first group to publish an idea or securing funding.
Scientific foundations are seldom challenged or refuted. The last paradigm shift in physics or maths was over one hundred years ago. And as soon as someone challenges them (as the author does) the criticisms are refuted.
Say what you will, but science is mostly a social affair. Works of prominent groups are more likely to be accepted than works of groups with less status in the scientific community. Belief in scientific work may not rely on faith, but it is a far cry from pure scientific method.
I'm not trying to be cynical here and do think a good scientific body advances humanity, but the current state of the scientific community might be closer to religion than one hopes it should be.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
If reproducibility was really that important then the scientific body would be more focused on replicating results rather racing to being the first group to publish an idea or securing funding.
Scientific foundations are seldom challenged or refuted. The last paradigm shift in physics or maths was over one hundred years ago. And as soon as someone challenges them (as the author does) the criticisms are refuted.
Say what you will, but science is mostly a social affair. Works of prominent groups are more likely to be accepted than works of groups with less status in the scientific community. Belief in scientific work may not rely on faith, but it is a far cry from pure scientific method.
I'm not trying to be cynical here and do think a good scientific body advances humanity, but the current state of the scientific community might be closer to religion than one hopes it should be.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
So, first off, according to the wikipedia article you linked, physics isn't really involved in the replication crisis.
Second, re: the scientific community being closer to religion: I think you could analogize the replication crisis to religious movements like the Protestant reformation, where a large-ish group of Christians said "whoa, we're way off base here, we need to get back to the fundamentals." But when a religion does that, it's going back to scripture, or whatever. In the replication crisis, going back to fundamentals means basing our understanding on reproducible experiments - i.e. predicting based on a model, then testing to see if your prediction is right, thus potentially validating the model.
The fact that reproducibility is the first principle that causes a crisis in science leads me to believe that science is in a better place than religion to discover fundamental truths, at least about the physical world. So in this sense, the replication crisis is exactly what proves that science is not like religion.
(If you want to argue that religion is more useful than psychology or sociology when it comes to understanding people's motivations and ways to make them behave productively... I would sign up for your newsletter, but I wouldn't join your religion.)
Second, re: the scientific community being closer to religion: I think you could analogize the replication crisis to religious movements like the Protestant reformation, where a large-ish group of Christians said "whoa, we're way off base here, we need to get back to the fundamentals." But when a religion does that, it's going back to scripture, or whatever. In the replication crisis, going back to fundamentals means basing our understanding on reproducible experiments - i.e. predicting based on a model, then testing to see if your prediction is right, thus potentially validating the model.
The fact that reproducibility is the first principle that causes a crisis in science leads me to believe that science is in a better place than religion to discover fundamental truths, at least about the physical world. So in this sense, the replication crisis is exactly what proves that science is not like religion.
(If you want to argue that religion is more useful than psychology or sociology when it comes to understanding people's motivations and ways to make them behave productively... I would sign up for your newsletter, but I wouldn't join your religion.)
Because we are human, science in practice will always fall short of perfect adherence of the scientific method. However, the fact remains that the two are fundamentally different, because one is existentially founded on dogma, and the other isn't.
“the fact remains ... one is existentially founded on dogma, and the other isn’t.”
You’ve responded to a rhetorical challenge against your position by essentially stating your position, which is circular thinking. It’s not a “fact” or even a forgone conclusion that religion is, by necessity, more dogmatic than any other human activity. Humans engage in political dogmatism every day, for example, perhaps even rivaling religion in certain regions and at certain points. Non-religious dogma has also fueled many recent wars.
You’ve responded to a rhetorical challenge against your position by essentially stating your position, which is circular thinking. It’s not a “fact” or even a forgone conclusion that religion is, by necessity, more dogmatic than any other human activity. Humans engage in political dogmatism every day, for example, perhaps even rivaling religion in certain regions and at certain points. Non-religious dogma has also fueled many recent wars.
I didn't restate my position - I made the observation that the human practice of science falls short of being devoid of dogmatism, but that that doesn't make science itself dogmatic.
I never made the claim that religion is more dogmatic than other human activity, only that it is certainly more dogmatic than science. Nothing in science is presented as being incontrovertibly true, while religion existentially depends upon the undeniable existence of God. No proof is offered for the existence of this God, making religion dogmatic.
I never made the claim that religion is more dogmatic than other human activity, only that it is certainly more dogmatic than science. Nothing in science is presented as being incontrovertibly true, while religion existentially depends upon the undeniable existence of God. No proof is offered for the existence of this God, making religion dogmatic.
> In science, there are no facts that are presented as being undeniably true.
Not quite correct. Science and math are full of axioms.
Not quite correct. Science and math are full of axioms.
Science progresses one funeral at a time?
> <subject> progresses one funeral at a time?
One of my favorite quips along those same lines is "X is Y years of progress being held back by Z years of tradition."
One of my favorite quips along those same lines is "X is Y years of progress being held back by Z years of tradition."
I bet you can't back up a single one of your claims. Are you actually qualified to make them?
<Some images are less likely than others and it is my job to design an algorithm that gives more weight to the images which are more likely>
..."based on what I think is more likely".
Don't forget the observations that determine the image content. "what I think is more likely" is about describing the relationship between observations and image, whereas the most likely image is produced from actual observations using that relationship to draw inferences.
jacknews(2)
>I should mention pre-existing biases; my default setting is skeptical. I don’t really believe that black holes exist
Wonder if dark matter/energy will turn out to be the Aether of the 21st century.
Wonder if dark matter/energy will turn out to be the Aether of the 21st century.
I think it depends on what you mean by "dark matter" and "dark energy". If you think they're theorized substances or energy sources (which seems to be the preferred interpretation in the press), then, yeah, there seems to be a decent chance that that will be the case.
If you think, as more cautiously-minded folks seem to, that they're just clever catchwords to describe troubling lacunae in our understanding of how the universe works, not so much. There really are observations that we have trouble explaining.
If you think, as more cautiously-minded folks seem to, that they're just clever catchwords to describe troubling lacunae in our understanding of how the universe works, not so much. There really are observations that we have trouble explaining.
If black holes don’t exist, what happens when gravity overpowers electromagnetism and the strong force in a region of high mass concentration? I don’t get what the alternative hypothesis could be. Do we just get arbitrarily-large neutron stars or something?
Something like a fuzzball:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzball_(string_theory)
But there I think most physicists think something like the solution to the Einstein field equations does obtain within most of the interior region of the objects we call black holes. They just believe that the region of the singularity may have some other physics so that it doesn't become singular.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzball_(string_theory)
But there I think most physicists think something like the solution to the Einstein field equations does obtain within most of the interior region of the objects we call black holes. They just believe that the region of the singularity may have some other physics so that it doesn't become singular.
What does dark matter have to do with black holes?
They are related topically in that yesterday new research cast the very existence of dark matter into doubt, and this blog post is kind of trying to do the same (albeit with less rigour than the actual scientific paper posted here yesterday).
As another reply mentioned, the paper in question cast doubt on one of the key pieces of evidence for Dark Energy, not Dark Matter. Despite the similar names, they are not fundamentally related concepts and there is significantly more evidence for the existence of Dark Matter.
Wasn't that dark energy in yesterday's article?
Dark matter is NOT the same thing as dark energy.
Well, MACHOs are one hypothesis for explaining dark matter, and they're typically considered to include (but not be limited to) black holes.
TL;DR "I don't believe black holes exist and it is easy to p-hack your image processing algorithm, so I don't buy the media hype of the first image of a black hole."
I didn't believe the amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer's and I complained it was easy to p-hack all sorts of observations, and then I quit science.
This article read a little annoying. I don't know why this PhD holder failed to find the actual paper describing the algorithm:
https://www.cv-foundation.org/openaccess/content_cvpr_2016/p...
The author is making it sound like the work is just p-hacking when it's /very clearly/ not.
This single paragraph in the Method section explains it best:
> "Reconstructing an image using bispectrum measurements is an ill-posed problem, and as such there are an infinite number of possible images that explain the data [28]. The challenge is to find an explanation that respects our prior assumptions about the “visual” universe while still satisfying the observed data."
This is literally all of physics! You can say that Newtonian physics is 'just curve fitting' just the same.
I don't know enough about the philosophy of science to make a further argument here but clearly the author does not either.
The author is making it sound like the work is just p-hacking when it's /very clearly/ not.
This single paragraph in the Method section explains it best:
> "Reconstructing an image using bispectrum measurements is an ill-posed problem, and as such there are an infinite number of possible images that explain the data [28]. The challenge is to find an explanation that respects our prior assumptions about the “visual” universe while still satisfying the observed data."
This is literally all of physics! You can say that Newtonian physics is 'just curve fitting' just the same.
I don't know enough about the philosophy of science to make a further argument here but clearly the author does not either.
The allegations are that the black hole image could have turned out to be anything, given different starting assumptions about what it would look like. The exact nature of this variation, along with the degree to which the other possibilities would be plausible, is up for debate. Unfortunately that debate is very technical and not suited for general-audience blog posts.
The author of the post ignores all the work that went into validating that the methods they used give reasonably consistent results, including simulation studies and multiple blind analyses to make sure that they weren't just making the image they wanted to see.
This is discussed in the Caltech talk which is embedded in the post. It seems the author cherrypicked all the quotes that sound bad and ignored the parts that disagree with her narrative.
This is discussed in the Caltech talk which is embedded in the post. It seems the author cherrypicked all the quotes that sound bad and ignored the parts that disagree with her narrative.
The reason the article is annoying is that there could be some very interesting criticisms based on what was written. "P-hacking" and related statistical fudging is a valid concern, but you need technical details. The skepticism towards black holes because of skepticism towards singularities is an interesting idea. As such, it just seems like naysayer fluff.
Yeah this article is clickbait
I would paraphrase that "saying" about teaching as thus: "those who can't do, nitpick"
The TED talk was for a different algorithmic technique.
Couple that with assertions like "An image with a hole or without a hole looks the same in the amplitude domain." and I see that this article has as much credibility as climate deniers.
Same thing with the Ligo "naysayers" who tried to disprove the experiments without knowing the basics of signal processing using FFT, etc
I would paraphrase that "saying" about teaching as thus: "those who can't do, nitpick"
The TED talk was for a different algorithmic technique.
Couple that with assertions like "An image with a hole or without a hole looks the same in the amplitude domain." and I see that this article has as much credibility as climate deniers.
Same thing with the Ligo "naysayers" who tried to disprove the experiments without knowing the basics of signal processing using FFT, etc
Its ironic.
The author formed a theory that the black hole image research was flawed, specifically that the researchers are filtering for images with the right shape and merging these to produce an image similar to predictions. The author then looks at various talks and presentations and filters for isolated statements that out-of-context support the idea of the research flaws.
The author has a flawed approach exactly analagous to the accused flaw in the black hole research.
The author formed a theory that the black hole image research was flawed, specifically that the researchers are filtering for images with the right shape and merging these to produce an image similar to predictions. The author then looks at various talks and presentations and filters for isolated statements that out-of-context support the idea of the research flaws.
The author has a flawed approach exactly analagous to the accused flaw in the black hole research.
In one case data directly about the object in question were thrown out, in the other case, data were ignored (analogously: throwing out images of stars when cataloging galaxies based on priors of galaxy spectral properties vs star spectral properties)
so if the data could represent any image (not sure if the term "any" is truly infinite or just very large) then at least Bouman's algorithm and work sets a stake in the ground and challenges other scientists to explain why it does or doesn't belong there.
Reading this article makes it seem like the work is a scientific version of my kids artwork. Interesting to the right audience, tells you a lot about who created it but bearing only a slight semblance to reality.
Reading this article makes it seem like the work is a scientific version of my kids artwork. Interesting to the right audience, tells you a lot about who created it but bearing only a slight semblance to reality.
If you watch the Caltech talk (embedded in the blog post) or read the original published paper, they did quite a bit of work to validate that their method was actually giving them good results and not just what they wanted to see. The author of the post doesn't mention any of this, presumably because it doesn't fit her narrative.
I think this article is running off on a wild goose chase.
I remember looking into this when it all came out and I don't think Prof Bouman's algorithm was actually used for that picture. Her TED talk was great, and I think that's why everyone latched onto it, but IIRC they ended up using a different reconstruction algorithm.
Some people were unreasonably concerned with who actually did what with that image, and I wouldn't normally care about it. It's just that this article is trying to cast doubt on the existence of black holes by attacking an algorithm that wasn't even used to generate the picture they're showing on the page.
I remember looking into this when it all came out and I don't think Prof Bouman's algorithm was actually used for that picture. Her TED talk was great, and I think that's why everyone latched onto it, but IIRC they ended up using a different reconstruction algorithm.
Some people were unreasonably concerned with who actually did what with that image, and I wouldn't normally care about it. It's just that this article is trying to cast doubt on the existence of black holes by attacking an algorithm that wasn't even used to generate the picture they're showing on the page.
Without phase information the cat probably looks like a black hole if transformed back into image space.