The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back(nature.com)
nature.com
The rise and fall of scientific authority, and how to bring it back
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00872-w
397 comments
I believe this is a public perception problem. The reason that a troubling number of people no longer believe in science isn't that scientific method is flawed or that people don't believe in scientific method. The bigger concern is the way that scientific studies are mounted, paid for by interested parties that have conflicts of interest to produce results favourable to a desired outcome and then they're presented as science instead of politics.
When one can't trust the information they're looking at without having to dig into the political backing of the study and the results and without having to wonder which outliers have been trimmed to further hammer home the point of the stakeholders, we're no longer looking at science, we're looking at propaganda.
So the problem isn't science. The problem is the manner in which science is being subverted for financial gain. That's not science.
This is why science is losing credibility and authority outside of scientific circles.
If you want credibility and authority, you have to not only act with integrity, you have to be seen to be acting with integrity. It does't matter how honest your study or how objective your results, if people look at your study and see that it was funded by Monsanto and makes Monsanto look good, it looks like Monsanto paid for a study to make Monsanto look good and therefore it's biased and can be ignored.
This is life. If you want to be seen as having integrity, you have to act with integrity. And when people who were already distrusting of the way science is presented in the media are being told that they can't trust the media by authority figures, as ridiculous as those authority figures may be, eventually people stop listening until the furor abates.
When one can't trust the information they're looking at without having to dig into the political backing of the study and the results and without having to wonder which outliers have been trimmed to further hammer home the point of the stakeholders, we're no longer looking at science, we're looking at propaganda.
So the problem isn't science. The problem is the manner in which science is being subverted for financial gain. That's not science.
This is why science is losing credibility and authority outside of scientific circles.
If you want credibility and authority, you have to not only act with integrity, you have to be seen to be acting with integrity. It does't matter how honest your study or how objective your results, if people look at your study and see that it was funded by Monsanto and makes Monsanto look good, it looks like Monsanto paid for a study to make Monsanto look good and therefore it's biased and can be ignored.
This is life. If you want to be seen as having integrity, you have to act with integrity. And when people who were already distrusting of the way science is presented in the media are being told that they can't trust the media by authority figures, as ridiculous as those authority figures may be, eventually people stop listening until the furor abates.
A very big problem is that press coverage exaggerate the importance of clickbait articles. Two non political / economical cases:
* Is 'Oumuamua an alien spacehip / solar sail?
* Does the Tabby's star have a alien megastructure / partial Dyson sphere?
You can't blame to Monsanto for them.
The article appears, get a huge press coverage, the authors get interviewed, and somewhere the fact that it's only an improbable weird hypothesis is lost.
A few month later the new evidence refute the paper, and people get the idea that scientific discovers are not reliable.
(And there are batteries breakthrough that increase your battery capacity a 80% before disappearing, nutrition recommendation that get reversed after a few years, ... but these are more motivated for money.)
* Is 'Oumuamua an alien spacehip / solar sail?
* Does the Tabby's star have a alien megastructure / partial Dyson sphere?
You can't blame to Monsanto for them.
The article appears, get a huge press coverage, the authors get interviewed, and somewhere the fact that it's only an improbable weird hypothesis is lost.
A few month later the new evidence refute the paper, and people get the idea that scientific discovers are not reliable.
(And there are batteries breakthrough that increase your battery capacity a 80% before disappearing, nutrition recommendation that get reversed after a few years, ... but these are more motivated for money.)
Sorry, I wasn't trying to make that a political statement about Monsanto. They're just an easy name to pluck out of the air because they have a few known controversial studies to make a point. It wasn't supposed to suggest that Monsanto was evil or that the science wasn't legit. All I'm saying is that if ACME Co. funds a study that suggests ACME Co. are good, then the test results look pretty sketchy.
> A few month later the new evidence refute the paper, and people get the idea that scientific discovers are not reliable.
And do this a few dozen times and people stop listening to science because they know a couple of months from now, this study is going to be refuted.
> A few month later the new evidence refute the paper, and people get the idea that scientific discovers are not reliable.
And do this a few dozen times and people stop listening to science because they know a couple of months from now, this study is going to be refuted.
Remarkable how often the answer to headlines ending in a question mark is "no". Counter examples seem exceedingly rare.
If the answer were yes they would phrase it as a statement, not a question.
I would say that an even larger problem exists.
Among the public, science has always had some portion of people who understood it's processes as those of a secular priesthood and those who understood it's processes as discovering the truth through skepticism and experimentation. Even among this working scientists, this division has existed (and given a society that never discarded religion, anti-science along with anti-intellectual views have naturally always been part of American thought).
The problem today is two-fold. Aside from the corruption of scientific processes others have noted, the other aspect is the majority of people aren't seeing the material gains that science offers the world - science is broadly part of progress and when the average American's life expectancy and median income isn't increasing, why would they believe in progress?
Among the public, science has always had some portion of people who understood it's processes as those of a secular priesthood and those who understood it's processes as discovering the truth through skepticism and experimentation. Even among this working scientists, this division has existed (and given a society that never discarded religion, anti-science along with anti-intellectual views have naturally always been part of American thought).
The problem today is two-fold. Aside from the corruption of scientific processes others have noted, the other aspect is the majority of people aren't seeing the material gains that science offers the world - science is broadly part of progress and when the average American's life expectancy and median income isn't increasing, why would they believe in progress?
It's like hearing that science says that fat is bad... and then eggs are bad for you... and alcohol is bad... and then another study says that a glass of wine a day is good for your heart... and salt is bad... then sugar is bad... then carbohydrates are bad... and now fat is good as long as you don't overdo carbohydrates... and eggs have good cholesterol and are really good for you... and salt is necessary to balance hydration... and sugar isn't bad as long as it's balanced with fibre.
When the studies say so many different things, all contradictory and all purporting to be good and then bad and then good again, people give up trying to understand.
Why should I believe that anything I eat today is bad when tomorrow you're just going to tell me that it's good for me again?
People are tired of listening to science that appears to ebb and flow like the tides.
When the studies say so many different things, all contradictory and all purporting to be good and then bad and then good again, people give up trying to understand.
Why should I believe that anything I eat today is bad when tomorrow you're just going to tell me that it's good for me again?
People are tired of listening to science that appears to ebb and flow like the tides.
That's not science though - that's a single study or two being blown out of proportion. It's an element of science, a snapshot of knowledge, but the scientific method requires that we continually refine those messages and ideas, and that's not happening - we do an experiment, and then without any more corroboration or reproduction it's released to the public. We are seeing tiny pieces of science, but the problem is we're seeing every step and going "oh look, there's science!" and treating it as absolute truth instead of giving time for things to develop and figure out what it is we're looking at.
It's not a single scientific study blown out of proportions. It's the same at every level, including official reports by expert committees and scientific bodies:
Take eggs for example.
Here are the 1995 dietary guidelines:
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga95/9DIETGUI.HTM
> Choose a diet low in cholesterol
> The body makes and requires cholesterol. In addition, cholesterol is obtained from food. Dietary cholesterol comes from animal sources such as egg yolks, meat (especially organ meats such as liver) poultry, fish, and higher fat dairy products. Many of these foods are also high in saturated fats. Choosing foods with less cholesterol and saturated fat will help lower your blood cholesterol levels. The Nutrition Facts Label lists the Daily Value for cholesterol as 300 mg. You can keep your cholesterol intake at this level or lower by emphasizing intakes of grains, vegetables, and fruits and by limiting intake of egg yolks, including those used in cooking.
Here is the scientific report of the 2015 guidelines:
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/...
> Cholesterol: Previously, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended that cholesterol intake be limited to no more than 300 milligrams per day. The 2015 DGAC will not bring forward this recommendation because available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol, consistent with the conclusions of the AHA/ACC report, Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.
The sad part, is that there was never any good evidence to limit consumption of cholesterol and eggs.
Take eggs for example.
Here are the 1995 dietary guidelines:
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga95/9DIETGUI.HTM
> Choose a diet low in cholesterol
> The body makes and requires cholesterol. In addition, cholesterol is obtained from food. Dietary cholesterol comes from animal sources such as egg yolks, meat (especially organ meats such as liver) poultry, fish, and higher fat dairy products. Many of these foods are also high in saturated fats. Choosing foods with less cholesterol and saturated fat will help lower your blood cholesterol levels. The Nutrition Facts Label lists the Daily Value for cholesterol as 300 mg. You can keep your cholesterol intake at this level or lower by emphasizing intakes of grains, vegetables, and fruits and by limiting intake of egg yolks, including those used in cooking.
Here is the scientific report of the 2015 guidelines:
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/...
> Cholesterol: Previously, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended that cholesterol intake be limited to no more than 300 milligrams per day. The 2015 DGAC will not bring forward this recommendation because available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol, consistent with the conclusions of the AHA/ACC report, Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.
The sad part, is that there was never any good evidence to limit consumption of cholesterol and eggs.
Yes, but the scientific community has in-part brought this upon themselves.
The actual research is inaccessible to the public, hidden behind paywalls in subscription-only journals, and written in a form that is very difficult if not impossible for the general public to understand.
For most of the general public, the output of the scientific community is just a poorly translated and often misleading headline.
The actual research is inaccessible to the public, hidden behind paywalls in subscription-only journals, and written in a form that is very difficult if not impossible for the general public to understand.
For most of the general public, the output of the scientific community is just a poorly translated and often misleading headline.
It's also become incredibly complex and utterly alien to even practitioners in the fields - I can't read computer science doctoral dissertations with any degree of understanding. That's not a failing of the language, that's an evolution of it - we're at a point now where we need years and years of education to be able to be able to speak the language required for the research.
It absolutely is difficult for the general public, but that's not a failing, that's the state of the art.
It absolutely is difficult for the general public, but that's not a failing, that's the state of the art.
I’d argue that this is, in fact, a failing of the language of description, and that going back and refactoring terms and systematizing the folk knowledge of a given field would go a long way towards fixing the public attitudes towards that field. We should give more respect to people who make existing concepts easier to understand, or simpler and cheaper to prove or demonstrate. Then maybe we wouldn’t have to spend so much time bemoaning the poor state of education.
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the problem.
We do have a problem with nomenclature being fractured, even within fields, never mind between them. But that's not the problem.
The problem is that when you get deep enough into how things work, things just get really complex and they stop behaving in ways and patterns that humans experience the world. They end up being things that cannot be simplified down to a common human experience in any meaningful way. At best, you can take a portion of the concept and make an analogy to some limited portion of a common experience without lying too much. But they are fundamentally not the same, so you cannot use the analogy to discover anything new about the original concept.
There is also a problem of the time it takes to internalize new ideas and concepts. You can't quickly and easily give someone an intuitive understanding of anything - it takes work and experience and time on their part to get there. I don't see how going and reworking nomenclatures of entire fields is going to make people more willing or able to devote their time to this. Mostly you'll have to put in incredible amount of work, convince far too many people to do things a different way because you said so, and all you'll have really done is save some (significant) annoyance from students getting their feet wet in a new field.
We do have a problem with nomenclature being fractured, even within fields, never mind between them. But that's not the problem.
The problem is that when you get deep enough into how things work, things just get really complex and they stop behaving in ways and patterns that humans experience the world. They end up being things that cannot be simplified down to a common human experience in any meaningful way. At best, you can take a portion of the concept and make an analogy to some limited portion of a common experience without lying too much. But they are fundamentally not the same, so you cannot use the analogy to discover anything new about the original concept.
There is also a problem of the time it takes to internalize new ideas and concepts. You can't quickly and easily give someone an intuitive understanding of anything - it takes work and experience and time on their part to get there. I don't see how going and reworking nomenclatures of entire fields is going to make people more willing or able to devote their time to this. Mostly you'll have to put in incredible amount of work, convince far too many people to do things a different way because you said so, and all you'll have really done is save some (significant) annoyance from students getting their feet wet in a new field.
Sorry, I didn't see your reply to this until just now. I hope that you get a chance to see mine:
I have to disagree that nomenclature being fractured is not the problem. Within any given field, it is true that as you go deep enough into how things work, it gets complicated and hectic. However, as we have done throughout the entire written history of humanity, we have a special set of tools to help us engage with those complications, and reduce them down to complexes of simple objects whose behavior we understand - mathematics. If we are unable to reach deeply enough within a single field, it is because the tools we teach are not up to the task.
A large part of the issue is that the mathematics in common use in these disciplines, and at the elementary level, is in need of an upgrade. That upgrade is in the process of being performed (category theory), and as we learn to apply it in more and more fields, concepts and processes that seem deep, difficult, and essentially different turn out to be related in mathematically precise 'analogies'. This means that the same set of 'deep concepts', applied with different sets base objects and different operators that obey the same rules, will unfold into some of the main ideas in each discipline. Baez's Physics, Logic, Topology, Computation, a Rosetta stone is a good example of the beginnings of this, but googling 'applied category theory' or 'applied category theory course azimuth' ought to bring you some interesting extra links.
More generally, what we see of as specific processes within a particular field, when viewed through the right lenses, I expect we will find are instead instantiations of much more general processes that are the same across most, if not all, fields of discipline. How will we convince everyone to use these different naming systems and toolsets? Because those people who do use them will perform better, and the logic of competition will pull the educational system and society along with them.
If you disagree, I'd love to hear more about it. Nomenclature and Education are near and dear to me - I always jump and an opportunity to discuss with someone who does so in good faith.
I have to disagree that nomenclature being fractured is not the problem. Within any given field, it is true that as you go deep enough into how things work, it gets complicated and hectic. However, as we have done throughout the entire written history of humanity, we have a special set of tools to help us engage with those complications, and reduce them down to complexes of simple objects whose behavior we understand - mathematics. If we are unable to reach deeply enough within a single field, it is because the tools we teach are not up to the task.
A large part of the issue is that the mathematics in common use in these disciplines, and at the elementary level, is in need of an upgrade. That upgrade is in the process of being performed (category theory), and as we learn to apply it in more and more fields, concepts and processes that seem deep, difficult, and essentially different turn out to be related in mathematically precise 'analogies'. This means that the same set of 'deep concepts', applied with different sets base objects and different operators that obey the same rules, will unfold into some of the main ideas in each discipline. Baez's Physics, Logic, Topology, Computation, a Rosetta stone is a good example of the beginnings of this, but googling 'applied category theory' or 'applied category theory course azimuth' ought to bring you some interesting extra links.
More generally, what we see of as specific processes within a particular field, when viewed through the right lenses, I expect we will find are instead instantiations of much more general processes that are the same across most, if not all, fields of discipline. How will we convince everyone to use these different naming systems and toolsets? Because those people who do use them will perform better, and the logic of competition will pull the educational system and society along with them.
If you disagree, I'd love to hear more about it. Nomenclature and Education are near and dear to me - I always jump and an opportunity to discuss with someone who does so in good faith.
Yes, that's the problem exactly - at some point we can't just use common sense and spherical cows to express an idea.
Oversimplification for sound bytes (and headlines/click-bait) is the primary cause for this.
News outlets are eager to 'report first' and don't bother correctly framing the science in a proper context of one study //which suggests more research and confirmation is necessary//.
Publish or perish, along with the lack of replication rather than trying to find something exciting to publish, or even enshrining the effort of replicating results (repudiating or confirming) to more strongly establish fact and carefully observe to see if there may be other causes/effects; is ruining the integrity of the scientific methods.
Finally, a lack of stable funding for maintaining and improving what should be public domain (established facts about nature) and the work of students of all ages to re-study and double check as they learn, is nearly the ultimate root cause. The true root cause being greed and the increasing likelihood that as we as a species approach 'abundance' that capitalism ceases to be a good means for wisely allocating resources. Surely that is the case when we are to the point of automated micro-transaction harvesting HFT and fractions of a second of advantage translating to profits in a financial sector that is a vastly over-sized portion of the GDP.
News outlets are eager to 'report first' and don't bother correctly framing the science in a proper context of one study //which suggests more research and confirmation is necessary//.
Publish or perish, along with the lack of replication rather than trying to find something exciting to publish, or even enshrining the effort of replicating results (repudiating or confirming) to more strongly establish fact and carefully observe to see if there may be other causes/effects; is ruining the integrity of the scientific methods.
Finally, a lack of stable funding for maintaining and improving what should be public domain (established facts about nature) and the work of students of all ages to re-study and double check as they learn, is nearly the ultimate root cause. The true root cause being greed and the increasing likelihood that as we as a species approach 'abundance' that capitalism ceases to be a good means for wisely allocating resources. Surely that is the case when we are to the point of automated micro-transaction harvesting HFT and fractions of a second of advantage translating to profits in a financial sector that is a vastly over-sized portion of the GDP.
Most of the time the news outlets / pulishers don't understand the difference between correlation and causation. Frankly, I'm not even sure if many scientists understand the difference.
Get some data. Beat it up until you get something attention grabbing. Publish. Get paid. Worry about any fallout later.
Get some data. Beat it up until you get something attention grabbing. Publish. Get paid. Worry about any fallout later.
The media quoting random science study pushing X claim and then Y claim is a fundamental problem of media (society), not science.
The problem of science is that it doesn't have the outlet of, say, high school students learning real science and knowing how it works, that the products of science and technology is wind-up cut-off from the broad processes of experimentation that gave rise to them.
The problem of science is that it doesn't have the outlet of, say, high school students learning real science and knowing how it works, that the products of science and technology is wind-up cut-off from the broad processes of experimentation that gave rise to them.
There was an episode of CSI:Miami (I know, corny, hyperbolic, whatever, it raises a really salient point) I recall a line where Caine makes the point that we don't find evidence to support a narrative, we chase the evidence to find the truth.
Too many of the studies today are funded to look for evidence to support a narrative instead of chasing the evidence to find the truth. The former is propaganda. The latter is science.
When I say too many, I mean to say that there are enough that people are very very aware of this. This fact alone is a problem because it damages people's perception of what is going on in the scientific community. If people cannot trust scientists to deliver truth rather than deliver support for a narrative, we have a problem. Whether this perception is fair or not, it is so.
If perception is that we cannot trust the scientists delivering the test results, nor the providence of the testing, then how can we trust the information we're being shown?
People need to see integrity before they can trust anything else.
Too many of the studies today are funded to look for evidence to support a narrative instead of chasing the evidence to find the truth. The former is propaganda. The latter is science.
When I say too many, I mean to say that there are enough that people are very very aware of this. This fact alone is a problem because it damages people's perception of what is going on in the scientific community. If people cannot trust scientists to deliver truth rather than deliver support for a narrative, we have a problem. Whether this perception is fair or not, it is so.
If perception is that we cannot trust the scientists delivering the test results, nor the providence of the testing, then how can we trust the information we're being shown?
People need to see integrity before they can trust anything else.
> the other aspect is the majority of people aren't seeing the material gains that science offers the world
I'm afraid this last bit is a big problem. I suspect there is a certain lag from discovery to perception. And then starting in the 1800 we had wave after wave of discovery, from electricity, magnetism, cars, airplanes, wireless, nuclear bombs, computers... stopping around the 1980s. At this point we can keep talking up science all we want but I fear something like fusion reactors or true AI would be needed to boost the faith.
I'm afraid this last bit is a big problem. I suspect there is a certain lag from discovery to perception. And then starting in the 1800 we had wave after wave of discovery, from electricity, magnetism, cars, airplanes, wireless, nuclear bombs, computers... stopping around the 1980s. At this point we can keep talking up science all we want but I fear something like fusion reactors or true AI would be needed to boost the faith.
show me the science that says that religion is against science and intellect.
many of those responsible for science as a discipline throughout the centuries sought to know more of their creator rather than to debunk religion
many of those responsible for science as a discipline throughout the centuries sought to know more of their creator rather than to debunk religion
If science can't prove that we're not existing inside a simulation, or whether we have multiverses, how could we prove or disprove the existence of God?
Even if as most atheists agree the Bible is a fallacy, that still doesn't prove there isn't a God, or multiple Gods. Nor does it even prove our own existence. It just proves our abilities to contemplate and interpret the laws of the physics we appear bound inside this universe.
The only rules we can discover and prove are the ones that constrain the environment we are confined to. Anything outside this environment is opaque to us, which may include a God... or not.
Even if as most atheists agree the Bible is a fallacy, that still doesn't prove there isn't a God, or multiple Gods. Nor does it even prove our own existence. It just proves our abilities to contemplate and interpret the laws of the physics we appear bound inside this universe.
The only rules we can discover and prove are the ones that constrain the environment we are confined to. Anything outside this environment is opaque to us, which may include a God... or not.
See the book Faith vs Fact by Jerry Coyne for an exploration of the topic
> "I believe this is a public perception problem."
I see it differently. The problem isn't the public. The public has actually done a commendable job sensing what's been going on. It's not fair - however unintentional - to tie the public to the problem. It's bad enough Science keep denouncing the public, when it's Science who has mucked up it's own reputation. The pubic is a mirror.
Science, much like journalism, has been drinking too much of its own Kool Aid. It has forgotten it can't just talk, but it needs to walk that talk, as well.
Science would also be wise to show some humility and admit when it's gotten something less than perfect. Yes, that is part of the process. Does Science understand that? Instead, it just sweeps those aside and keeps self-professing it's eternal greatness, and how we should bow our heads, etc.
Bill Nye? Neil deGrasse Tyson? These are the face of Science? Me thinks they got the wrong end. They are doing more harm than good.
I see it differently. The problem isn't the public. The public has actually done a commendable job sensing what's been going on. It's not fair - however unintentional - to tie the public to the problem. It's bad enough Science keep denouncing the public, when it's Science who has mucked up it's own reputation. The pubic is a mirror.
Science, much like journalism, has been drinking too much of its own Kool Aid. It has forgotten it can't just talk, but it needs to walk that talk, as well.
Science would also be wise to show some humility and admit when it's gotten something less than perfect. Yes, that is part of the process. Does Science understand that? Instead, it just sweeps those aside and keeps self-professing it's eternal greatness, and how we should bow our heads, etc.
Bill Nye? Neil deGrasse Tyson? These are the face of Science? Me thinks they got the wrong end. They are doing more harm than good.
I think you and GP are pretty close to agreement on this point. The whole thing has a Will Rogers twang to it -- "We've got a public perception problem. To be specific, the public is too perceptive." (Not an actual quote, just the sort of thing he might have said).
To me, this sounds suspiciously like a No True Scottsmen argument. What you describe is the science we have. Maybe we can fix some of the corruption and pollution in the literature, maybe we can't. But it seems, to me, disingenuous to blame the "public" for conflating the science that exists with the Platonic ideal.
FWIW, I'm about to defend my PhD in a STEM discipline. In my eyes, science has far less credibility to me now than it did five years ago before I saw how the sausage is made. That's an N of at least one that this not only a problem outside scientific circles.
FWIW, I'm about to defend my PhD in a STEM discipline. In my eyes, science has far less credibility to me now than it did five years ago before I saw how the sausage is made. That's an N of at least one that this not only a problem outside scientific circles.
I don't blame the public. You can no more blame the public for their perceptions than you can blame a dog for being a dog.
You have the perceptions you have because of the ideals you were sold in school and in your childhood. The role models you choose are those that make you aspire to be the very best human being you can... at least, this was my world. Integrity means something. Honour means something.
So to come out and find that the science I was taught, chase the evidence to find the truth, has been subverted and is now chase the narrative, find the evidence to support the narrative - that's a fundamental problem for me because what is being sold as science in the real world is not what I was taught science was supposed to be in school.
It seems that many others were taught to manipulate the world around them at everyone else's expense to get ahead. They were taught that their own goals and objectives were more important than those of humanity. Are they any more wrong?
Can I blame people for trying to get rich when we're taught in the West that money is success? It buys freedom and happiness. When all the propaganda fed to us by the media every day brainwashes us into believing this narrative, can I really blame anyone for doing whatever they have to, to get rich?
I'm not blaming the public. It's not a trivial problem to solve. We don't live in a culture that rewards integrity. We live in a culture that rewards behaviour that makes people rich.
If you don't put authenticity and integrity at the heart of your cultural beliefs, how can you blame anyone when they ignore it to chase money, which you will be rewarded for?
You have the perceptions you have because of the ideals you were sold in school and in your childhood. The role models you choose are those that make you aspire to be the very best human being you can... at least, this was my world. Integrity means something. Honour means something.
So to come out and find that the science I was taught, chase the evidence to find the truth, has been subverted and is now chase the narrative, find the evidence to support the narrative - that's a fundamental problem for me because what is being sold as science in the real world is not what I was taught science was supposed to be in school.
It seems that many others were taught to manipulate the world around them at everyone else's expense to get ahead. They were taught that their own goals and objectives were more important than those of humanity. Are they any more wrong?
Can I blame people for trying to get rich when we're taught in the West that money is success? It buys freedom and happiness. When all the propaganda fed to us by the media every day brainwashes us into believing this narrative, can I really blame anyone for doing whatever they have to, to get rich?
I'm not blaming the public. It's not a trivial problem to solve. We don't live in a culture that rewards integrity. We live in a culture that rewards behaviour that makes people rich.
If you don't put authenticity and integrity at the heart of your cultural beliefs, how can you blame anyone when they ignore it to chase money, which you will be rewarded for?
All of this is correct. From teaching science at the collegiate level, it also seems like a shockingly large proportion of students want to be told the truth by an authority (not necessarily because they're "intellectually lazy"), and are not so good at looking at the world with their own eyes.
Life is complicated. It seems now that it's way more complicated than at any time in our past, but I think the truth is more likely that we didn't see it was complicated back then because a lot was shielded from us. We just didn't need to worry about it as kids. Plus, we have the world at our fingertips now and didn't back then. We have access to so much information that it's all but impossible to sift through it all and figure out what can be trusted and what can't. Nobody can keep up.
This is why none of us are masters of everything and we tend to specialize in niches. We want to be told the truth by an authority because we don't have the time to dig into everything ourselves. We want happy fulfilling lives. That means we can't look at everything with our own eyes, we need to be able to trust authorities. The less we can trust what we're being told, the more we have to research ourselves, the less time we're able to spend doing what we love with the people we love, the more miserable and disconnected our lives become.
We need to be told the truth by an authority and we need them to have the integrity to chase the truth and deliver it to us honorably.
It's not that we're not good at looking at the world with our own eyes, it's not that we're not capable, it's that we just don't have the time and we've run out of the energy to do so.
This is why none of us are masters of everything and we tend to specialize in niches. We want to be told the truth by an authority because we don't have the time to dig into everything ourselves. We want happy fulfilling lives. That means we can't look at everything with our own eyes, we need to be able to trust authorities. The less we can trust what we're being told, the more we have to research ourselves, the less time we're able to spend doing what we love with the people we love, the more miserable and disconnected our lives become.
We need to be told the truth by an authority and we need them to have the integrity to chase the truth and deliver it to us honorably.
It's not that we're not good at looking at the world with our own eyes, it's not that we're not capable, it's that we just don't have the time and we've run out of the energy to do so.
That's why I believe in science, but I don't believe in people.
People will and have corrupted every institution ever created.
People will and have corrupted every institution ever created.
I for once welcome our future AI Overlords.
I don't understand medicine much. I would prefer to believe my doctor. However, if my doctor suggests using homeopathics I will start questioning any other advice they might give me.
If my doctor is also getting kickbacks for prescribing me drugs for something that probably isn't what I have, then what incentive does he have to diagnose me properly when the drugs I do need don't pay him to endorse them?
Having doctors and hospitals getting kickbacks for promoting certain drugs is an ethical problem that needs to be curtailed. This all feeds into public perception.
If you want to be seen as having integrity, you have to act with integrity.
Having doctors and hospitals getting kickbacks for promoting certain drugs is an ethical problem that needs to be curtailed. This all feeds into public perception.
If you want to be seen as having integrity, you have to act with integrity.
Not everything under the umbrella term homeopathics these days is useless. Of course, that's not necessarily something Big Pharma likes to hear.
I don’t think those signs indicate blind, unquestioning support for “scientific truths” as practiced by some mythical scientific priesthood. They are a response to a troubling political tendency that has made the evaluation of certain scientific findings into a question of political and tribal beliefs rather than one that involves proper skepticism, education and scientific investigation.
If the situation was that there was a strong evidence-based disagreement about scientific findings, those signs wouldn’t be necessary. The situation is instead that a vast number of scientists are producing findings that contradict certain political preferences, and the response has not been a deeper investigation made in good faith — but rather an outright political rejection of the findings. “I support science” is not shorthand for “I take every scientific study as fact because scientists are gods,” but rather “I am inclined to give weight to scientific arguments in either direction as opposed to political arguments that reject those findings based on non-scientific reasoning.”
If the situation was that there was a strong evidence-based disagreement about scientific findings, those signs wouldn’t be necessary. The situation is instead that a vast number of scientists are producing findings that contradict certain political preferences, and the response has not been a deeper investigation made in good faith — but rather an outright political rejection of the findings. “I support science” is not shorthand for “I take every scientific study as fact because scientists are gods,” but rather “I am inclined to give weight to scientific arguments in either direction as opposed to political arguments that reject those findings based on non-scientific reasoning.”
the fault found in THAT line of reasoning is that the established scientific culture/institution doesn't even play ball by its own rules.
Political biases in every aspect from results interpretation to what questions we're allowed to ask, historical "just so" arguments that are sometimes falling flat (much to the detriment of the health of the planet), the lack of "negative results" studies due to funding biases and the replication crisis work together to cause a profound skepticism of the body of scientific institutional knowledge to be in some ways _more scientific_ than just reading and accepting the latest scientific news.
Political biases in every aspect from results interpretation to what questions we're allowed to ask, historical "just so" arguments that are sometimes falling flat (much to the detriment of the health of the planet), the lack of "negative results" studies due to funding biases and the replication crisis work together to cause a profound skepticism of the body of scientific institutional knowledge to be in some ways _more scientific_ than just reading and accepting the latest scientific news.
> The situation is instead that a vast number of scientists are producing findings that contradict certain political preferences, and the response has not been a deeper investigation made in good faith — but rather an outright political rejection of the findings.
How does a layperson make a deeper investigation on their own? The research is typically paywalled, the jargon is inaccessible, the experiments are prohibitively expensive, etc etc. In effect, there is a priestly caste, and one which arguably excludes from the debate members of the skeptic's tribe (i.e., "people the skeptic might trust to address their concerns"). This is why heterodoxy and political diversity in the academy is soooo important.
You might be inclined to say something like "conservatives select out of the academy" or "it's not my fault reality has a liberal bias" and you might even be right, but I don't think you'll find climate change very sympathetic to your position. In other words, this isn't affirmative action for conservatives, it's affirmative action (of conservatives) for the benefit of humanity.
Disclaimers: I'm picking 'conservatives' and 'liberals' here because that's clearly the bent of the article. I'm also picking climate change since it seems to be the favorite example of science denialism. Of course, contrary to the angle of this article, science denialism isn't even an exclusively conservative phenomenon (blank slatism is a favorite of anti-science leftists--including leftist academics--and flat-earth and anti-vax are bipartisan beliefs).
How does a layperson make a deeper investigation on their own? The research is typically paywalled, the jargon is inaccessible, the experiments are prohibitively expensive, etc etc. In effect, there is a priestly caste, and one which arguably excludes from the debate members of the skeptic's tribe (i.e., "people the skeptic might trust to address their concerns"). This is why heterodoxy and political diversity in the academy is soooo important.
You might be inclined to say something like "conservatives select out of the academy" or "it's not my fault reality has a liberal bias" and you might even be right, but I don't think you'll find climate change very sympathetic to your position. In other words, this isn't affirmative action for conservatives, it's affirmative action (of conservatives) for the benefit of humanity.
Disclaimers: I'm picking 'conservatives' and 'liberals' here because that's clearly the bent of the article. I'm also picking climate change since it seems to be the favorite example of science denialism. Of course, contrary to the angle of this article, science denialism isn't even an exclusively conservative phenomenon (blank slatism is a favorite of anti-science leftists--including leftist academics--and flat-earth and anti-vax are bipartisan beliefs).
So I have some grad/phd student friends and a small computational lab - enough cores, ram, storage and jobbing engines that in 2000s it would have been a respectable not quite super computer but none the less very powerful system capable of crunching lots of numbers quickly.
My friends sometimes try to validate conclusions of the papers or just re-run the data crunching presented in those papers.
They never succeed. Either the data sets don't actually match the data sets in papers, or something in the formulas is off, or the code does not even compile.
I did computation physics in college. We had to write code as the paper of homework/tests. Our TA would never run our binaries. He would take our source code, compile it, feed it two of his data sets (we had one) and check the result. If the student's code did not compile, the student would get an F for that homework. If the student's code bombed on the data set that was shared with students, the student would automatically get an F. And only if the second data set got different results than he expected would he go chasing the errors and potentially still give a good grade. By the end of two semesters everyone knew one never tweaked the code to just run the known data set and get the known result.
Science would benefit tremendously if this was the approach.
My friends sometimes try to validate conclusions of the papers or just re-run the data crunching presented in those papers.
They never succeed. Either the data sets don't actually match the data sets in papers, or something in the formulas is off, or the code does not even compile.
I did computation physics in college. We had to write code as the paper of homework/tests. Our TA would never run our binaries. He would take our source code, compile it, feed it two of his data sets (we had one) and check the result. If the student's code did not compile, the student would get an F for that homework. If the student's code bombed on the data set that was shared with students, the student would automatically get an F. And only if the second data set got different results than he expected would he go chasing the errors and potentially still give a good grade. By the end of two semesters everyone knew one never tweaked the code to just run the known data set and get the known result.
Science would benefit tremendously if this was the approach.
>"Science would benefit tremendously if this was the approach."
This is just the original idea behind science as developed in the renaissance. The resistance to checking each others work is a recent phenomenon.
Edit to add a source:
> "the foundation of scientific societies compelled scientists to change the way in which experiments were presented so that not only members of the scientific community but also the inexperienced reader would be able to repeat them by following the same steps.
[...]
Robert Boyle also played an important role in the evolution of scientific writing (Gotti,1996, 2001; Hunter, 2007). Fulton (1932: 78) has highlighted the contribution of the scientist, describing Boyle’s undertaking “to establish science as an integral part of the intellectual life of ordinary men”. He encouraged scientists to write in a language that their contemporaries could understand, and he undoubtedly did more than anyone of his time to make scientific methodology part of the intellectual equipment of educated men.
[...]
According to Gotti, one of the features of experimental essays is brevity, but this brevity of form does not imply brevity in the exposition of the subject. On the contrary, experiments are usually reported in full, furnishing the reader with all the minutest details. The aim of such a report is, after all, to make it possible for the experiment to be repeated, making the precision of the description an important factor." https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2007.20.06
This is just the original idea behind science as developed in the renaissance. The resistance to checking each others work is a recent phenomenon.
Edit to add a source:
> "the foundation of scientific societies compelled scientists to change the way in which experiments were presented so that not only members of the scientific community but also the inexperienced reader would be able to repeat them by following the same steps.
[...]
Robert Boyle also played an important role in the evolution of scientific writing (Gotti,1996, 2001; Hunter, 2007). Fulton (1932: 78) has highlighted the contribution of the scientist, describing Boyle’s undertaking “to establish science as an integral part of the intellectual life of ordinary men”. He encouraged scientists to write in a language that their contemporaries could understand, and he undoubtedly did more than anyone of his time to make scientific methodology part of the intellectual equipment of educated men.
[...]
According to Gotti, one of the features of experimental essays is brevity, but this brevity of form does not imply brevity in the exposition of the subject. On the contrary, experiments are usually reported in full, furnishing the reader with all the minutest details. The aim of such a report is, after all, to make it possible for the experiment to be repeated, making the precision of the description an important factor." https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2007.20.06
Yeah, and sometimes the researchers are actively hostile to laypeople questioning their priestly caste.
For example, there's a fairly nasty and debilitating condition called CFS which respected British psychiatrists long ago decided was psychosomatic. So a few years ago, they ran a high-profile clinical trial called PACE which tried to prove this by testing their preferred psychiatric treatments, and naturally it concluded they were right. It was also fairly shoddy, which shouldn't surprise anyone on HN. In particular, the results in the final paper used a different and much weaker criteria for success than they'd intended to use at the start, which is a no-no. (There were a bunch of other issues with it too.)
A few trial patients and some outside scientists noticed this tried to get enough data to see what the results were if the researchers had done the scientifically valid thing and used their planned methodology, and that's when things got nasty. The researchers loudly cried to anyone who'd listen - and plenty did, because they were respected psychiatrists and the patients were officially nuts - that this was dangerous, vexatious harassment of scientists by activists, using their position to frame their pre-existing beliefs as science and questioning them as unscientific. All the proud, clever supporters of science bought into this and kept on doing so.
This was almost a decade ago now. The reason it springs to mind is that a few days ago, Reuters ran a long-form piece uncritically repeating the position that opposition to them is a dangerous attempt to silence scientists through harassment and abuse, and it made HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19377986 Discussion ensued as to whether suing the evil people discrediting their research into oblivion was enough or whether they needed to be jailed, and why universities hadn't fired staff who disagreed with their results yet.
Oh, and the punchline to all this: the researchers were almost all male, the condition in question primarily affects women. It turns out that science, at least as experienced by poor disabled women, might be more accurately described by all those pesky postmodernist complaints from the women's studies department than it is by the scientific method.
For example, there's a fairly nasty and debilitating condition called CFS which respected British psychiatrists long ago decided was psychosomatic. So a few years ago, they ran a high-profile clinical trial called PACE which tried to prove this by testing their preferred psychiatric treatments, and naturally it concluded they were right. It was also fairly shoddy, which shouldn't surprise anyone on HN. In particular, the results in the final paper used a different and much weaker criteria for success than they'd intended to use at the start, which is a no-no. (There were a bunch of other issues with it too.)
A few trial patients and some outside scientists noticed this tried to get enough data to see what the results were if the researchers had done the scientifically valid thing and used their planned methodology, and that's when things got nasty. The researchers loudly cried to anyone who'd listen - and plenty did, because they were respected psychiatrists and the patients were officially nuts - that this was dangerous, vexatious harassment of scientists by activists, using their position to frame their pre-existing beliefs as science and questioning them as unscientific. All the proud, clever supporters of science bought into this and kept on doing so.
This was almost a decade ago now. The reason it springs to mind is that a few days ago, Reuters ran a long-form piece uncritically repeating the position that opposition to them is a dangerous attempt to silence scientists through harassment and abuse, and it made HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19377986 Discussion ensued as to whether suing the evil people discrediting their research into oblivion was enough or whether they needed to be jailed, and why universities hadn't fired staff who disagreed with their results yet.
Oh, and the punchline to all this: the researchers were almost all male, the condition in question primarily affects women. It turns out that science, at least as experienced by poor disabled women, might be more accurately described by all those pesky postmodernist complaints from the women's studies department than it is by the scientific method.
1. You use sci-hub. Or write the researchers. Scientists don’t want to keep their work secret nor do they want a “priestly caste”, they want it out there and read. They work like dogs so people on HN can read and actually understand their work and not write about their political feelings instead.
2. Even if you’re not qualified to do the science yourself, you try to reject implausible ideas like the notion that there’s some grand scientific conspiracy against your preferred ideas. If you’re inclined to believe in some scientific result that is also the result that would be vastly preferred by industry and the richest people on earth, then you should be pretty confident that scientists who are willing to consider that outcome are getting resources to investigate it, and if those resources were producing credible results they’d be making waves in the scientific community. And if the scientific community was somehow censoring those credible results, we’d be hearing all about it.
2. Even if you’re not qualified to do the science yourself, you try to reject implausible ideas like the notion that there’s some grand scientific conspiracy against your preferred ideas. If you’re inclined to believe in some scientific result that is also the result that would be vastly preferred by industry and the richest people on earth, then you should be pretty confident that scientists who are willing to consider that outcome are getting resources to investigate it, and if those resources were producing credible results they’d be making waves in the scientific community. And if the scientific community was somehow censoring those credible results, we’d be hearing all about it.
> try to reject implausible ideas like the notion that there’s some grand scientific conspiracy against your preferred ideas
You mean like academics who push blank slatism to prop up dubious political outcomes? Or people who push notions of racist math or sexist physics?
The questions are 1) how/why do our institutions allow these frauds to be so prevalent/powerful 2) how do we make the necessary changes 3) how do we help laypeople distinguish between ideologues and real academics?
You mean like academics who push blank slatism to prop up dubious political outcomes? Or people who push notions of racist math or sexist physics?
The questions are 1) how/why do our institutions allow these frauds to be so prevalent/powerful 2) how do we make the necessary changes 3) how do we help laypeople distinguish between ideologues and real academics?
Sci-Hub isn't exactly easy to use or recommended by the larger community a grad student is likely to encounter.
If you're smart enough to use HN's interface, you're smart enough to Google/copy/paste a DOI string into the sci-hub website. Not a criticism of you personally, but right now it's absurdly easy to bypass scientific paywalls if you're even slightly motivated.
PS Scientists almost uniformly hate the predatory scientific publishing system, want it destroyed, and aren't trying to prevent you from reading their work.
PS Scientists almost uniformly hate the predatory scientific publishing system, want it destroyed, and aren't trying to prevent you from reading their work.
[deleted]
>in this house, we believe science is real
Or maybe those people, even if they don't have much of a grasp on the scientific method, see the material progress and results of scientific work and conclude that they're going to place trust in scientific authority?
This is an entirely false equivalence. One can trust scientists even without understanding science, on the fact alone that research produces results that everyone can observe.
To suggest that we have too uncritical of an opinion of scientific research in an age were medieval diseases make a comeback because people aren't getting vaccinated, climate change is routinely ignored, and an atheistic scientist would likely not be able to run for high office based on that fact alone, is a joke to be honest.
Or maybe those people, even if they don't have much of a grasp on the scientific method, see the material progress and results of scientific work and conclude that they're going to place trust in scientific authority?
This is an entirely false equivalence. One can trust scientists even without understanding science, on the fact alone that research produces results that everyone can observe.
To suggest that we have too uncritical of an opinion of scientific research in an age were medieval diseases make a comeback because people aren't getting vaccinated, climate change is routinely ignored, and an atheistic scientist would likely not be able to run for high office based on that fact alone, is a joke to be honest.
Isn't trusting authority contrary to trusting science? The point of science is that we can verify truths for ourselves without relying on authority.
Hence, if any authority, 'scientific' or otherwise, asserts their authority instead of providing individually verifiable evidence of its claims, then we can say they are being unscientific, regardless of title.
Hence, if any authority, 'scientific' or otherwise, asserts their authority instead of providing individually verifiable evidence of its claims, then we can say they are being unscientific, regardless of title.
I don't think that's the point of science at all to be honest. The point of scientific endeavour is to discover facts about the world. That's a really hard job, and the majority of people are not scientists, and even a trained scientist cannot verify the overwhelming majority of existing science by themselves, which means that science, like any other sufficiently large human collaboration, requires institutions, trust and authority.
The difference between scientific and religious institutions is not that the former functions without authority or trust, it's that the success of the former is measured against observable and replicable results and material progress and not based on infallible spiritual promise.
So if someone understands nothing about science at all, and worships it like a religion, at least they had the good sense of picking a religion that puts food on their table, makes their planes stay in the sky and makes them healthy again when they fall sick.
The difference between scientific and religious institutions is not that the former functions without authority or trust, it's that the success of the former is measured against observable and replicable results and material progress and not based on infallible spiritual promise.
So if someone understands nothing about science at all, and worships it like a religion, at least they had the good sense of picking a religion that puts food on their table, makes their planes stay in the sky and makes them healthy again when they fall sick.
> So if someone understands nothing about science at all, and worships it like a religion, at least they had the good sense of picking a religion that puts food on their table, makes their planes stay in the sky and makes them healthy again when they fall sick.
Religion has proven capable of welding large communities together, and that sort of shared belief system wins wars.
If you ignore the fact that the doctrine is more allegorical than factual, religion has a lot of utility when resources are scarce. Being part of a large group is frequently more important than being part of a technically correct group.
I think the last 200 years of history has demonstrated that science is a superior strategy, but it isn't obvious enough to be hand-waved. There is some evidence that to successfully abandon religion societies have to first have an ungodly surplus of resources. The new trend towards no religion hasn't been tested in a war yet either; back in WWII religious/nationalistic sentiment was famously high.
Religion has proven capable of welding large communities together, and that sort of shared belief system wins wars.
If you ignore the fact that the doctrine is more allegorical than factual, religion has a lot of utility when resources are scarce. Being part of a large group is frequently more important than being part of a technically correct group.
I think the last 200 years of history has demonstrated that science is a superior strategy, but it isn't obvious enough to be hand-waved. There is some evidence that to successfully abandon religion societies have to first have an ungodly surplus of resources. The new trend towards no religion hasn't been tested in a war yet either; back in WWII religious/nationalistic sentiment was famously high.
Then there is the fact that science was created by religious societies, Christianity in particular. Many of the fundamental discoveries came about due to religious motivations and religious principles: the world is orderly and understandable because it was created by a transcendent mind. Take away religion and we would not have science.
This argument falls flat because it doesn't show a requirement that the first proceeds the second, and additionally it assumes that "the end justifies the means".
It may be true that our current scientific culture arose from religion, but it's easy to imagine it arising separately. There are even countless stories of times when scientific progress was hindered by religious thinking, situations where people tried to fit their ideas to some religious story and in doing so blocked their progress towards truth.
In addition to that, even if religion was a necessary prerequisite for modern science and we take that science is 'good', that does not mean religion is good. "The USA came about (in part) due to the use of slaves, take away slavery and we wouldn't have the USA" is not a good argument for slavery.
A side note, but the world is not really orderly, though maybe it is understandable. If anything, the world is filled with death, pain, and chaos; if any mind created it, it's a sadistic one.
It may be true that our current scientific culture arose from religion, but it's easy to imagine it arising separately. There are even countless stories of times when scientific progress was hindered by religious thinking, situations where people tried to fit their ideas to some religious story and in doing so blocked their progress towards truth.
In addition to that, even if religion was a necessary prerequisite for modern science and we take that science is 'good', that does not mean religion is good. "The USA came about (in part) due to the use of slaves, take away slavery and we wouldn't have the USA" is not a good argument for slavery.
A side note, but the world is not really orderly, though maybe it is understandable. If anything, the world is filled with death, pain, and chaos; if any mind created it, it's a sadistic one.
It's easy to imagine anything, so that doesn't really say much.
Atheists were science blockers in Plato's day. They were called sophists, and didn't believe in gods, but used the beliefs of the people and fancy rhetoric to get what they want. Most of Plato's dialogues are debates with sophists.
Atheists were science blockers in Plato's day. They were called sophists, and didn't believe in gods, but used the beliefs of the people and fancy rhetoric to get what they want. Most of Plato's dialogues are debates with sophists.
> It's easy to imagine anything, so that doesn't really say much.
You claimed that science exists because of religion, but did not show that religion is a requirement (or even catalyst) for science.
Organised science definitely requires a society (otherwise it would not be organised) and it so happens that historical societies tended to have some association with religion, but I would claim science arose from these societies despite religion, not because of it.
If science was an outworking of religion, rather than the society a religion happens to cohabit, why do we not see more and more science coming from societies with more and more religion?
> Atheists were science blockers in Plato's day. They were called sophists, and didn't believe in gods, but used the beliefs of the people and fancy rhetoric to get what they want. Most of Plato's dialogues are debates with sophists.
Sorry, not sure what the link here is.
Atheism is just not believing in gods, in the same way I don't believe we are living in a simulation. Even if the premise is true, as far as we can measure (so far!) there is no impact on us. Not believing in things that we can't experience or measure is the default for us in general.
I would go so far as to say that religions themselves only exist because we were trying to explain the world we live in, and were unable to with the tools and ideas available to us throughout history. Over the course of history many people have observed the same phenomena and come up with a multitude of ideas as to what is going on.
Many of those ideas go on to form the nexus of a religion, many hundreds or thousands of religions trying to make sense of the world. The ideas that hold up to interrogation, that are testable and can be observed repeatably, they become science. Science reduces the set of possible explanations to the ones that are feasible.
You claimed that science exists because of religion, but did not show that religion is a requirement (or even catalyst) for science.
Organised science definitely requires a society (otherwise it would not be organised) and it so happens that historical societies tended to have some association with religion, but I would claim science arose from these societies despite religion, not because of it.
If science was an outworking of religion, rather than the society a religion happens to cohabit, why do we not see more and more science coming from societies with more and more religion?
> Atheists were science blockers in Plato's day. They were called sophists, and didn't believe in gods, but used the beliefs of the people and fancy rhetoric to get what they want. Most of Plato's dialogues are debates with sophists.
Sorry, not sure what the link here is.
Atheism is just not believing in gods, in the same way I don't believe we are living in a simulation. Even if the premise is true, as far as we can measure (so far!) there is no impact on us. Not believing in things that we can't experience or measure is the default for us in general.
I would go so far as to say that religions themselves only exist because we were trying to explain the world we live in, and were unable to with the tools and ideas available to us throughout history. Over the course of history many people have observed the same phenomena and come up with a multitude of ideas as to what is going on.
Many of those ideas go on to form the nexus of a religion, many hundreds or thousands of religions trying to make sense of the world. The ideas that hold up to interrogation, that are testable and can be observed repeatably, they become science. Science reduces the set of possible explanations to the ones that are feasible.
Well, Aristotle is still studied. Nobody pray to Zeus.
> Well, Aristotle is still studied
Didn't Aristotle basically say a projectile will move in a straight line until it basically "runs out of gas," even though everyone who's ever thrown something can see that's not true, just because he thought it ought to work that way?
Didn't Aristotle basically say a projectile will move in a straight line until it basically "runs out of gas," even though everyone who's ever thrown something can see that's not true, just because he thought it ought to work that way?
Of course he was wrong sometimes, not one or two times. He was wrong thousands of times in the 150 books that wrote. Scientists are wrong and correcting themselves all the time when a better explanation arise.
Lets take in mind that we talk about a man, one single man with not much more than a deductive and logical brain. No fancy lab apparatus or computers here.
This man was hugely influential in logic. Created the sillogisms and developped one of the first logical syntaxes based in the concepts of true and false. "if A is P (is true) and P is C (is true); then A is C". relationships among true and false in double negatives, predicates, etc.
Lay the foundations of economy as a science and economic though. We call it "economy" because one of his disciples coined the term.
Hugely influencial in occidental medicine. Medicine must be evidence-based, deterring magical procedures.
So called the "father of biology". Wrote the first comprehensive treatise about zoology, covering and classifying more than 500 animals. Wrote a similar treatise about botany (mostly lost if i'm not wrong)
Hugely influencial in development of embryology and teratology. Described systematically the development of embryo in chicken and other animals. Developped laws about gestation time and clutch size related with size of animals that are still vigent.
(Most probably) the first cephalopologist or marine biologist. Described the hectocotylus in octopuses and explained his function.
Deducted correctly that all things in the space were moving in closed orbits. Was wrong about putting earth in the center of all universe, and though that orbits were circular; but to be fair the first telescope wouldn't be invented until, dunno, more than 1500 years later or so.
Introduced the phylosophical concept of first motor, "if there is movement in the universe and all that moves is pushed by another moving object, there must be a first cause for the movement of all the planets and things in the universe". The pale ghost of this concept can be still invoked if you repeat "Big bang" six times in front of a telescope's mirror.
Not to mention the thousands of his phylosofical quotes that are fondly repeated still today in lots of powerpoint presentations and motivational posters all around the world.
"It is during our darkest moments that we must focus to see the light" Harvey Dent? not, Aristotle.
All in just a man's life. The man was wrong in many things, but was incredibly smart, influential and prolific.
Lets take in mind that we talk about a man, one single man with not much more than a deductive and logical brain. No fancy lab apparatus or computers here.
This man was hugely influential in logic. Created the sillogisms and developped one of the first logical syntaxes based in the concepts of true and false. "if A is P (is true) and P is C (is true); then A is C". relationships among true and false in double negatives, predicates, etc.
Lay the foundations of economy as a science and economic though. We call it "economy" because one of his disciples coined the term.
Hugely influencial in occidental medicine. Medicine must be evidence-based, deterring magical procedures.
So called the "father of biology". Wrote the first comprehensive treatise about zoology, covering and classifying more than 500 animals. Wrote a similar treatise about botany (mostly lost if i'm not wrong)
Hugely influencial in development of embryology and teratology. Described systematically the development of embryo in chicken and other animals. Developped laws about gestation time and clutch size related with size of animals that are still vigent.
(Most probably) the first cephalopologist or marine biologist. Described the hectocotylus in octopuses and explained his function.
Deducted correctly that all things in the space were moving in closed orbits. Was wrong about putting earth in the center of all universe, and though that orbits were circular; but to be fair the first telescope wouldn't be invented until, dunno, more than 1500 years later or so.
Introduced the phylosophical concept of first motor, "if there is movement in the universe and all that moves is pushed by another moving object, there must be a first cause for the movement of all the planets and things in the universe". The pale ghost of this concept can be still invoked if you repeat "Big bang" six times in front of a telescope's mirror.
Not to mention the thousands of his phylosofical quotes that are fondly repeated still today in lots of powerpoint presentations and motivational posters all around the world.
"It is during our darkest moments that we must focus to see the light" Harvey Dent? not, Aristotle.
All in just a man's life. The man was wrong in many things, but was incredibly smart, influential and prolific.
Aristotle believed in intelligent design.
I think the last 200 years of history has demonstrated that science is a superior strategy, but it isn't obvious enough to be hand-waved.
If you're talking about wars, you really think a hypothetical civilization with a technological development level of ca.1819 would have even a sliver of a chance against modern weapons?? I think history shows that not to be the case.
But I think that misses the point. The real issue is that the world doesn't care what your belief system is. You may have the most solid shared belief system ever, but if you ruin your environment, a la "Collapse", you won't stand a chance.
If you're talking about wars, you really think a hypothetical civilization with a technological development level of ca.1819 would have even a sliver of a chance against modern weapons?? I think history shows that not to be the case.
But I think that misses the point. The real issue is that the world doesn't care what your belief system is. You may have the most solid shared belief system ever, but if you ruin your environment, a la "Collapse", you won't stand a chance.
One might think some birds pitted against soldiers with guns wouldn't stand a chance, but one would be wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War
The 1819 society would obviously be flattened.
However there needs to be a stable society to host the researchers (using the term loosely to include people who invent stuff). That is possible with extreme ethnic homogeneity, possible with strong shared religion and culture and possible with conducive economic conditions where everyone benefits from pulling together.
It isn't obvious that 'science' can fill that role if it displaces religion and we go through 20 years of hard times. A cynic's read of science would support the idea that we stab the neighbor when the going gets tough. Eugenics, for example, was once considered the scientific option until WWII happened, there was a lot of interest in the early statistical community in that sort of thing. Some bits worked, some didn't, but the experience doesn't paint 'the scientific approach' as beyond moral question - there was lot of suffering and some very divisive ideas came to fruition.
However there needs to be a stable society to host the researchers (using the term loosely to include people who invent stuff). That is possible with extreme ethnic homogeneity, possible with strong shared religion and culture and possible with conducive economic conditions where everyone benefits from pulling together.
It isn't obvious that 'science' can fill that role if it displaces religion and we go through 20 years of hard times. A cynic's read of science would support the idea that we stab the neighbor when the going gets tough. Eugenics, for example, was once considered the scientific option until WWII happened, there was a lot of interest in the early statistical community in that sort of thing. Some bits worked, some didn't, but the experience doesn't paint 'the scientific approach' as beyond moral question - there was lot of suffering and some very divisive ideas came to fruition.
> However there needs to be a stable society to host the researchers (using the term loosely to include people who invent stuff).
I agree with you insofar that if people are living hand-to-mouth it's very hard to achieve scientific progress just because there is not enough time.
In general however this does not require a stable society, just that there are people within the society who have time to think and the resources to test their ideas. We've seen this in the past when 'rich' people sponsor someone to do 'science' even though in general the population is living hand-to-mouth, and we've seen it recently in Europe where science continued even though the land was being torn up by war.
That said, for large scale, wide spread advancement you obviously want more people able to contribute, so a stable society definitely helps with this.
> That is possible with extreme ethnic homogeneity, possible with strong shared religion and culture and possible with conducive economic conditions where everyone benefits from pulling together.
I agree that these things can lead to a stable society, with the correction "religion or culture", but actually think there is something more fundamental going on.
> It isn't obvious that 'science' can fill that role if it displaces religion and we go through 20 years of hard times. A cynic's read of science would support the idea that we stab the neighbor when the going gets tough.
First of all, it's not necessary for 'science' to fill this role, culture is already a fine fit. Indeed, the cases you probably think of when saying religion can form a stable society are better explained with culture (of which religion or religious observances may be a part), especially when we consider the many conflicts in history between groups of people who claim the same religion but have different culture.
Furthermore, 'science' doesn't say anything like "stab your neighbour when the going gets tough". One of the prevailing theories around the question of "why do we cooperate" is that cooperating is more economical, and societies that cooperate are more likely to survive. It is a self selecting trait of successful societies. Individuals within a society may choose to act in uncooperative ways, but even if I thought I could improve my lot in life by stealing from my neighbours, I'm able to recognise that if everyone acted like that it would be bad for me personally. Culture and law - cultural memes, these are the elements of a society that lead to it being stable.
> Eugenics, for example, was once considered the scientific option until WWII happened, there was a lot of interest in the early statistical community in that sort of thing. Some bits worked, some didn't, but the experience doesn't paint 'the scientific approach' as beyond moral question - there was lot of suffering and some very divisive ideas came to fruition.
There are not many people who believe any human endeavour is beyond moral question, but especially not science! Insofar as we can call 'science' the modern organised research institutions, we have entire systems set in place exactly because we (humanity) believe that some things are not worth knowing if you can't discover them without human suffering, or 'not immorally' for whatever we find immoral.
That is to say, 'science' doesn't dictate how we structure our lives or behave ourselves, we do. The institutions we build and the cultures that persist are what lead to stable societies, but it's much easier to make good decisions when you have more knowledge.
I agree with you insofar that if people are living hand-to-mouth it's very hard to achieve scientific progress just because there is not enough time.
In general however this does not require a stable society, just that there are people within the society who have time to think and the resources to test their ideas. We've seen this in the past when 'rich' people sponsor someone to do 'science' even though in general the population is living hand-to-mouth, and we've seen it recently in Europe where science continued even though the land was being torn up by war.
That said, for large scale, wide spread advancement you obviously want more people able to contribute, so a stable society definitely helps with this.
> That is possible with extreme ethnic homogeneity, possible with strong shared religion and culture and possible with conducive economic conditions where everyone benefits from pulling together.
I agree that these things can lead to a stable society, with the correction "religion or culture", but actually think there is something more fundamental going on.
> It isn't obvious that 'science' can fill that role if it displaces religion and we go through 20 years of hard times. A cynic's read of science would support the idea that we stab the neighbor when the going gets tough.
First of all, it's not necessary for 'science' to fill this role, culture is already a fine fit. Indeed, the cases you probably think of when saying religion can form a stable society are better explained with culture (of which religion or religious observances may be a part), especially when we consider the many conflicts in history between groups of people who claim the same religion but have different culture.
Furthermore, 'science' doesn't say anything like "stab your neighbour when the going gets tough". One of the prevailing theories around the question of "why do we cooperate" is that cooperating is more economical, and societies that cooperate are more likely to survive. It is a self selecting trait of successful societies. Individuals within a society may choose to act in uncooperative ways, but even if I thought I could improve my lot in life by stealing from my neighbours, I'm able to recognise that if everyone acted like that it would be bad for me personally. Culture and law - cultural memes, these are the elements of a society that lead to it being stable.
> Eugenics, for example, was once considered the scientific option until WWII happened, there was a lot of interest in the early statistical community in that sort of thing. Some bits worked, some didn't, but the experience doesn't paint 'the scientific approach' as beyond moral question - there was lot of suffering and some very divisive ideas came to fruition.
There are not many people who believe any human endeavour is beyond moral question, but especially not science! Insofar as we can call 'science' the modern organised research institutions, we have entire systems set in place exactly because we (humanity) believe that some things are not worth knowing if you can't discover them without human suffering, or 'not immorally' for whatever we find immoral.
That is to say, 'science' doesn't dictate how we structure our lives or behave ourselves, we do. The institutions we build and the cultures that persist are what lead to stable societies, but it's much easier to make good decisions when you have more knowledge.
> religion that puts food on their table, makes their planes stay in the sky and makes them healthy again when they fall sick
Your phrasing makes it sound like you're conflating science and physical reality... that's kind of a pet peeve of mine (sorry). Science provides some of the knowledge required for engineers and doctors to do their jobs, but it's the work they do with that knowledge that accomplishes those things. I think that's an important distinction. We can't credit science with creating the natural world or its mechanisms, though it has enabled us to understand and work with it.
Your phrasing makes it sound like you're conflating science and physical reality... that's kind of a pet peeve of mine (sorry). Science provides some of the knowledge required for engineers and doctors to do their jobs, but it's the work they do with that knowledge that accomplishes those things. I think that's an important distinction. We can't credit science with creating the natural world or its mechanisms, though it has enabled us to understand and work with it.
I think that is very pedantic. Of course science != physical reality.
However, in general discussion no one is going to say
> "potentially flawed but workable approximation of natural 'rules' that allow us to to manipulate natural phenomenon in a manner that results in food on our table, planes in your sky, and cures for our sicknesses"
No, it's much more reasonable to say
> science that puts food on our table, planes in our sky, and cures for our sicknesses
However, in general discussion no one is going to say
> "potentially flawed but workable approximation of natural 'rules' that allow us to to manipulate natural phenomenon in a manner that results in food on our table, planes in your sky, and cures for our sicknesses"
No, it's much more reasonable to say
> science that puts food on our table, planes in our sky, and cures for our sicknesses
> I think that is very pedantic.
I know it is... hence the apology.
But in practice, I don't think it would be inaccurate to say the terms "science" and "natural world" are being used interchangeably in common vernacular. That bugs me. "Science" is not what you see when you look through a telescope or microscope.
I know it is... hence the apology.
But in practice, I don't think it would be inaccurate to say the terms "science" and "natural world" are being used interchangeably in common vernacular. That bugs me. "Science" is not what you see when you look through a telescope or microscope.
> Your phrasing makes it sound like you're conflating science and physical reality
Really, it doesn't. Science is exactly the process that does all those things, because science is the process which forms the methods and artifacts we use in such a way that they successfully exploit the mechanisms of the natural world.
> but it's the work they do with that knowledge that accomplishes those things
That is an obviously nonsensical statement. Yes, that work is a component of accomplishing those things, but so is the science. An engineer or doctor that did not use scientific results nor scientific methodology would not accomplish anything either. And arguably, what engineers and doctors do, when done right, is also science. An engineer building a plane is building a (physically represented) hypothesis of how something can be made to fly, and then tests that hypothesis. The only difference between what you would call a scientist and what you would call an engineer is the generalized applicability of their result, not the fundamental methodology they are using to arrive at that result--in particular in comparison to the "alternative", namely a faith-based epistemology, which is what is generally proposed by those sceptical of the scientific method.
Really, it doesn't. Science is exactly the process that does all those things, because science is the process which forms the methods and artifacts we use in such a way that they successfully exploit the mechanisms of the natural world.
> but it's the work they do with that knowledge that accomplishes those things
That is an obviously nonsensical statement. Yes, that work is a component of accomplishing those things, but so is the science. An engineer or doctor that did not use scientific results nor scientific methodology would not accomplish anything either. And arguably, what engineers and doctors do, when done right, is also science. An engineer building a plane is building a (physically represented) hypothesis of how something can be made to fly, and then tests that hypothesis. The only difference between what you would call a scientist and what you would call an engineer is the generalized applicability of their result, not the fundamental methodology they are using to arrive at that result--in particular in comparison to the "alternative", namely a faith-based epistemology, which is what is generally proposed by those sceptical of the scientific method.
This is fine as long as each individual has the choice of which scientific conclusions to follow and they individually bear the consequences of their choices.
It is no longer fine when public policy decisions potentially costing trillions of dollars and affecting billions of people are riding on scientific conclusions. Then the claim that "well, we're just discovering facts about the world" no longer holds water. Nor does the claim that "well, science requires institutions, trust, and authority, so just trust us, the scientists". Members of the public have to be able to independently evaluate the claims so they can make informed decisions about what public policies to support.
It is no longer fine when public policy decisions potentially costing trillions of dollars and affecting billions of people are riding on scientific conclusions. Then the claim that "well, we're just discovering facts about the world" no longer holds water. Nor does the claim that "well, science requires institutions, trust, and authority, so just trust us, the scientists". Members of the public have to be able to independently evaluate the claims so they can make informed decisions about what public policies to support.
The goal of science is to acquire knowledge while mitigating human bias. No science ever eliminates bias completely. A good science teacher drills this point home constantly.
is trusting scientific authority the same thing really? Believing the theory of evolution is different than trusting that the $100 genome is around the corner... And unlike religious institutions, scientific institutions typically reflect that difference in their rhetoric.
> Hence, if any authority, 'scientific' or otherwise, asserts their authority instead of providing individually verifiable evidence of its claims, then we can say they are being unscientific, regardless of title.
Indeed, the motto of the Royal Society is "Take nobody's word for it".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Indeed, the motto of the Royal Society is "Take nobody's word for it".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
"The Strange Case of Francis Collins" https://samharris.org/the-strange-case-of-francis-collins/
> trust in scientific authority
The very nature of science means that there should be no such thing as "scientific authority."
(I say this as a person with published papers.)
The very nature of science means that there should be no such thing as "scientific authority."
(I say this as a person with published papers.)
Just goes to show you you can have "published papers" and be wrong. Nothing about science precludes the existence of authorities.
> The one thing you learn in high level science is that nobody really knows what they're talking about, paradigms shift, and further study is required.
High level science is on the borders of vast body of scientific knowledge. It's only to be expected that people who work there don't know much about the things they try to figure out. What they know a whole lot about is the foundation of that vast body of scientific knowledge they try to build new understanding upon.
Nobody expects reverence at high levels of science. But a little bit of reverence for scientfic method and for what vast knowledge science was able to establish without a dubt so far would be nice.
Established science is not what's in the news. It's mostly what's in the textbooks. News pretty much broke the public relationship towards science.
High level science is on the borders of vast body of scientific knowledge. It's only to be expected that people who work there don't know much about the things they try to figure out. What they know a whole lot about is the foundation of that vast body of scientific knowledge they try to build new understanding upon.
Nobody expects reverence at high levels of science. But a little bit of reverence for scientfic method and for what vast knowledge science was able to establish without a dubt so far would be nice.
Established science is not what's in the news. It's mostly what's in the textbooks. News pretty much broke the public relationship towards science.
Pluto as a planet was established science for a long time. Textbooks are probably the biggest examples of "settled science" that is out of date.
> Pluto as a planet was established science for a long time
The discovery of more objects in the solar system led to defining additional categories of objects, most relevant the category of “dwarf planets”.
That's evolving terminology not a change in the science.
The discovery of more objects in the solar system led to defining additional categories of objects, most relevant the category of “dwarf planets”.
That's evolving terminology not a change in the science.
The definition of a planet is not science, it's just an arbitrary rule.
> it's just an arbitrary rule.
Same with the definition of mental conditions. Yet people wield the DSM as science and use it to bludgeon people who are not politically in line with their worldview on mental health
Same with the definition of mental conditions. Yet people wield the DSM as science and use it to bludgeon people who are not politically in line with their worldview on mental health
What in the heck are you even referring to here? Seems like there's a lot of context missing from this comment.
I purposefully kept the comment vague to avoid a dumpster fire. Basically, there are certain mental health conditions whose classification/categorization/etc. seem especially vulnerable to politicking, and if you take a dissenting stance on those particular conditions, you'll be attacked by opponents who believe the DSM grants them scientific high ground.
You would know if it's happened to you.
You would know if it's happened to you.
Try mentioning any of that and you summon a lynch mob. That area of science makes cargo culting in software development seem like math. Utter joke. That anyone takes it seriously or actually does anything based on it.. surgeons during Napoleonic wars had more clue as to what they were doing.
I suspect he's referring to Gender Dysphoria, which was previously known as Gender Identity Disorder. This, if I recall correctly, happened in the transition to DSM 5.0.
People may confuse believing in the scientific method for believing in the current scientific consensus, which as you point out is fluid.
However, for the average person, a dogmatic belief in the scientific method would be a huge step up over religion.
However, for the average person, a dogmatic belief in the scientific method would be a huge step up over religion.
A dogmatic belief in anything is detrimental. It takes wisdom to understand this. Many followers of science lack this. Scientific method is a great tool - for the type of questions that it is designed to deal with - and a disaster waiting to happen if used for other areas of inquiry.
Except wisdom in large complex systems is impossible. Like for instance take any piece of technology you are going to introduce into the system. How can anyone be wise about how that technology will effect the system before hand? After the fact how can you get rid of the technology when millions or people depend on it for their existence?
The same is true of pure knowledge. You introduce a new paradigm. You don't know how it will effect all the other knowledge that depends on it. Once it's adopted careers of many scientists depend on it... it's only after those scientists die and a new paradigm is found that the next generation can build its career on that old knowledge dies.
None of this is due to wisdom. It's just the way the political economy works. Wisdom only applies to individual action about things that have a small enough scope to have some idea about their impact on decisions. For anything bigger than that, it's political... and I highly doubt the crowds have wisdom especially about untested things.
The same is true of pure knowledge. You introduce a new paradigm. You don't know how it will effect all the other knowledge that depends on it. Once it's adopted careers of many scientists depend on it... it's only after those scientists die and a new paradigm is found that the next generation can build its career on that old knowledge dies.
None of this is due to wisdom. It's just the way the political economy works. Wisdom only applies to individual action about things that have a small enough scope to have some idea about their impact on decisions. For anything bigger than that, it's political... and I highly doubt the crowds have wisdom especially about untested things.
> Scientific method is a great tool - for the type of questions that it is designed to deal with - and a disaster waiting to happen if used for other areas of inquiry.
What other areas of inquiry would that be?
What other areas of inquiry would that be?
A really good book to read on this is "the Signal and the Noise" by Nate Silver. Basically, the scientific method requires modeling the system correctly which only works for certain kinds of systems. Systems where the complexity exceeds the available data causes people to see patterns where they don't exist and to be overly confident in their interpretation of the data.
The entire area of nutrition and weight management is a joke. Medicine is problematic and Psychology is questionable.
Another problem is that the popular media publishes inconclusive studies because they are click bait. People read them because they are interested in living longer and losing weight and being happy.
Fear also turns studies into clickbait. The latest was the blizzard of articles on if bugs are dying off or not.
Then there is the fact that negative studies tend to be ignored and when the study failed or it introduces data that does not conform to general knowledge.
All this makes people question studies where the data is conclusive.
The entire area of nutrition and weight management is a joke. Medicine is problematic and Psychology is questionable.
Another problem is that the popular media publishes inconclusive studies because they are click bait. People read them because they are interested in living longer and losing weight and being happy.
Fear also turns studies into clickbait. The latest was the blizzard of articles on if bugs are dying off or not.
Then there is the fact that negative studies tend to be ignored and when the study failed or it introduces data that does not conform to general knowledge.
All this makes people question studies where the data is conclusive.
> The entire area of nutrition and weight management is a joke. Medicine is problematic and Psychology is questionable.
Note that the issue is that there is a human in that system.
The problem is that we (rightfully!) don't easily allow experiments on humans that might be harmful.
And, as an aside, nutrition and weight management does have people doing real science (things like studies of hunter gatherer societies with deuterated water), it's just that the results aren't very flashy (ie. a human burns roughly the same amount of calories regardless of activity level--so the only way to lose weight is to eat less--moving more is healthy but doesn't contribute substantially to weight loss).
Note that the issue is that there is a human in that system.
The problem is that we (rightfully!) don't easily allow experiments on humans that might be harmful.
And, as an aside, nutrition and weight management does have people doing real science (things like studies of hunter gatherer societies with deuterated water), it's just that the results aren't very flashy (ie. a human burns roughly the same amount of calories regardless of activity level--so the only way to lose weight is to eat less--moving more is healthy but doesn't contribute substantially to weight loss).
Scientists are trying to study nutrition, it is just that the data is inconclusive. Yet the popular media reports each conflicting study as fact.
Here is an interesting Stanford Medicine study of individual variation on the impact on low carb vs low fat. The punchline is that they still don't know after a fairly rigorous study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SBZ4HYOxf0
Here is an interesting Stanford Medicine study of individual variation on the impact on low carb vs low fat. The punchline is that they still don't know after a fairly rigorous study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SBZ4HYOxf0
What we value. The scientific method can be used to make better paints, but we decide what styles of art we prefer.
Raising your children, talking to strangers, charity, you name it.
Do you mean you shouldn't raise your kids based on science? You shouldn't experiment to see what works with your child, or you just shouldn't do experiments on your child?
Children need love, compassion and a lot of patience. They want to be treated like living beings, not like science projects. Yes science in general can obviously make some generic guidelines or provide some good insights in very specific questions of this childraising enterprise, but the vast majority of choices and everyday actions will fall outside of this.
"and a lot of patience"
I find the distance, that analysing behaviour brings, actually helps with the patience, and compassion (if they're having a weird tantrum because they wanted something trivial). I also think it keeps me motivated in consciously raising my kids, rather than just passively whiling away the years.
Maybe I have younger kids, so there aren't really any philosophical issues being raised.
I find the distance, that analysing behaviour brings, actually helps with the patience, and compassion (if they're having a weird tantrum because they wanted something trivial). I also think it keeps me motivated in consciously raising my kids, rather than just passively whiling away the years.
Maybe I have younger kids, so there aren't really any philosophical issues being raised.
Interpersonal relationships?
I'm a fan of NVC(non-violent communication) and that framework could be summarized by the sentence, "when you do X,I feel Y". You basically become an instrument that reports on your internal state, plus you're also supposed to avoid assuming anything about the other person's internal state.
This is a lot more like science then the usual default of blaming and assumptions and implicit expectations that most people conduct their relationships in.
This is a lot more like science then the usual default of blaming and assumptions and implicit expectations that most people conduct their relationships in.
When you talk like that, I feel as though I am talking to the emacs psychotherapist. It too is a mere instrument that reports on its internal state.
If you have found it a useful communicative tool, then I am glad for you. No doubt communication can be hard, so we've gotta use whatever tools we find effective. But honestly when I try speaking like that, I can't help but feel like a robot or a program. It feels very unnatural and very awkward to me. Perhaps that distance is exactly what lends it efficacy for some people, but that very distance only lends it offputticacy for me.
Am I right and you wrong? No, I don't think so. I have no reason to doubt that you have found success with such an approach. But were I a barkeep and you a patron responding like that when asked "why the long face?", you'd be getting a double of tequila on the house. (Tequila has a funny way of bringing out one's inner party, in my experience—or getting one started where there's yet only a quiet inner evening get-together).
https://i.imgur.com/ShGZjQ6.png
If you have found it a useful communicative tool, then I am glad for you. No doubt communication can be hard, so we've gotta use whatever tools we find effective. But honestly when I try speaking like that, I can't help but feel like a robot or a program. It feels very unnatural and very awkward to me. Perhaps that distance is exactly what lends it efficacy for some people, but that very distance only lends it offputticacy for me.
Am I right and you wrong? No, I don't think so. I have no reason to doubt that you have found success with such an approach. But were I a barkeep and you a patron responding like that when asked "why the long face?", you'd be getting a double of tequila on the house. (Tequila has a funny way of bringing out one's inner party, in my experience—or getting one started where there's yet only a quiet inner evening get-together).
https://i.imgur.com/ShGZjQ6.png
> "when you do X,I feel Y"
Communication like that can be very helpful when dealing with personal conflict -- marriage, friendships, etc., but I can't see how that would help in the public sphere.
If a political opponent, writer, or public speaker were to say or write something like that, it would be irritating and off-putting. I'd think "OK, but what's your point?"
Communication like that can be very helpful when dealing with personal conflict -- marriage, friendships, etc., but I can't see how that would help in the public sphere.
If a political opponent, writer, or public speaker were to say or write something like that, it would be irritating and off-putting. I'd think "OK, but what's your point?"
To clarify, if a Senator stood up on the floor and began: “Mr President, when my honorable colleague argues in favor of [some policy], I feel shamed, belittled, and angry.”
... That would be inappropriate, unhelpful, and unproductive. It would be better to engage with the opponent’s argument with another argument than to resort to talking about personal feelings in that context.
... That would be inappropriate, unhelpful, and unproductive. It would be better to engage with the opponent’s argument with another argument than to resort to talking about personal feelings in that context.
I find that type of communication childing and dehumanizing. To each their own.
Kinda ironic that your comment is a good example of this style, in describing your feelings using an “I” statement without attacking the speaker.
I would contend that despite the "I" the form of those words implies projection, or at least victimization of oneself.
If it were limited to "when you do blah, I feel blah" verbiage, it would feel like that. But it's more generally about taking accountability for one's own side, while listening to the other side, without needless escalation. I can't really see a flaw with that approach, other than it taking more work.
I wonder how many arguments would be defused if both sides could phrase the other side's point of view in a way they would agree was accurately stated.
I wonder how many arguments would be defused if both sides could phrase the other side's point of view in a way they would agree was accurately stated.
Really? I do a similar thing when dealing with idiots (not idiots, fully formed human beings, with a legitimate point of view, probably not evil, probably quite normal in person) on the internet.
I find it helps keep me sane.
I find it helps keep me sane.
What the Germans did during WW2: which race is better, etc., etc.
Social and political science.
Psychiatrists paved the way for the Holocaust:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23511221
Psychiatrists paved the way for the Holocaust:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23511221
> Scientific method is a great tool - for the type of questions that it is designed to deal with - and a disaster waiting to happen if used for other areas of inquiry.
... which is why the actual sciences (and other research disciplines) use methods that have more of a family resemblance to the prototypic scientific method than being point-for-point identical with it.
Many common points exist - showing your reasoning and evidence rather than to appeal to authority, and the idea that hypotheses should be falsifialbe (in the sense of Thomas Kuhn) to be central ideas. Both of these very good idea in all situations in which you're actually interested in the truth, rather than having a shoot-first-ask-questions-later situation where you need to act on imperfect information.
There's no disaster waiting to happen, at least not in comparison to other tools of reasoning being misused. Sophism (i.e. people playing mind games to make their claims look better) exists inside and outside of science, just as self-interest and wanting to increase your own sphere of influence do, but that's no fault of the scientific method (any more than it is a fault of religion when it occurs there). Any system that lends credibility and authority to people will (loosely mis-citing Bourdieu) attract power-mongery.
Many common points exist - showing your reasoning and evidence rather than to appeal to authority, and the idea that hypotheses should be falsifialbe (in the sense of Thomas Kuhn) to be central ideas. Both of these very good idea in all situations in which you're actually interested in the truth, rather than having a shoot-first-ask-questions-later situation where you need to act on imperfect information.
There's no disaster waiting to happen, at least not in comparison to other tools of reasoning being misused. Sophism (i.e. people playing mind games to make their claims look better) exists inside and outside of science, just as self-interest and wanting to increase your own sphere of influence do, but that's no fault of the scientific method (any more than it is a fault of religion when it occurs there). Any system that lends credibility and authority to people will (loosely mis-citing Bourdieu) attract power-mongery.
I agree. However, most people are not philosophers, and are going to essentially pick a dogma. I think it's better that is the scientific method.
That wouldn't be a step up over religion, that would just be religion.
There is a word for it, "Scientism"
Religion and science derive understanding about the world in fundamentaly different and incompatible ways. To call it religion is just incorrect.
As a scientist here's my take:
1) in the ultimate abstraction, science is a religion. It depends on the precept that the rules are more or less or measurably the same from today to yesterday to tomorrow. You can't bootstrap empiricism without begging the question, so, there is at least one item of faith at the core.
2) excepting this, science in the ideal is indeed a wholly different beast. So you could say it is this the weakest form of religion, or, at least, the religion with the fewest dependencies.
3) in practice, the edifice of science is quite full of people who are hypocritical and flagrantly breaking the rules which you expect would be necessary to maintain the high standard that marks the difference between religion and science. These violations are often swept under the rug quietly and even when they get really big the organization is incredibly good at closing its ranks. I'd say there are a lot of parallels between the science industrial complex and, highly organized religions (such as megachurches and hierarchical institutions like the Southern Baptist or Catholic Church) than most people who see science as a source of power ought to be comfortable with.
2) excepting this, science in the ideal is indeed a wholly different beast. So you could say it is this the weakest form of religion, or, at least, the religion with the fewest dependencies.
3) in practice, the edifice of science is quite full of people who are hypocritical and flagrantly breaking the rules which you expect would be necessary to maintain the high standard that marks the difference between religion and science. These violations are often swept under the rug quietly and even when they get really big the organization is incredibly good at closing its ranks. I'd say there are a lot of parallels between the science industrial complex and, highly organized religions (such as megachurches and hierarchical institutions like the Southern Baptist or Catholic Church) than most people who see science as a source of power ought to be comfortable with.
While I detest the notion of science being religion, often I too have thought about your first point (thus I did make it a point to vote your comment up in the hope that more people will see it). Ultimately science does rely on one core aspect of things being taken on faith: that what we observe today will also be so tomorrow. It is in theory possible that everything is random and it's just a coincidence that all the laws of nature that man has come up with seem to hold up so far. At any moment, the universe could go haywire and perhaps we were wrong all this time and it's just random? This is possible of course but not a useful model for man in his attempt to understand the world.
Yup, academia is outrageously political.
> 1) in the ultimate abstraction, science is a religion. It depends on the precept that the rules are more or less or measurably the same from today to yesterday to tomorrow. You can't bootstrap empiricism without begging the question, so, there is at least one item of faith at the core.
That's actually wrong, albeit widely believed. In a purely random world with no patterns that could possibly be discovered, empiricism still gives you the optimal result. The only difference between such a world and a world with patterns is that in a purely random world, any other method would also give you the optimal result, because no method has any predictive power. Empiricism gives you optimal results no matter whether the world has patterns or not, in contrast to all other methods, which only give you optimal results if the world has no patterns. So, if you want to have optimal results, empiricism is the way to go, there are no alternatives unless you already know that you are in an unpredictable world.
That's actually wrong, albeit widely believed. In a purely random world with no patterns that could possibly be discovered, empiricism still gives you the optimal result. The only difference between such a world and a world with patterns is that in a purely random world, any other method would also give you the optimal result, because no method has any predictive power. Empiricism gives you optimal results no matter whether the world has patterns or not, in contrast to all other methods, which only give you optimal results if the world has no patterns. So, if you want to have optimal results, empiricism is the way to go, there are no alternatives unless you already know that you are in an unpredictable world.
Science is just systematic problem solving. It is a very unremarkable thing. When people build it up to something more than that, then it takes on aspects of religion.
A scientist doing science isn't religion. A non-scientist believing everything someone says "because science" is.
A scientist doing science isn't religion. A non-scientist believing everything someone says "because science" is.
> Religion and science derive understanding about the world in fundamentaly different and incompatible ways.
They are not incompatible, as the pope John Paul II states: Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.
They are not incompatible, as the pope John Paul II states: Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.
An alternative idea is that the pope is only saying that so the science-minded folks don't leave.
Fundamentally, I see religion as an enterprise that defines the structure of existence (metaphysics), explains how humans in their "base state" are deficient within that structure, to their detriment and that of others, and finally establishes elaborate practices for addressing the deficiency.
Perhaps you can find something analogous to this structure in psychology, but I just don't see it in the rest of the scientific landscape.
Perhaps you can find something analogous to this structure in psychology, but I just don't see it in the rest of the scientific landscape.
I could stretch it to say that climate science exactly 'defines the structure of existence (metaphysics), explains how humans in their "base state" are deficient within that structure, to their detriment and that of others, and finally establishes elaborate practices for addressing the deficiency' - except that the practices, so far, don't actually address the deficiency adequately.
I will agree that I don't see this structure elsewhere in science...
I will agree that I don't see this structure elsewhere in science...
Perhaps not, but I definitely see a lot of things analogous that in politics.
Thomas Kuhn would disagree.
One thing I found very valuable in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was a quick shortcut to telling if a field is doing "normal science" or not. If students are taught with textbooks distilling the field's important insights in a readable form then it probably is. The originator of an important idea is rarely the most skilled at expressing it to newcomers, but if your field can't tell if a rephrasing of an idea is still true or if it is more concerned with the prestige of the founders than the amassing of truth then it will tend to use original texts.
Really meaning to read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" at some point. I had a philosophy professor in college who was all about that guy. Definitely shaped my worldview to some extent.
You seem to think that "religion" means "blind adherence to something", which is really, really narrow. Is COBOL a religion?
"dogmatic belief in the scientific method" is as much a religion as anything else. Particularly when you are talking about it as a precept for the general public.
No, it's not a religion, it's simply a nonsense phrase. The scientific method at its core is the rejection of dogmatic belief, and thus you are talking about "dogmatic belief in the rejection of dogmatic belief", which is simply a sequence of words that doesn't have any meaning.
Then the translation of "religion" is "faith".
That's how medieval scholasticsim was born. Originally logic, and the works of Greek philosophers were explored. Soon rules around logic became formalize, and a dogmatism set in.
Afterwards students were discouraged from original thought around logic and just forced to learn the following mnemoic
Barbara, Celarent, Darii, Ferioque prioris. Cesare, Camestres, Festino, Baroco secundae. Tertia Darapti, Disamis, Datisi, Felapton, Bocardo, Ferison habet. Quarta insuper addit Bramantip, Camenes, Dimaris, Fesapo, Fresison.
Scholasticism then went onto have terrible connotations as a scholarly system.
Afterwards students were discouraged from original thought around logic and just forced to learn the following mnemoic
Barbara, Celarent, Darii, Ferioque prioris. Cesare, Camestres, Festino, Baroco secundae. Tertia Darapti, Disamis, Datisi, Felapton, Bocardo, Ferison habet. Quarta insuper addit Bramantip, Camenes, Dimaris, Fesapo, Fresison.
Scholasticism then went onto have terrible connotations as a scholarly system.
I think if you're studying science and logic, then you should definitely have a curiosity regarding the foundations of your field. But is that really something we can expect the general public to get involved in? It's a hugely mindbogglingly complex topic.
For the average person to look at the scientific method, conclude it (at least mostly) works and believe in the fundamentals of the process, I think, is a good thing.
For the average person to look at the scientific method, conclude it (at least mostly) works and believe in the fundamentals of the process, I think, is a good thing.
> However, for the average person, a dogmatic belief in the scientific method would be a huge step up over religion.
But the scientific method is based on the idea of an unchanging God / reality. Without that fundamental belief, theres no point in determining how physics behaves in an experiment, because if everything happens at the whims of anthropomorphic gods, then there is no reason to expect the same experiment will produce similar results.
Thus, I don't really see the huge step up, especially given the inhumanity science has sometimes promulgated, and for which it frankly gets a free pass.
But the scientific method is based on the idea of an unchanging God / reality. Without that fundamental belief, theres no point in determining how physics behaves in an experiment, because if everything happens at the whims of anthropomorphic gods, then there is no reason to expect the same experiment will produce similar results.
Thus, I don't really see the huge step up, especially given the inhumanity science has sometimes promulgated, and for which it frankly gets a free pass.
The scientific method produces predictable, reproducible results, and other philosophies do not. Therefore, it's more useful.
Determinism is an idea of physics based on unchanging God/reality, but science is more general. Science can work without determinism, there are probabilistic / statistical methods, or hypotheses of effective physical laws changing in time. In quantum experiments, things happen at whims of nature and some such experiments do not produce similar results when repeated, but look random.
‘Randomness’ with perfectly defined statistics and distributions is fascinating...
"The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Written by Albert Einstein
Written by Albert Einstein
Source, pls. Where and when did he say that?
It's from the book Ideas And Opinions:
https://www.amazon.com/Ideas-Opinions-Albert-Einstein-ebook/...
Some other quotes:
"The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition."
"Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion."
"His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages."
Some other quotes:
"The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition."
"Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion."
"His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages."
The problem is that Einstein didn't mean "religion" to mean a belief in either a God or an afterlife, as most people assume. He just had a sense of wonder in regard to the natural world. So what? So does Richard Dawkins.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -- Albert Einstein, 1954, letter to Joseph Dispentiere.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -- Albert Einstein, 1954, letter to Joseph Dispentiere.
Which scientific method?
Scientific methods differ a lot between the sciences - especially between the physical and special sciences, for example.
Scientific methods differ a lot between the sciences - especially between the physical and special sciences, for example.
Have you actually read the article?
"Some philosophers and scientists have argued that there is no scientific method; they include physicist Lee Smolin and philosopher Paul Feyerabend (in his Against Method)"
And even the previous paragraphs are not complete either. It says there:
"Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable"
Which is not necessarily true - for example, many arguments against the theory of evolution question whether it is a falsifiable theory (which is not saying that it is not true, but if there is no way to falsify it, how can it be said it is a scientific theory?). Many fields within Biology also have no predictive, but only descriptive power.
Scientists who stick to a rigorous scientific method, such as seen in physics would have to reject most other branches of science. For a realist to accept scientific results in multiple fields, they have to use some philosophical reasons to accept the differing methods as valid ways of exploring reality.
"Some philosophers and scientists have argued that there is no scientific method; they include physicist Lee Smolin and philosopher Paul Feyerabend (in his Against Method)"
And even the previous paragraphs are not complete either. It says there:
"Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable"
Which is not necessarily true - for example, many arguments against the theory of evolution question whether it is a falsifiable theory (which is not saying that it is not true, but if there is no way to falsify it, how can it be said it is a scientific theory?). Many fields within Biology also have no predictive, but only descriptive power.
Scientists who stick to a rigorous scientific method, such as seen in physics would have to reject most other branches of science. For a realist to accept scientific results in multiple fields, they have to use some philosophical reasons to accept the differing methods as valid ways of exploring reality.
> Which is not necessarily true - for example, many arguments against the theory of evolution question whether it is a falsifiable theory
The “theory of evolution” is a large composite explanatory story wrapped around a large number of testable (mostly thoroughly tested) hypotheses. It's falsifiable by falsifying any of the components, though the replacement is liable to look remarkably similar but for who the falsified piece is addressed, and still likely to be called the “theory of evolution” even though the content is different.
The “theory of evolution” is a large composite explanatory story wrapped around a large number of testable (mostly thoroughly tested) hypotheses. It's falsifiable by falsifying any of the components, though the replacement is liable to look remarkably similar but for who the falsified piece is addressed, and still likely to be called the “theory of evolution” even though the content is different.
Of course, any number of subsets of the theory being disproved could falsify the super-set theory. But if there are two super-set theories, and you cannot falsify one over the other, then those collections are not falsifiable.
Some philosophers argue that all the subsets of evolution - genetics, mutations, natural selection could still support permanence of species with local changes. Until you can create an entirely new species in a laboratory without direct gene editing, there cannot be positive proof for evolution - but till that is done, there is no negative test that would disprove that evolution is the consequence of all its component hypotheses.
Personally, I don't see any reason to doubt evolution, considering it is neat and beautiful. But at the same time, I can see that it hasn't been built via the same scientific method seen in physics.
Some philosophers argue that all the subsets of evolution - genetics, mutations, natural selection could still support permanence of species with local changes. Until you can create an entirely new species in a laboratory without direct gene editing, there cannot be positive proof for evolution - but till that is done, there is no negative test that would disprove that evolution is the consequence of all its component hypotheses.
Personally, I don't see any reason to doubt evolution, considering it is neat and beautiful. But at the same time, I can see that it hasn't been built via the same scientific method seen in physics.
> Until you can create an entirely new species in a laboratory without direct gene editing, there cannot be positive proof for evolution
Being able to do that is no more positive proof of evolution than any of the more or practical tests. Also, speciation has been observed and created in controlled settings without direct gene editing (indeed, some before gene editing was even a thing), so if it was positive proof of evolution, we could mark that off as proven absolutely.
Being able to do that is no more positive proof of evolution than any of the more or practical tests. Also, speciation has been observed and created in controlled settings without direct gene editing (indeed, some before gene editing was even a thing), so if it was positive proof of evolution, we could mark that off as proven absolutely.
What is the scientific method used in physics
Again, even this has variations - Einstein's method of arriving at SR and GR differed entirely from the way experimental physicists arrived at QM
> a dogmatic belief in the scientific method
This would be fine. But this is not what people mean when they say "science is real." They mean: "Believe what scientists say," and the definition of a scientist is... a person with a post-graduate degree that is popular on Facebook, probably, like Neil deGrasse Tyson.
This would be fine. But this is not what people mean when they say "science is real." They mean: "Believe what scientists say," and the definition of a scientist is... a person with a post-graduate degree that is popular on Facebook, probably, like Neil deGrasse Tyson.
"We believe science is real" is not a statement of dogmatic belief in scientific conclusions, it is a reaction to anti-scientific movements that attempt to influence the public perception of science. It is usually primarily directed at the moneyed interests opposed to climate science and the impacts it predicts, though it also deals with related issues impacting health and the environment.
If you spend a cursory time searching for that statement, you'll find that it's associated with the March for Science, which is, itself, a reaction to active and successful attempts at having persons in government distort, remove, and ignore science that flies in the face of moneyed interests.
By the way, just about everything you know about Galileo re: perception and persecution is wrong.
If you spend a cursory time searching for that statement, you'll find that it's associated with the March for Science, which is, itself, a reaction to active and successful attempts at having persons in government distort, remove, and ignore science that flies in the face of moneyed interests.
By the way, just about everything you know about Galileo re: perception and persecution is wrong.
> nobody really knows what they're talking about, paradigms shift, and further study is required
People so often miss this. Science is a slow, evolving and never ending process. The day a new study comes out, people want to use it as evidence that something is 'settled science'.
Even things as fundamental to our knowledge of the universe like gravity have evolved over time and are still being understood at deeper and deeper levels.
People so often miss this. Science is a slow, evolving and never ending process. The day a new study comes out, people want to use it as evidence that something is 'settled science'.
Even things as fundamental to our knowledge of the universe like gravity have evolved over time and are still being understood at deeper and deeper levels.
> People so often miss this. Science is a slow, evolving and never ending process. The day a new study comes out, people want to use it as evidence that something is 'settled science'.
Unless it is AGW. That's settled science and 99.9% of scientists agree with Al Gore even though in 1970s we were heading for Global Cooling and that was settled science.
That's the fundamental problem: how difficult is it to say "Based on the data that we currently have we are coming to a conclusion that there's X% likelihood we are heading towards a period where the global temperatures would be rise by Y degrees by year Z. Should we get different data we will re-evaluate our prognosis"
Unless it is AGW. That's settled science and 99.9% of scientists agree with Al Gore even though in 1970s we were heading for Global Cooling and that was settled science.
That's the fundamental problem: how difficult is it to say "Based on the data that we currently have we are coming to a conclusion that there's X% likelihood we are heading towards a period where the global temperatures would be rise by Y degrees by year Z. Should we get different data we will re-evaluate our prognosis"
No one discovering something new about gravity tomorrow is going to make general relativity or even Newtonian dynamics less applicable today in their domains.
Similarly all climate science today does in fact have to explain how global cooling observations in the 1970s were found.
No one denying AGW though has ever shown any interest in explaining the data.
Similarly all climate science today does in fact have to explain how global cooling observations in the 1970s were found.
No one denying AGW though has ever shown any interest in explaining the data.
> Unless it is AGW
That's the catch is that even things that have overwhelming scientific consensus are not "settled science".
There's always more data to collect and more theories to test.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't believe the data or act on the conclusions, far from it. I just don't agree with using the absolute term "settled science". It's not like there's an equation everyone agrees on or a reproducible experiment we can run.
We're still learning as we go and revising projections frequently. But there's no shame in making personal or political decisions based on our best scientific understanding of the day, we do it all the time and it would be just as big of a mistake to act like we know nothing about climate change as acting like we already know everything.
That's the catch is that even things that have overwhelming scientific consensus are not "settled science".
There's always more data to collect and more theories to test.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't believe the data or act on the conclusions, far from it. I just don't agree with using the absolute term "settled science". It's not like there's an equation everyone agrees on or a reproducible experiment we can run.
We're still learning as we go and revising projections frequently. But there's no shame in making personal or political decisions based on our best scientific understanding of the day, we do it all the time and it would be just as big of a mistake to act like we know nothing about climate change as acting like we already know everything.
That's exactly the point: if one wants to be taken seriously one's predictions either have to pan out or the predictions should come with a caveat.
When the predictions do not pan out one should not expect the population to trust one's future predictions as much.
When the predictions do not pan out one should not expect the population to trust one's future predictions as much.
"Settled science." The 2100 predictions have varied so widely. Most current simulations predict 1-4ft increase in sealevel by 2100. The predicted effects have varied widely and will probably continue to.
Lets run a thought experiment. It is 2100 and the sealevel increased by 0.25 inches. Did those 1-4ft increase predictions increase or decrease scientific authority?
It's statistical, which a lot of people and I mean a LOT of people don't understand or can't comprehend. The prediction is valid to some error and there's a small change the sealevel increase will be 0.25 inches or 10ft. As time goes on (from 2019) the predictions should get more accurate but I've already seen widely different predictions out to 2100.
> That's the fundamental problem: how difficult is it to say
It's trivial, which is why that's exactly what scientists are saying?
What was your point again?
It's trivial, which is why that's exactly what scientists are saying?
What was your point again?
No, the scientists get on TV and into news media and talk about nearly guaranteed outcomes. When those outcomes do not pan out the scientists are shocked to discover that to the population they look like buffoons.
> the scientists get on TV and into news media and talk about nearly guaranteed outcomes
No, "the scientists" don't get on TV. TV selects some scientists who are willing to dumb things down far enough to be compatible with their business model. If you want to know what "the scientists" say, you have to read their papers and reports, and you might be surprised to find that they are scientists.
No, "the scientists" don't get on TV. TV selects some scientists who are willing to dumb things down far enough to be compatible with their business model. If you want to know what "the scientists" say, you have to read their papers and reports, and you might be surprised to find that they are scientists.
The way in which public considers science today is much more analogous to the way the public considered religion during the time of Galileo.
Yes; and, it's weaponized for political discourse. It's as though we're in some kind of new Puritan era -- this reminds me of how John Cleese was blasted for tweeting on this very topic (3 years ago)[1]. He blasphemed.
[1] https://twitter.com/johncleese/status/683681888687538177?lan...
Yes; and, it's weaponized for political discourse. It's as though we're in some kind of new Puritan era -- this reminds me of how John Cleese was blasted for tweeting on this very topic (3 years ago)[1]. He blasphemed.
[1] https://twitter.com/johncleese/status/683681888687538177?lan...
So good it must be quoted in it's entirety:
"I would like 2016 to be the year when people remembered that science is a method of investigation,and NOT a belief system" @JohnCleese [1] 8:10 AM - 3 Jan 2016 [2]
[1] https://twitter.com/JohnCleese [2] https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/683681888687538177
"I would like 2016 to be the year when people remembered that science is a method of investigation,and NOT a belief system" @JohnCleese [1] 8:10 AM - 3 Jan 2016 [2]
[1] https://twitter.com/JohnCleese [2] https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/683681888687538177
Completely agreed. One analyzable example of this faith in 'the truths' of science can be found in the editing of Wikipedia. In my experience, there's low tolerance or regard for alternative hypotheses in its articles. That approach has long been highly costly for science.
Even Sagan, now and then, recognized the necessity for caution ... and he put it on videotape.
The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system. The history of our study of our solar system shows clear that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources. - Cosmos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MlN7iVIuhk#t=4m09s)
Even Sagan, now and then, recognized the necessity for caution ... and he put it on videotape.
The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system. The history of our study of our solar system shows clear that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources. - Cosmos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MlN7iVIuhk#t=4m09s)
The argument that science is a social construct is easily disproven by the device you are typing this on, which is build upon science. However, the claim that some science is more believable than other science is obviously correct.
Science is a network of knowledge [1] where central nodes can be assumed to be more likely an accurate representation of something predictive. The literature critical theory claim that it is arbitrary does not acknowledge those relationships, effectively missing the forest for the trees which also explains the shoddy science done in critical theory’s name.
Science is progressed by building new leaf nodes and supporting them through other nodes as evidence, or by showing that core nodes are not as predictive as you thought they were.
[1] https://youtu.be/bxdBRKmPhe4
Science is a network of knowledge [1] where central nodes can be assumed to be more likely an accurate representation of something predictive. The literature critical theory claim that it is arbitrary does not acknowledge those relationships, effectively missing the forest for the trees which also explains the shoddy science done in critical theory’s name.
Science is progressed by building new leaf nodes and supporting them through other nodes as evidence, or by showing that core nodes are not as predictive as you thought they were.
[1] https://youtu.be/bxdBRKmPhe4
When you point to point to your computer, you are confusing a 'Technology' with Science. They are different. As for first principles, starting with Francis Bacon's Baconian method is the investigative method that would benefit here: [1]
"Bacon suggests that you draw up a list of all things in which the phenomenon you are trying to explain occurs, as well as a list of things in which it does not occur. Then you rank your lists according to the degree in which the phenomenon occurs in each one. Then you should be able to deduce what factors match the occurrence of the phenomenon in one list and don't occur in the other list, and also what factors change in accordance with the way the data had been ranked."
Thus we see that predictive is less important than reproducibility, which is currently in this era approaching a crisis point. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_method [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
"Bacon suggests that you draw up a list of all things in which the phenomenon you are trying to explain occurs, as well as a list of things in which it does not occur. Then you rank your lists according to the degree in which the phenomenon occurs in each one. Then you should be able to deduce what factors match the occurrence of the phenomenon in one list and don't occur in the other list, and also what factors change in accordance with the way the data had been ranked."
Thus we see that predictive is less important than reproducibility, which is currently in this era approaching a crisis point. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_method [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Technology and science are recursively interdependent. They are very much not simply "different" things.
Due to this layered interdependence, the computer is in fact a shining example of scientific achievement just as much as it is one of technological advancement.
Due to this layered interdependence, the computer is in fact a shining example of scientific achievement just as much as it is one of technological advancement.
Science is a method. It is very different than Technology.
It is as different as dropping a stone is not physics. One drops a stone and it follows the laws physics predicts, and with physics you can make more accurate predictions of complex systems.
The laws would still be there without physics, but our tools and capability to manipulate them would be greatly diminished.
It is actually a bit intellectually lazy to use literary critical theory To critique things outside literature, because it is obvious it has no explanatory power outside the subjective reading of a book.
The laws would still be there without physics, but our tools and capability to manipulate them would be greatly diminished.
It is actually a bit intellectually lazy to use literary critical theory To critique things outside literature, because it is obvious it has no explanatory power outside the subjective reading of a book.
Yes, they are different, but they are also deeply connected. Science requires tools, which technology provides. New discoveries and understanding then enable new tech and new tools, which allows for new science, and so on and so forth.
I agree reproducibility is an issue, especially in psychology that is slowly becoming a science right now. There it’s actially a good sign, since now psychology has a methodology we can use as a standard bearer to spot issues. In other humanities that like to call themselves science we unfortunately even lack such a methodology.
From first principles technology is definitely applied science through engineering, but technology is progressed through pushing the boundaries of science and science is the map of where to look. Eg quantum mechanics and optics helped create a map of where to look for new nano scale technology innovations. Technolofy shows the reproducibility of the theories it’s build upon.
The computer is build by innovations created using the predictive powers of material science, quantum mechanics and chemistry.
How do you think the optics used to create the processors were created? The advanced etching technologies to get to decreasing nm processor scale? Materials that respond reliably to store energy in batteries or power puxels in your screen?
From first principles technology is definitely applied science through engineering, but technology is progressed through pushing the boundaries of science and science is the map of where to look. Eg quantum mechanics and optics helped create a map of where to look for new nano scale technology innovations. Technolofy shows the reproducibility of the theories it’s build upon.
The computer is build by innovations created using the predictive powers of material science, quantum mechanics and chemistry.
How do you think the optics used to create the processors were created? The advanced etching technologies to get to decreasing nm processor scale? Materials that respond reliably to store energy in batteries or power puxels in your screen?
Comparing book burning, jailing, and being murdered to getting made fun of on internet dot com is just not compelling.
The whole "but science is just as bad as religion" argument rings quite hollow.
The whole "but science is just as bad as religion" argument rings quite hollow.
"Scientific authority" is the source of the genocides of the 20th century, mass sterilization, what we now consider crackpot science, and many social ills. I would say it is actually worse than the religious authority of the past.
"x authority" has been a large source of problems all through human history. Insert religious, ethical, scientific, political, etc, etc. Biggest problem with science is that it has enabled excesses for those in power (be it authoritarian, communist, capitalist, whatever), while somehow remaining meek and pretending to be amoral. It is easy to take the benefits of Science without bothering to learn what it has to say about anything else.
Saying "the Nazis had doctors, therefore the lawn signs today are actually worse than religious atrocities of the past" is an equally unconvincing argument.
Episteme is always political once it gets societal acceptance and there is little difference between it and doxa. Techné is what actually does all the work and though you can find how to do it through episteme or doxa, it does not actually depend on them -- it does not matter what you believe as long as you know how to do something.
At the end of the day humans really only have techné, everything else is political... and it's also obvious that the political is generally dysfunctional scientifically -- i.e. inability to manage stability of the environment through science... and also scientifically managing the political is fascist or totalitarian. We get stuck with a set of choices that don't lead to good outcomes... maybe can never lead to good outcomes.
At the end of the day humans really only have techné, everything else is political... and it's also obvious that the political is generally dysfunctional scientifically -- i.e. inability to manage stability of the environment through science... and also scientifically managing the political is fascist or totalitarian. We get stuck with a set of choices that don't lead to good outcomes... maybe can never lead to good outcomes.
Technical capabilities strongly interact with politics. It's not unusual for people to deny a problem with full strength and suddenly accept it after somebody comes with a desirable solution (see climate change). Dialog techniques (including propaganda and communication media) have a great impact on ideas. Success breeds trusting, even on unrelated issues.
At the end of the day, as usual, those things aren't as much independent entities as classical ideas leads one to believe.
At the end of the day, as usual, those things aren't as much independent entities as classical ideas leads one to believe.
If you dig into some Philosophy of Technology you'll find that Techne, too, is often highly politicized and not easily separable from the knowledge or outcomes it is devised to produce. Techne is already political to the extent that it needs a motivation to get going in the first place--it's really impossible to think of technology's social effects in a way that is not informed by historical materialism. The hows are necessarily coupled with the whys and the belief systems behind them, especially when you consider the fact that in many cases there are multiple ways of getting things done, and the selection of one of these over the others comes down to value judgements (e.g. consider how many technical possibilities are deemed unsatisfactory because of exorbitant costs, this is the manifestation of a value judgement that places finances above other considerations that factor into a particular issue such as e.g. in some cases thoroughness or safety). Not to mention the whole field of techniques that don't make sense divorced from an epistemic context (e.g. the technicalities of performing a ritual sacrifice are partly determined by the belief system backing them--remove this belief system or exchange it with another and there's no way to even make sense of the practice as a technique. I.e. under the ancient greek religious system the procedure of visiting an oracle to glean information was technical and important. Within the context of modern beliefs such a procedure seems patently ridiculous, but it wasn't for the Greeks, and the deployment of the technique still had significant effects and consequences, and produced results in spite of its patent preposterousness from our modern day epistemic viewpoint).
Some of Robert Moses's schemes are a great example. Consider, for instance, how he hoped to deny whole segments of the population in NY access to his parks by making overpasses en route to the spaces too low for buses (which serval poor folks relied on to get around) to travel under. The application of technology and techniques is fundamentally entangled with the wills of the subjects employing said techniques.
I'd go as far as to say human life is inherently "political" in all its aspects. You can't really live and not be politicized in some way--the really baad state to be in is to be unconscious of the political implications of the way you live, which primes you for manipulation by parties that are more 'in the know'. This idea that certain realms of life are free from political influence or external factors doesn't really have any representatives in the real world. I think people often confuse our ability to treat something abstractly and divorced from the concrete situation of present reality with the ontological claim that said thing itself is abstract and can be wholly treated and solved in an abstract manner. That doesn't even hold in the case of a domain as fundamentally abstract as algorithmic time analysis, in which the concrete inputs have a direct impact on the performance of algorithms. In the jargon of historical materialist philosophy such a process is sometimes called reification--thinking the abstract representation of a concept is the thing itself, ignoring all its concrete manifestations. This leads to certain errors. E.g. thinking we can solve problems with schooling in a particular district without having to look at other issues, such as the population dispersion, the distribution of finances, the district's layout, etc. etc. We have to be vigilant of 'nounifying' abstractions and keep in mind that they are the products of thought and a helpful intellectual tool, and means of orienting and structuring the world, not latent realities.
Some of Robert Moses's schemes are a great example. Consider, for instance, how he hoped to deny whole segments of the population in NY access to his parks by making overpasses en route to the spaces too low for buses (which serval poor folks relied on to get around) to travel under. The application of technology and techniques is fundamentally entangled with the wills of the subjects employing said techniques.
I'd go as far as to say human life is inherently "political" in all its aspects. You can't really live and not be politicized in some way--the really baad state to be in is to be unconscious of the political implications of the way you live, which primes you for manipulation by parties that are more 'in the know'. This idea that certain realms of life are free from political influence or external factors doesn't really have any representatives in the real world. I think people often confuse our ability to treat something abstractly and divorced from the concrete situation of present reality with the ontological claim that said thing itself is abstract and can be wholly treated and solved in an abstract manner. That doesn't even hold in the case of a domain as fundamentally abstract as algorithmic time analysis, in which the concrete inputs have a direct impact on the performance of algorithms. In the jargon of historical materialist philosophy such a process is sometimes called reification--thinking the abstract representation of a concept is the thing itself, ignoring all its concrete manifestations. This leads to certain errors. E.g. thinking we can solve problems with schooling in a particular district without having to look at other issues, such as the population dispersion, the distribution of finances, the district's layout, etc. etc. We have to be vigilant of 'nounifying' abstractions and keep in mind that they are the products of thought and a helpful intellectual tool, and means of orienting and structuring the world, not latent realities.
> The way in which public considers science today is much more analogous to the way the public considered religion during the time of Galileo. Think of the way people are castigated for not believing in scientific "truths".
IIRC, the term for this is "scientism," and I don't think it's restricted to just members of the general public.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
IIRC, the term for this is "scientism," and I don't think it's restricted to just members of the general public.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
> I see signs in peoples yard saying that "in this house, we believe science is real". As someone who has studied biochemistry for years, this kind of reverence for science is truly troubling.
At least in the South, that sign would be in opposition to "teaching the controversy" of Creation vs. Evolution in high schools.
Would it be "reverent" to fight to keep non-scientific and indeed proven bad faith attempts at undermining science out of the science classroom?
At least in the South, that sign would be in opposition to "teaching the controversy" of Creation vs. Evolution in high schools.
Would it be "reverent" to fight to keep non-scientific and indeed proven bad faith attempts at undermining science out of the science classroom?
Thank you for your insightful summary. I have heard very often lately that "the science is settled about X" and that this sentiment is exactly anti science is not observed. I agree, it troubles me. I don't advocate for the fallacy of futility that nothing of science can be built upon a potentially soon to be false idea, but it's equally frustrating that the opposite - an appeal to authority in the name of science? - is so widely held onto.
I usually take statements similar to "in this house, we believe science is real" as conveying the message that the people believe in the scientific method, rational inquiry, evidence-based arguments, etc, rather than a set of specific scientific theories.
I mean, it's obviously a joke, right?
Also, the Simpsons did it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vxHkAQRQUQ
Also, the Simpsons did it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vxHkAQRQUQ
They are also usually the hardest to convince that coal plants release more radioactivity than nuclear plants.
In my experience, the people who proclaim this are generally not talking about the scientific method, but about specific theories. Generally evolution and climate change (and the safety of vaccination is becoming an issue as well). It's amazing for example how many of these people will turn around and believe hormone-replacement therapy creates a level playing field in sports between trans-women and cis-women.
>It's amazing for example how many of these people will turn around and believe hormone-replacement therapy creates a level playing field in sports between trans-women and cis-women.
I find it hard to believe that you've found such a specific correlation in a domain where the numbers are large and half the equation is so nebulous ("these people", i.e. people who often say out loud "we believe in science in this household"??). This is ripe with identity politics, and you're almost certainly projecting your feelings about "those people" as though there is a real correlation that makes "those people" worthy of condemnation.
I find it hard to believe that you've found such a specific correlation in a domain where the numbers are large and half the equation is so nebulous ("these people", i.e. people who often say out loud "we believe in science in this household"??). This is ripe with identity politics, and you're almost certainly projecting your feelings about "those people" as though there is a real correlation that makes "those people" worthy of condemnation.
I agree. Believing in science seems to imply "dogmatism for the 4 or 5 highly politicized scientific talking points in the mainstream narrative."
I don't see that as a bad thing. With religion, upwards of 90% of people don't really know shit about actual theology or anything of that nature (i.e. the reasoning behind beliefs). They just know some basic beliefs about their sect because their pastor told them so and their parents probably believing the same thing.
Similarly, wre can't really expect everyone to know or care why evolution/heliocentrism is a settled topic but it's really helpful for them to trust the scientific process regardless.
Similarly, wre can't really expect everyone to know or care why evolution/heliocentrism is a settled topic but it's really helpful for them to trust the scientific process regardless.
> trust the scientific process
This would be fine (mostly). But this isn't what they mean. They believe scientists. Not the methods. This defeats the entire purpose of science.
This would be fine (mostly). But this isn't what they mean. They believe scientists. Not the methods. This defeats the entire purpose of science.
This is exactly right. The average non-scientist proclaiming his support for science is exactly that.
I’ve concluded something similar lately. Humans always needed stable shared rules that envolve slowly to have funcional societies with multiple generations. This was attained with a shared culture plus religion. The science was not considered the main driver for these social rules. Since the fall of the religions in the west we have been using science to partially rationalize our view of the world, as result science became a battleground for ideologies and consequently became corrupted, it lost its neutrality. Each side of the spectrum wants to use science to support their personal beliefs. I start to have this crazy idea that to save science we have to stop using it in political discussions, so far I think political discussions should rely only in democracy, continuity and shared values. Funny thing is that we tried before to replace replace religion during the French Revolution: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason
Lacking common moral values from one authority we look for it in another, now we have science being used as religious authority instead of being the refuge of questioning and doubt.
I think the problem is that increasingly science ends up getting used like a human shield to justify government action. When this happens the science ends up getting distorted in both directions - deniers and "believers" - based not on any actual science but on one's political bubble preference.
If the data were available, it would be interesting to see the correlation between this distortion of science and the size of the government in relation to GDP.
If the data were available, it would be interesting to see the correlation between this distortion of science and the size of the government in relation to GDP.
I would guarantee that someone who sees it necessary to state his or her attitude in this way about science has an attitude that is very colored by politics, and is likely not to know much about science in the first place.
The trend of virtue signaling through yard signs is the most ridiculous thing I've seen in an era where ridiculousness has become the norm.
The trend of virtue signaling through yard signs is the most ridiculous thing I've seen in an era where ridiculousness has become the norm.
There is a difference between being skeptical of scientifically-arrived-at conclusions (which is healthy and I don't share your opinion that people are largely "castigated" for that) and explicitly ignoring science, and experts in general, based purely on the fact that their conclusions conflict with one's socio-political convictions, which I think is a real problem that people may feel castigated for falling into (which of course doesn't help). If anything has the ring of religious superiority to it, it's this trend of elevating skepticism to denial simply for political reasons.
> it's this trend of elevating skepticism to denial simply for political reasons
Well, there's just as much of a trend of claiming your position is "science" when it isn't, simply for political reasons.
For example, by any reasonable standards, economics is not a science; yet people who question the current orthodoxy in economics, for example by questioning whether having the Federal Reserve print money is really a good idea, are routinely castigated. Ron Paul became a nonstarter as a Presidential candidate for precisely this reason.
Well, there's just as much of a trend of claiming your position is "science" when it isn't, simply for political reasons.
For example, by any reasonable standards, economics is not a science; yet people who question the current orthodoxy in economics, for example by questioning whether having the Federal Reserve print money is really a good idea, are routinely castigated. Ron Paul became a nonstarter as a Presidential candidate for precisely this reason.
The problem is the level of debate in society in general, and in particular when it comes to political economy. The debate is basically non-existent.
You don't get it in Congress/Senate/Parliament. You don't get it on the news channels. You sometimes - very rarely - still get it on the radio.
I want to see two people with opposing views debate a single issue for 2-3 hours, without being allowed to evade answering a question. Would happily pay a subscription fee to get that.
You don't get it in Congress/Senate/Parliament. You don't get it on the news channels. You sometimes - very rarely - still get it on the radio.
I want to see two people with opposing views debate a single issue for 2-3 hours, without being allowed to evade answering a question. Would happily pay a subscription fee to get that.
I agree the level of debate in our society is typically awful.
However, in many cases, better debate won't fix the problem, because the problem in many cases is not that the "right" views aren't getting air time. The problem in many cases is that we can't even do controlled experiments in the domain, so our understanding is very limited and we simply don't know enough about the domain to give useful input to public policy decisions. For example, I think that's true of economics; nobody knows enough about economics to give useful input about most public policies.
However, in many cases, better debate won't fix the problem, because the problem in many cases is not that the "right" views aren't getting air time. The problem in many cases is that we can't even do controlled experiments in the domain, so our understanding is very limited and we simply don't know enough about the domain to give useful input to public policy decisions. For example, I think that's true of economics; nobody knows enough about economics to give useful input about most public policies.
Economics should be fact based at least. I personally would call it a science but a soft one from there being so many variables and interpretations. It does produce some hard facts - mostly in the form of "what not to do"
We already know that hyperinflation relative to growth is a way to ruin an economy quickly for instance. Similarly the issue with federal reserve denialism is that they have rhetoric but not much understanding about economic history.
Precious metal backed currency has lead to countless expensive wars and travesties because it effectively started to be a brake/cap on growing economies. Essentially saying you are against the federal reserve period is like admitting you are a homeopath - it goes beyond a difference of supportable opinion and into a sign of incompetence.
I can understand some unease about the role of the federal reserve but it should have some role even if it is stuck on "try to map to economic growth instead of attempting stimulus or bubble deflation".
We already know that hyperinflation relative to growth is a way to ruin an economy quickly for instance. Similarly the issue with federal reserve denialism is that they have rhetoric but not much understanding about economic history.
Precious metal backed currency has lead to countless expensive wars and travesties because it effectively started to be a brake/cap on growing economies. Essentially saying you are against the federal reserve period is like admitting you are a homeopath - it goes beyond a difference of supportable opinion and into a sign of incompetence.
I can understand some unease about the role of the federal reserve but it should have some role even if it is stuck on "try to map to economic growth instead of attempting stimulus or bubble deflation".
Precious metal is a terrible choice because inflation is then determined by the random occurrence of discoveries of new mines and new mining technology.
The federal reserve is a terrible choice because unaccountable bureaucrats with their own agenda are given the power to juice or crash the economy, and they appear to threaten/reward presidents with this power.
Just printing money is a terrible choice because the executive can just run the presses instead of taxing, and thereby cause hyperinflation.
The USA has tried all 3 methods.
That last one has the most potential I think. It could be restricted to reduce misbehavior, perhaps with a time delay before changes take effect.
The federal reserve is a terrible choice because unaccountable bureaucrats with their own agenda are given the power to juice or crash the economy, and they appear to threaten/reward presidents with this power.
Just printing money is a terrible choice because the executive can just run the presses instead of taxing, and thereby cause hyperinflation.
The USA has tried all 3 methods.
That last one has the most potential I think. It could be restricted to reduce misbehavior, perhaps with a time delay before changes take effect.
I agree with your first paragraph, but the rest of your post contradicts it. The effect of Central Bank policies of the last decades is yet to be seen.
Consider, for example, the UK productivity puzzle, where productivity has remained stagnant since 2008. One of the versions that was, if I remember right, expressed by Andy Haldane of BoE, was that loose monetary policy allowed a large number of uncompetitive businesses to survive, lowering total productivity.
The primary function of central banks when they were established was to prevent bank runs, acting as a lender to banks. But what if, for example, we had full reserve banking instead of fractional reserve? Would that not eliminate bank runs, make the economy more stable, ensure interest rate serve as a valid signal of consumer time preferences and of the demand for capital, and eliminate the need for a central bank?
The primary function of central banks when they were established was to prevent bank runs, acting as a lender to banks. But what if, for example, we had full reserve banking instead of fractional reserve? Would that not eliminate bank runs, make the economy more stable, ensure interest rate serve as a valid signal of consumer time preferences and of the demand for capital, and eliminate the need for a central bank?
> Precious metal backed currency has lead to countless expensive wars and travesties because it effectively started to be a brake/cap on growing economies.
I'm not sure either part of this is true. The evidence of the 20th century doesn't give much support to the thesis that fiat money helps prevent wars. Nor is it clear that a fixed, or at any rate slowly growing, quantity of money acts as a brake on economic growth. Current economic orthodoxy says it does, but current economic orthodoxy doesn't make good predictions.
> I can understand some unease about the role of the federal reserve but it should have some role even if it is stuck on "try to map to economic growth instead of attempting stimulus or bubble deflation".
You wouldn't need a central bank to implement a policy of "keep the total quantity of money in some defined relationship to the total size of the economy". In fact you wouldn't want a central bank to implement that policy, because a central bank wouldn't give newly printed money to everyone in the economy in proportion to the amount of money they currently hold, which is the only fair way to print money.
I'm not sure either part of this is true. The evidence of the 20th century doesn't give much support to the thesis that fiat money helps prevent wars. Nor is it clear that a fixed, or at any rate slowly growing, quantity of money acts as a brake on economic growth. Current economic orthodoxy says it does, but current economic orthodoxy doesn't make good predictions.
> I can understand some unease about the role of the federal reserve but it should have some role even if it is stuck on "try to map to economic growth instead of attempting stimulus or bubble deflation".
You wouldn't need a central bank to implement a policy of "keep the total quantity of money in some defined relationship to the total size of the economy". In fact you wouldn't want a central bank to implement that policy, because a central bank wouldn't give newly printed money to everyone in the economy in proportion to the amount of money they currently hold, which is the only fair way to print money.
The 20th century does have far fewer wars than the 19th and also fewer recessions and depressions - again except for the infamous big ones there are other things in play which is part of what makes it so damn soft.
Go further into the past and you'll see plenty. The Opium War was from the terrible twos of mercantilism and metallic standards - the British Empire feared the effects of trading silver for tea and had found a substitute agricultural good - opium. Many empires before then engaged in conquest for precious metals only to either hyperinflate themselves or lose the war. There were accounts of terrible attempts to tame inflation with price controls after the Roman empire seized too much treasure.
The 'fairness' in distribution of money based upon holding is also missing the point on several levels. Not only would that be de-facto regressive it would encourage /not/ investing resources but speculative hoarding which isn't a good thing for the economy. It brings to mind a fundamental misunderstanding that is very common. Money isn't wealth. Money is a medium of exchange for the goods and services which are actual wealth.
It is part of why Bitcoin did so terrible as an actual workable currency - everyone just grabbed onto their Beanie Baby 3.0's and didn't use it for actual exchange and it was very unstable.
Fiat currency is essentially 'superficially crazy/stupid but it works' (it isn't so crazy if one understands the role of money is to be a medium of exchange and is thus arbitrary but can serve the systems for good or ill) and a lot of people get hung-up on it.
Go further into the past and you'll see plenty. The Opium War was from the terrible twos of mercantilism and metallic standards - the British Empire feared the effects of trading silver for tea and had found a substitute agricultural good - opium. Many empires before then engaged in conquest for precious metals only to either hyperinflate themselves or lose the war. There were accounts of terrible attempts to tame inflation with price controls after the Roman empire seized too much treasure.
The 'fairness' in distribution of money based upon holding is also missing the point on several levels. Not only would that be de-facto regressive it would encourage /not/ investing resources but speculative hoarding which isn't a good thing for the economy. It brings to mind a fundamental misunderstanding that is very common. Money isn't wealth. Money is a medium of exchange for the goods and services which are actual wealth.
It is part of why Bitcoin did so terrible as an actual workable currency - everyone just grabbed onto their Beanie Baby 3.0's and didn't use it for actual exchange and it was very unstable.
Fiat currency is essentially 'superficially crazy/stupid but it works' (it isn't so crazy if one understands the role of money is to be a medium of exchange and is thus arbitrary but can serve the systems for good or ill) and a lot of people get hung-up on it.
> The 20th century does have far fewer wars than the 19th and also fewer recessions and depressions - again except for the infamous big ones
"Fewer except for the infamous big ones". If that's what you call progress, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
"Fewer except for the infamous big ones". If that's what you call progress, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
"The one thing you learn in high level science is that nobody really knows what they're talking about, paradigms shift, and further study is required."
That's true, but it's the best we've got.
Not believing in science is different from disagreeing with conclusions of studies based on data. But just saying "science is flawed so I'm not going to believe it" makes no sense at all, because all other alternatives are worse.
That's true, but it's the best we've got.
Not believing in science is different from disagreeing with conclusions of studies based on data. But just saying "science is flawed so I'm not going to believe it" makes no sense at all, because all other alternatives are worse.
Let's not be coy. Laypeople don't have a compelling reason or the expertise necessary to dispute or vociferously defend any scientific conclusions, at the end of the day, there is no science involved here, it's all about politics. Whichever side of the debate you come down on with regard to climate change, vaccines, evolution, the shape of the earth etc, the people in these debates don't really care about science, they only care about policy.
> The one thing you learn in high level science is that nobody really knows what they're talking about, paradigms shift, and further study is required
When you wrote that, what were you thinking of, specifically? I don't know what you are referencing. Also I'm curious, are there any big mysteries left in the field of biochemistry?
When you wrote that, what were you thinking of, specifically? I don't know what you are referencing. Also I'm curious, are there any big mysteries left in the field of biochemistry?
You know you're on shaky ground when you take the most absurd interpretation of something and then argue against it.
"We believe science is real" is such a modest, uncontroversial statement. The idea that you'd see it and rail against some imagined dogmatic strawman really says more about you than it does about them.
"We believe science is real" is such a modest, uncontroversial statement. The idea that you'd see it and rail against some imagined dogmatic strawman really says more about you than it does about them.
> The way in which public considers science today is much more analogous to the way the public considered religion during the time of Galileo.
No, it's not.
Heck, the way the public considers religion today is closer to the way the public considered religion during the time of Galileo than is the way the public considers science.
No, it's not.
Heck, the way the public considers religion today is closer to the way the public considered religion during the time of Galileo than is the way the public considers science.
When you're debating with someone about how the Higgs Field does or doesn't imply the existence of fundamental particles, or how neutrinos do or don't move faster than light, then yes, appeal to scientific authority is "troubling" as you mention.
But when we are talking about vaccines, flat earthers, etc, then how can you possibly justify that it's bad for
>people are castigated for not believing in scientific "truths".
?
Perhaps flat earthers is a silly but harmless phenomenon, but there is real pain and suffering from other kinds of science denial such as the antivaxxers.
But when we are talking about vaccines, flat earthers, etc, then how can you possibly justify that it's bad for
>people are castigated for not believing in scientific "truths".
?
Perhaps flat earthers is a silly but harmless phenomenon, but there is real pain and suffering from other kinds of science denial such as the antivaxxers.
During the time of Galileo, religion was a plurality of truths, all irreconcilable, and at war with one another. There was no settled religion in any broad sense.
Alright, say I want to replace my dogmatic belief that scientific methods are the best way of understanding the Universe. What should I replace it with?
That there are also different methods, and sometimes they are useful.
Getting people to trust science is a matter of persuasion, not of “establishing scientific authority”. What's the difference? One is about acknowledging people and their needs and seeking their well-being; the other is viewing things as a political tussle for power and anxiety about people who don't seem to be on the same “side” as you.
---
There's a beautiful article that I think serves as a model example. In the field of education, there's a certain idea that's believed by many teachers, but which scientists (in cognitive psychology / learning science) know to be a myth. Against this background, this article (“Why mythbusting fails”) discusses why the scientists' approach towards transmitting this knowledge fails to convince its audience. It is worth reading, because it is really about persuasion, about dealing with disagreements between people: https://deansforimpact.org/why-mythbusting-fails-a-guide-to-...
---
Science is many things:
1. A wonderful method for arriving at reliable knowledge. The best we have.
2. The set of facts accumulated via that method. This set will always be tentative, incomplete and contain some fraction of false positives.
3. The set of facts believed by professional scientists today.
What would be good for people to trust would be (1) > (2) > (3), but for people taking sides, the priority is inverted: they care more that people be on the side of science (against religion or whatever), than that they apply the scientific method wherever possible.
---
In his books like The Mosaic Distinction and the Price of Monotheism, the author Jan Assmann discusses the idea of “counterreligions”. Though many people in Western society may no longer be religious in one sense, they still retain certain attitudes picked up from it, like the missionary/crusader zeal of treating those who do not believe in the same things as them as enemies needing to be either converted or fought, general condescension towards “heathens”, etc. We see this in discussions about politics or nearly anything, where people neatly get polarized into opposing sides rather than a gradual spectrum as one may expect.
---
In this very article, see things like:
> Science denial, however, is like crime: combating it requires…
(treating disbelievers as heretics to be fought)
> Galileo cleverly acknowledged the values of his enemies.
I don't know about Galileo's views, but why view acknowledgement of others' values as merely a “clever” device? How about replacing “cleverly” with “sincerely”, and “enemies” with “real people we'd like to persuade”?
---
There's a beautiful article that I think serves as a model example. In the field of education, there's a certain idea that's believed by many teachers, but which scientists (in cognitive psychology / learning science) know to be a myth. Against this background, this article (“Why mythbusting fails”) discusses why the scientists' approach towards transmitting this knowledge fails to convince its audience. It is worth reading, because it is really about persuasion, about dealing with disagreements between people: https://deansforimpact.org/why-mythbusting-fails-a-guide-to-...
---
Science is many things:
1. A wonderful method for arriving at reliable knowledge. The best we have.
2. The set of facts accumulated via that method. This set will always be tentative, incomplete and contain some fraction of false positives.
3. The set of facts believed by professional scientists today.
What would be good for people to trust would be (1) > (2) > (3), but for people taking sides, the priority is inverted: they care more that people be on the side of science (against religion or whatever), than that they apply the scientific method wherever possible.
---
In his books like The Mosaic Distinction and the Price of Monotheism, the author Jan Assmann discusses the idea of “counterreligions”. Though many people in Western society may no longer be religious in one sense, they still retain certain attitudes picked up from it, like the missionary/crusader zeal of treating those who do not believe in the same things as them as enemies needing to be either converted or fought, general condescension towards “heathens”, etc. We see this in discussions about politics or nearly anything, where people neatly get polarized into opposing sides rather than a gradual spectrum as one may expect.
---
In this very article, see things like:
> Science denial, however, is like crime: combating it requires…
(treating disbelievers as heretics to be fought)
> Galileo cleverly acknowledged the values of his enemies.
I don't know about Galileo's views, but why view acknowledgement of others' values as merely a “clever” device? How about replacing “cleverly” with “sincerely”, and “enemies” with “real people we'd like to persuade”?
People like to be right, and don't like to invest time in thought. Hence why the bandwagon effect works.
skepticism is in short supply nowadays
I think people put signs up like that because there's a culture of anti-fact, anti-science, generally anti-thought growing and becoming more vocal and a sign or bumper sticker might make people feel like they're fighting back. I admire science, I'm aware that part of science is challenging itself and new understanding can unravel previous notion.
I don't really know of any science enthusiasts that want to burn the religious or their texts (well, I did as a teenager, but they grew out of it), but I know more than a few religious who want science out of their schools, deeply believe religion should be more involved in our government, and let's not forget the anti-vaccination movement. These people are neighbors and co-workers, and while they themselves are generally not horrible people those sorts of ambitions feel dangerous at best.
Anyway, my point is - I would rather have a problem with overenthusiastic science fans that could use some perspective, than a problem of people not vaccinating their children and "rolling coal"
I don't really know of any science enthusiasts that want to burn the religious or their texts (well, I did as a teenager, but they grew out of it), but I know more than a few religious who want science out of their schools, deeply believe religion should be more involved in our government, and let's not forget the anti-vaccination movement. These people are neighbors and co-workers, and while they themselves are generally not horrible people those sorts of ambitions feel dangerous at best.
Anyway, my point is - I would rather have a problem with overenthusiastic science fans that could use some perspective, than a problem of people not vaccinating their children and "rolling coal"
It’s really anti-authoritarianism.
When people have lost faith in every institution, it is hard to trust the govt. to work nicely with massive corporations to inject needles in their children, especially in an environment where half the kids aren’t living in iron lungs.
When people have lost faith in every institution, it is hard to trust the govt. to work nicely with massive corporations to inject needles in their children, especially in an environment where half the kids aren’t living in iron lungs.
It's seems like a dumb brand of anti-authoritarianism. I think you're right, but so much of it is self defeating if it weren't actually causing problems it'd be comical. It's also a weird reaction to corporate distrust since a great many of these people are conservative, and the GOP seems slightly more up the butt of the mega corps.
The GOP leadership, for sure. The rank and file are conservative mainly for social reasons.
Where have you seen a sign like that? Like what country, and what part of that country? If it's in America, I wouldn't interpret those sorts of signs as evidence of a religious attachment to science, but rather a reaction against the tsunami of anti-science sentiment that has taken over the Republican base and the people they vote into office. The Republican Party has spent the last 10/30/50 years (depending on which historical inflection points people focus on) courting Evangelicals (who themselves are a religious demographic almost entirely unique to the US) and feeding into all of their fears/hatreds/insecurities in order to get their votes and their money. If you've seen signs like that on American lawns, there's like a 99% chance that that phrasing is an intentional low-key troll vs. Evangelicals and their choice of words when they pick and choose what to believe in from both science and their own religion, and how they choose to defend those beliefs.
People not "believing" in science is a huge freaking problem, and is just one of many symptoms of the hellbound handbasket America finds itself in right now. Science by definition is not something you choose to have faith in or not. The only way to disagree with science is more science that disproves the previously accepted science, it's not a choice of faith or belief. The way you can tell that science doesn't function as a faith-based enterprise is the fact that one of the greatest accomplishments a scientist could have is disproving long-held scientific assumptions, which itself can only happen with reproducible results.
For example, a Pew Research poll from several years ago showed that fully 2/3 of self-identified Republican voters were Young Earth Evangelicals, meaning they believe that the planet is ~6000 years old and any evidence to the contrary is either wrong, or a literal test of faith by an apparently insecure deity who will only be satisfied by the basest, most unthinking fealty imaginable. That's obviously going to have an impact over the long term.
What does this lead to? People like Lamar Smith being made the chair of the House Science Committee. Someone who literally doesn't "believe" in science, who has used his authority for the last 6 years to literally squash scientific research that didn't lead to the predetermined conclusions that his faith (and more likely, his donors and voters) assures him are true.
TL;DR I am not at all remotely concerned about people putting signs on their lawns stating that their household believes in science. It's a couple decades too late but whatever. It's a sad world we live in where that's something that anyone feels like they need to publicly state support for.
People not "believing" in science is a huge freaking problem, and is just one of many symptoms of the hellbound handbasket America finds itself in right now. Science by definition is not something you choose to have faith in or not. The only way to disagree with science is more science that disproves the previously accepted science, it's not a choice of faith or belief. The way you can tell that science doesn't function as a faith-based enterprise is the fact that one of the greatest accomplishments a scientist could have is disproving long-held scientific assumptions, which itself can only happen with reproducible results.
For example, a Pew Research poll from several years ago showed that fully 2/3 of self-identified Republican voters were Young Earth Evangelicals, meaning they believe that the planet is ~6000 years old and any evidence to the contrary is either wrong, or a literal test of faith by an apparently insecure deity who will only be satisfied by the basest, most unthinking fealty imaginable. That's obviously going to have an impact over the long term.
What does this lead to? People like Lamar Smith being made the chair of the House Science Committee. Someone who literally doesn't "believe" in science, who has used his authority for the last 6 years to literally squash scientific research that didn't lead to the predetermined conclusions that his faith (and more likely, his donors and voters) assures him are true.
TL;DR I am not at all remotely concerned about people putting signs on their lawns stating that their household believes in science. It's a couple decades too late but whatever. It's a sad world we live in where that's something that anyone feels like they need to publicly state support for.
[deleted]
>The way in which public considers science today is much more analogous to the way the public considered religion during the time of Galileo.
I wish. In the US a huge number of people (large enough to be dangerous) reject climate change consensus, think that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, are "skeptical" about vaccinating their children (I use quotes because skepticism implies reasonableness), think that the earth is 6000 years old, or think that abstinence-only sex education is effective. Blind adherence to current scientific consensus (whatever that may be) would be better than the hot mess is going on in the US right now. Not enough people in the US actually believe in scientific consensus in general for this to be a significant problem yet.
I wish. In the US a huge number of people (large enough to be dangerous) reject climate change consensus, think that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, are "skeptical" about vaccinating their children (I use quotes because skepticism implies reasonableness), think that the earth is 6000 years old, or think that abstinence-only sex education is effective. Blind adherence to current scientific consensus (whatever that may be) would be better than the hot mess is going on in the US right now. Not enough people in the US actually believe in scientific consensus in general for this to be a significant problem yet.
Have you ever seriously thought about why people might reject a climate change consensus? It's easy to dismiss people as being dumb or misled, but the forcefulness of this rejection suggests otherwise.
There have been a few incidents of fraud committed in support of that consensus, undermining credibility, but the biggest problem is that the consensus comes with a plan of action that is completely unacceptable to many people. If accepting the consensus would lead to that plan of action, then the consensus can not be accepted.
Climate change consensus wouldn't be worth rejecting if it didn't lead to a plan of action.
You might think this violates the purity of science or something (which was already violated by that fraud) but science is not the issue here. At this point, nobody is doing science. The issue is a struggle for/against imposing heavy-handed economic control that severely changes the world's balance of economic power. Most likely the enforcement would require war. The control itself can be objectionable, even without the issue of international competition, because many people insist on a high level of personal economic freedom.
There have been a few incidents of fraud committed in support of that consensus, undermining credibility, but the biggest problem is that the consensus comes with a plan of action that is completely unacceptable to many people. If accepting the consensus would lead to that plan of action, then the consensus can not be accepted.
Climate change consensus wouldn't be worth rejecting if it didn't lead to a plan of action.
You might think this violates the purity of science or something (which was already violated by that fraud) but science is not the issue here. At this point, nobody is doing science. The issue is a struggle for/against imposing heavy-handed economic control that severely changes the world's balance of economic power. Most likely the enforcement would require war. The control itself can be objectionable, even without the issue of international competition, because many people insist on a high level of personal economic freedom.
So people reject a claim not because it's false but because they don't like the consequences of accepting that claim? That's the modus operandi of totalitarian ideologies. It's hardly a reasonable justification.
>At this point, nobody is doing science.
Do you have a background in scientific research? I see no point debating further unless you do.
>At this point, nobody is doing science.
Do you have a background in scientific research? I see no point debating further unless you do.
The modus operandi of totalitarian ideologies is to use science as an excuse to achieve some goal, such as totalitarian control of the economy.
To be clear: the people you see as being on "your team" are totalitarian, and you are cheerleading for them.
If the only way to stop a totalitarian take-over of the economy is to reject a claim, then that is what must be done. How else? How would it be possible to accept that global warming is human caused and also possible for humans to stop, yet ensure that nothing is done about it?
In other words, the requirement is to prevent eco-fascist totalitarian control of the economy. How can that be realistically achieved without rejecting the claim? If accepting the claim leads to eco-fascist totalitarian control of the economy, as it seems to, they the only possible solution is to reject the claim.
I suspect you actually want a totalitarian take-over of the economy, no matter the science. Global warming is a convenient excuse. Your desire for that political change gives you a bias toward believing that global warming is both disastrous and avoidable. It also happens to be a belief expressed in the New Zealand shooter's manifesto; he was an eco-fascist.
Also, LOL, I'm not going to dox myself with a credential war with an x220 on the internet.
To be clear: the people you see as being on "your team" are totalitarian, and you are cheerleading for them.
If the only way to stop a totalitarian take-over of the economy is to reject a claim, then that is what must be done. How else? How would it be possible to accept that global warming is human caused and also possible for humans to stop, yet ensure that nothing is done about it?
In other words, the requirement is to prevent eco-fascist totalitarian control of the economy. How can that be realistically achieved without rejecting the claim? If accepting the claim leads to eco-fascist totalitarian control of the economy, as it seems to, they the only possible solution is to reject the claim.
I suspect you actually want a totalitarian take-over of the economy, no matter the science. Global warming is a convenient excuse. Your desire for that political change gives you a bias toward believing that global warming is both disastrous and avoidable. It also happens to be a belief expressed in the New Zealand shooter's manifesto; he was an eco-fascist.
Also, LOL, I'm not going to dox myself with a credential war with an x220 on the internet.
> In the US a huge number of people (large enough to be dangerous) reject climate change consensus
You just proved the parent's point...
You just proved the parent's point...
How so?
Quoting verbatim from the GGP, >Think of the way people are castigated for not believing in scientific "truths" and > the author is trying to burn religious texts and dissenting viewpoints to their "settled science".
If "skeptics" understood what the Navier-Stokes equations do, it would be easier to sympathize.
[deleted]
> or think that abstinence-only sex education is effective.
How did we prove that it doesn't work? I agree that it doesn't work, but I have a very hard time imagining how to make a study to prove it.
How did we prove that it doesn't work? I agree that it doesn't work, but I have a very hard time imagining how to make a study to prove it.
Here's a large study indicating that states with the highest abstinence education level had 25% higher teen pregnancies than states with the lowest level [1], after not controlling for Hispanic teen population, the teen population demographic with the highest birth rate. Whereas, here's one claiming that state policy affected STI rates, but not pregnancy rates [2].
edit: these studies consider "effective" to mean "reduces teen pregnancy + STI rates". Many organizations including WHO consider what they call comprehensive sex education to be a human right, in which case abstinence-only education can never be effective.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26918400
edit: these studies consider "effective" to mean "reduces teen pregnancy + STI rates". Many organizations including WHO consider what they call comprehensive sex education to be a human right, in which case abstinence-only education can never be effective.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26918400
About the first: Correlation does not imply causation. It's very difficult to be sure if the same communities that makes laws to force abstinence-only education also make other laws like forbidding than teenagers get sexual counseling in hospitals without their parents. (And it's imposible to be sure unless you kidnap all the children and put them in two isolated islands in randomized groups.)
Also, they classify the states according to the legislation about abstinence-only education:
0: no mention of abstinence
1: mention, but no promotion
2: promotion of abstinence
3: stressing abstinence as the fundamental teaching standard
It's very interesting that the pregnancy rates for 0 is very similar than 2. 1 is better, 3 is worse. Perhaps the states that don't mention it apply a strong implicit social pressure?
About the second one: I didn't expect this result.
Also, they classify the states according to the legislation about abstinence-only education:
0: no mention of abstinence
1: mention, but no promotion
2: promotion of abstinence
3: stressing abstinence as the fundamental teaching standard
It's very interesting that the pregnancy rates for 0 is very similar than 2. 1 is better, 3 is worse. Perhaps the states that don't mention it apply a strong implicit social pressure?
About the second one: I didn't expect this result.
Have you had a look around PubMed?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
I also don't know what the evidence suggests specifically, which is why I'd have to do a survey of the academic literature or ask about the consensus.
You are right, and this thread is depressing.
How is the common man supposed to know that there isn't anything strange in the vaccine? Governments have forcibly sterilised segments of their population before.
Ask your doctor about it instead of listening to a Facebook group.
After the opioid crisis why should I trust my doctor?
Some kind of bullshit multivariate game theoretical common sense analysis in your head about the different interests at play and their degrees of impunity vs. mandated responsibility and the estimated probability that you're being lied to in the context of your variable knowledge of the technologies and concepts involved idk lol that's how I do it.
Not everyone has a doctor.
This implies a level of trust in doctors that many people lack.
(Also vaccinate your kids dammit)
(Also vaccinate your kids dammit)
About this:
"Hanging in the Louvre Museum in Paris is an imposing painting, The Preaching of St Paul at Ephesus. In this 1649 work by Eustache Le Sueur, the fiery apostle lifts his right hand as if scolding the audience, while clutching a book of scripture in his left. Among the rapt or fearful listeners are people busily throwing books into a fire."
Okay, but in the USA, over the last 60 years we've seen an astonishing loss of religious authority, as well as parental authority, as well as teaching authority. There is no way to bring back scientific authority without also discussing the wider loss of authority.
Nor is the USA alone, but it is not the entire West that is effected. Anyone who wants to see the contrast can visit Britain, and then Poland. In Poland, you can still see the older social structures, and older notions about both religious authority and teaching authority and parental authority.
In the USA, in the year 2019, it is common to see these things:
1. a person at a party says they are "spiritual, but I don't believe in organized religion"
2. a parent spanks their child because their child misbehaved, and the parent is then investigated by the authorities
3. a teacher goes off script to offer their personal opinion of the Vietnam War, and then finds their whole career is at risk
Every single profession is now under attack in the USA. The older spirit of independent professions is now under attack.
I'm not saying this is good or bad, I'm just pointing out it is a fact of life. There has been some progress made in stamping out certain abuses of power, but at the cost of stripping most of the professions of their previous independence.
If you'd like to bring back scientific authority, you need to address the wider issues.
"Hanging in the Louvre Museum in Paris is an imposing painting, The Preaching of St Paul at Ephesus. In this 1649 work by Eustache Le Sueur, the fiery apostle lifts his right hand as if scolding the audience, while clutching a book of scripture in his left. Among the rapt or fearful listeners are people busily throwing books into a fire."
Okay, but in the USA, over the last 60 years we've seen an astonishing loss of religious authority, as well as parental authority, as well as teaching authority. There is no way to bring back scientific authority without also discussing the wider loss of authority.
Nor is the USA alone, but it is not the entire West that is effected. Anyone who wants to see the contrast can visit Britain, and then Poland. In Poland, you can still see the older social structures, and older notions about both religious authority and teaching authority and parental authority.
In the USA, in the year 2019, it is common to see these things:
1. a person at a party says they are "spiritual, but I don't believe in organized religion"
2. a parent spanks their child because their child misbehaved, and the parent is then investigated by the authorities
3. a teacher goes off script to offer their personal opinion of the Vietnam War, and then finds their whole career is at risk
Every single profession is now under attack in the USA. The older spirit of independent professions is now under attack.
I'm not saying this is good or bad, I'm just pointing out it is a fact of life. There has been some progress made in stamping out certain abuses of power, but at the cost of stripping most of the professions of their previous independence.
If you'd like to bring back scientific authority, you need to address the wider issues.
It's not so much "authority" but "trust" that has gone down.
There used to be institutions that were regarded as the gold standard for truth: the FDA, top science journals, the CDC, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and so on.
These weren't necessarily regarded as infallible. But it was widely recognized that they undertook a best effort to get at the truth, and would tend to err on the side of caution.
That trust is falling apart. Many people, including in the HN community, cheer this decline. They see it, not entirely unreasonable, as the downfall of despised "elites" and opening the discourse to other voices, making it more democratic.
But while the tearing down of institutions is well ahead, there is little indication that the envisioned surge of bottom-up publishing is anywhere as successful: almost no structures have appeared, for example, that provide the nitty-gritty coverage of local politics.
Nor can I think of any actual corruption by these organisations exposed by amateur sleuths. Even Snowden relied on traditional media to get his message out. Just today, the Seattle Times (old media) revealed their investigation of the broken process of Boeing's certification of the 737 Max.
"Critical thinking" is what's usually recommended in these times of information overload and bad actors. But the term just seems to give license to everyone to make up their own facts as needed. The result is a discourse devoid of agreed-upon facts. If you cite inflation data in economic discussions, the most likely reply is a conspiracy theory about the data being corruptly influenced. "Think critically", they say, "who profits from <X>, I bet they get a big fat payoff from <Y> for telling this lie".
There used to be institutions that were regarded as the gold standard for truth: the FDA, top science journals, the CDC, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and so on.
These weren't necessarily regarded as infallible. But it was widely recognized that they undertook a best effort to get at the truth, and would tend to err on the side of caution.
That trust is falling apart. Many people, including in the HN community, cheer this decline. They see it, not entirely unreasonable, as the downfall of despised "elites" and opening the discourse to other voices, making it more democratic.
But while the tearing down of institutions is well ahead, there is little indication that the envisioned surge of bottom-up publishing is anywhere as successful: almost no structures have appeared, for example, that provide the nitty-gritty coverage of local politics.
Nor can I think of any actual corruption by these organisations exposed by amateur sleuths. Even Snowden relied on traditional media to get his message out. Just today, the Seattle Times (old media) revealed their investigation of the broken process of Boeing's certification of the 737 Max.
"Critical thinking" is what's usually recommended in these times of information overload and bad actors. But the term just seems to give license to everyone to make up their own facts as needed. The result is a discourse devoid of agreed-upon facts. If you cite inflation data in economic discussions, the most likely reply is a conspiracy theory about the data being corruptly influenced. "Think critically", they say, "who profits from <X>, I bet they get a big fat payoff from <Y> for telling this lie".
> Nor can I think of any actual corruption by these organisations exposed by amateur sleuths.
Wouldn't the simple fact that the CDC now owns patents on vaccines qualify at least as a conflict of interest that would justifiably erode trust?
Trust is power and power corrupts. Its part of a natural cycle that occurs. This is why we develop organizations with strict constraints and methods of accountability such as the separate branches of government.
Wouldn't the simple fact that the CDC now owns patents on vaccines qualify at least as a conflict of interest that would justifiably erode trust?
Trust is power and power corrupts. Its part of a natural cycle that occurs. This is why we develop organizations with strict constraints and methods of accountability such as the separate branches of government.
I believe it s neither "authority" nor "trust" that has fallen, but rather nihilism that has taken a sharp rise. Who cares about your authority, or trusting you outside of my purposes? It's all meaningless in the end.
How many times have you seen this statement on this board alone: "Given the passage of enough time after your death, anything you did won't matter." or some form or fashion.
How many times have you seen this statement on this board alone: "Given the passage of enough time after your death, anything you did won't matter." or some form or fashion.
None of your points 1,2,3 highlight a loss of authority so much as its transfer between different institutions: religion, state, teacher, parent.
Ok, maybe transferring authority to individuals as in (1) could be counted as a loss, but in a topic so personal that it would be ridiculous for somebody to claim authority over others in it anyway.
Ok, maybe transferring authority to individuals as in (1) could be counted as a loss, but in a topic so personal that it would be ridiculous for somebody to claim authority over others in it anyway.
Are you saying that the problem here is that people aren't doing what they're told by authorities? Because I can confidently say that this is not an accurate reading of the fine article. Or, you know, reality.
I think it's valuable to ask some questions about the costs and unforseen second-order effects of throwing out all our traditional ideas of respect and status. It's pretty reductive to characterise this as saying people should "do what they're told". I can confidently say that's not an accurate reading of GP's comment.
You can call it a fourth-order bundle of holomorphic consequences if you like. The difference is fine enough to slice a silk scarf in two.
I don't think a belief in religious authority is necessary for a belief in scientific authority. The scientific community is especially atheist. And I don't think a belief in religious authority is especially likely to cause one to believe in scientific authority.
A lot of times one can actually undermine the other because they have two conflicting views of the world.
A lot of times one can actually undermine the other because they have two conflicting views of the world.
Point #3 is actually a sign of increasing authoritarianism.
You can make an argument that as older forms of authority (family, church) have weakened, we have been placed at the mercy of the remaining forms (governments, employers). But in this mixed picture how do we know whether science goes in the winners or losers column?
You can make an argument that as older forms of authority (family, church) have weakened, we have been placed at the mercy of the remaining forms (governments, employers). But in this mixed picture how do we know whether science goes in the winners or losers column?
Is this unexpected? Unvetted authority took a big hit when it created totalitarian states and initiated some of the biggest atrocities and genocides ever witnessed in human history.
savingthrow(3)
The article is dated 18 March 2019, but it asks "So: what went wrong?" and then mentions neither p-hacking nor the replication crisis in psychology. Perhaps the author has a rebuttal to those who think that questionable research practices have brought about the fall of scientific authority, but he doesn't give it here.
Some of the problems lie closer to home than the content of scientific journals. Henry Gee is a senior editor of Nature. He wrote an article for the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/1...
Rashly, he attempts to explain p-values, and gets it wrong, saying "For example, one might be able to accord a value to one's conclusion not of "yes" or "no" but "P<0.05", which means that the result has a less than one in 20 chance of being a fluke."
Respect for scientific authority has fallen because of self-sabotage by senior figures.
Some of the problems lie closer to home than the content of scientific journals. Henry Gee is a senior editor of Nature. He wrote an article for the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/1...
Rashly, he attempts to explain p-values, and gets it wrong, saying "For example, one might be able to accord a value to one's conclusion not of "yes" or "no" but "P<0.05", which means that the result has a less than one in 20 chance of being a fluke."
Respect for scientific authority has fallen because of self-sabotage by senior figures.
It is not acceptable to publish an article on the crisis of scientific authority in 2019 and not mention the replication crisis (which is not limited to psychology).
Robert P. Crease is no Galileo, he's just a preacher for a different sort of religion. And Nature's reputation deserves to take a hit as long as it continues to keep its head in the sand like this.
Agreed. And not only is it not limited to psychology, but it spreads to areas of grave concern, like cancer research.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/plan-replicate-50-hi...
https://elifesciences.org/collections/9b1e83d1/reproducibili...
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/plan-replicate-50-hi...
https://elifesciences.org/collections/9b1e83d1/reproducibili...
This has been going on since long, long before p-hacking and the replication crisis. And I honestly find these to be very different issues.
It was common for people in the US to reject the idea of smoking as a cause of lung cancer until like the 1980s. Scientific consensus on this fact was reached in the 60s and was suspected for a while before that. Yet, it took like 40 years for the public to agree.
Think about what's happening now with climate change. Scientists aren't undermining their own position, their authority and credibility is under direct attack; originally by moneyed interest, but today mostly through political indoctrinates. People view scientists as left-wingers out to undermine conservative policies and seek to undermine their authority and influence. Today, these people have much more reach and influence than in times past.
It was common for people in the US to reject the idea of smoking as a cause of lung cancer until like the 1980s. Scientific consensus on this fact was reached in the 60s and was suspected for a while before that. Yet, it took like 40 years for the public to agree.
Think about what's happening now with climate change. Scientists aren't undermining their own position, their authority and credibility is under direct attack; originally by moneyed interest, but today mostly through political indoctrinates. People view scientists as left-wingers out to undermine conservative policies and seek to undermine their authority and influence. Today, these people have much more reach and influence than in times past.
There is a lot of social baggage around tobacco smoking that has faded from living memory. I read about the [Torches of Freedom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom) advertising campaign and am amazed. Those young women, puffing their liberation in the 1930s, would turn into the old smokers of the 1970s.
I guess that they would disbelieve that smoking caused lung cancer out of loyalty to the version of feminism that was current in their youth. If so, then the reluctance to accept the authority of science about tobacco is an idiosyncratic tale, specific to a powerful, pre-existing social meaning.
I guess that they would disbelieve that smoking caused lung cancer out of loyalty to the version of feminism that was current in their youth. If so, then the reluctance to accept the authority of science about tobacco is an idiosyncratic tale, specific to a powerful, pre-existing social meaning.
> It was common for people in the US to reject the idea of smoking as a cause of lung cancer until like the 1980s. Scientific consensus on this fact was reached in the 60s and was suspected for a while before that. Yet, it took like 40 years for the public to agree.
You're exaggerating.
It did not take until after the year 2000 for the public to believe that smoking causes cancer.
You're exaggerating.
It did not take until after the year 2000 for the public to believe that smoking causes cancer.
No I'm not...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3894634/
> The public relations campaign -- which would extend for over 40 years -- was designed with the goal of reassuring the public, especially current smokers, that the question of whether smoking caused harm was an “open controversy” (1, 4, 14).
> A poll conducted in 1966 found only 40% of Americans recognizing smoking as a major cause of cancer, while 27% said it was a minor cause and one-third said the science was not yet able to tell (2). In 2001 Gallup re-asked this same question and found 71% of Americans naming smoking as a major cause of cancer, with 11% saying it was a minor cause and 16% unsure (26).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3894634/
> The public relations campaign -- which would extend for over 40 years -- was designed with the goal of reassuring the public, especially current smokers, that the question of whether smoking caused harm was an “open controversy” (1, 4, 14).
> A poll conducted in 1966 found only 40% of Americans recognizing smoking as a major cause of cancer, while 27% said it was a minor cause and one-third said the science was not yet able to tell (2). In 2001 Gallup re-asked this same question and found 71% of Americans naming smoking as a major cause of cancer, with 11% saying it was a minor cause and 16% unsure (26).
Wow. Yikes!
I think the whole idea of scientific authority is troubling. Of course (as another poster pointed out) we should all be convinced of the value of the scientific method in school. It doesn't require evidence. Believing the scientific establishment, however, is an epistemic challenge.
The way I think of it, for us to believe physicists to the extent it affects us is easy. We just buy gadgets, and they seem to work. We outsource the vetting of the science to companies, who outsource to engineers, who outsource to scientists. The engineers should be able to see pretty quickly if the science is somehow wrong.
Medicine affects us as well, and it's a bit harder. Cause and effect is a lot harder to determine, and as such there's a lot of controversy. Since there's ambiguity, there's an incentive to sell us bogus cures, and as such a (in my mind) reasonable skepticism of what we're being sold.
Climate science is even worse. There's only one climate, so cause and effect is really hard to determine, at least for the "consumer" (voter). There's not only business motives, but political motives.
I think science advocates should think in these epistemic terms, rather than throwing a tantrum because the ignorant masses don't believe them. Maybe there's a way we could set up credible institutions that could vet the scientific establishment for us. "Peer review" is not credible, especially given all the bad stories I hear about how that system is broken. Can a maverick get in there and publish something completely contrary to the "consensus" and be taken seriously? I have no idea. All I hear about is "quack scientists" who don't believe in climate change, and I get real suspicious.
The way I think of it, for us to believe physicists to the extent it affects us is easy. We just buy gadgets, and they seem to work. We outsource the vetting of the science to companies, who outsource to engineers, who outsource to scientists. The engineers should be able to see pretty quickly if the science is somehow wrong.
Medicine affects us as well, and it's a bit harder. Cause and effect is a lot harder to determine, and as such there's a lot of controversy. Since there's ambiguity, there's an incentive to sell us bogus cures, and as such a (in my mind) reasonable skepticism of what we're being sold.
Climate science is even worse. There's only one climate, so cause and effect is really hard to determine, at least for the "consumer" (voter). There's not only business motives, but political motives.
I think science advocates should think in these epistemic terms, rather than throwing a tantrum because the ignorant masses don't believe them. Maybe there's a way we could set up credible institutions that could vet the scientific establishment for us. "Peer review" is not credible, especially given all the bad stories I hear about how that system is broken. Can a maverick get in there and publish something completely contrary to the "consensus" and be taken seriously? I have no idea. All I hear about is "quack scientists" who don't believe in climate change, and I get real suspicious.
(oops, this was actually supposed to be in reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19421709)
The more scientific authority is used for political aims - politics being "help my friends and hurt my enemies" the more it will lost it's authority.
Politics corrupts what it touches. It's corruption itself so it looks for sources authority to accomplish it's goals. When it finds one of those sources it uses it and then turns it into itself.
Politics corrupts what it touches. It's corruption itself so it looks for sources authority to accomplish it's goals. When it finds one of those sources it uses it and then turns it into itself.
Agreed, I feel like Heterdox Academy is one of the few collectives that actually care about solving the problem rather than blaming their outgroup. https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-problem/
I agree with the author that the public perception of science today is in a sorry state, but I don't think that a heightened reverence for authority (of any sort) is the way out.
We design our scientific curriculum based on the philosophy of Popper, who was all about the scientific method. We teach that there are rules which lead to progress. There are counterpoints to Popper that don't appear in the modern curriculum.
There was Lakatos, who said that scientific "progress" was more about regime change, and Feyerabend who thought that science was a fundamentally anarchic activity.
If there were a little more Feyerabend in our curriculum, and a little less Popper, I think we'd be in a much better state. It's a scary step to take--to admit that all facts are alternative facts--but once you take it you find you're faced with the same old problem, just without the authority: which facts to use? Well, that depends on theories are available for the combination and utilization of these facts, and as it turns out, the theories that the "authorities" champion happen to still be the better ones.
But we don't teach people to evaluate competing theories, we teach them to settle down and apply the right theories, because we have the authority to do so. It is that very attachment to authority that is undermining our ability to educate people about science.
We design our scientific curriculum based on the philosophy of Popper, who was all about the scientific method. We teach that there are rules which lead to progress. There are counterpoints to Popper that don't appear in the modern curriculum.
There was Lakatos, who said that scientific "progress" was more about regime change, and Feyerabend who thought that science was a fundamentally anarchic activity.
If there were a little more Feyerabend in our curriculum, and a little less Popper, I think we'd be in a much better state. It's a scary step to take--to admit that all facts are alternative facts--but once you take it you find you're faced with the same old problem, just without the authority: which facts to use? Well, that depends on theories are available for the combination and utilization of these facts, and as it turns out, the theories that the "authorities" champion happen to still be the better ones.
But we don't teach people to evaluate competing theories, we teach them to settle down and apply the right theories, because we have the authority to do so. It is that very attachment to authority that is undermining our ability to educate people about science.
> which facts to use?
That's easy: the ones that are confirmed by experiments.
Feyerabend was correct in calling science "anarchic" in that there is not one "scientific method" that will always point you at the right facts. Scientists do whatever works.
But Feyerabend was wrong in thinking that, because of that, "all facts are alternative facts". It is possible to establish facts. You do that by experiments. It's just that there's no rule that will tell you in every case which experiments to do. You have to figure it out each time.
That's easy: the ones that are confirmed by experiments.
Feyerabend was correct in calling science "anarchic" in that there is not one "scientific method" that will always point you at the right facts. Scientists do whatever works.
But Feyerabend was wrong in thinking that, because of that, "all facts are alternative facts". It is possible to establish facts. You do that by experiments. It's just that there's no rule that will tell you in every case which experiments to do. You have to figure it out each time.
It's easy if you're deciding between two masses for an electron. In that case you've already decided that some theory which describes electrons is the one for you--so in that context one is a fact that the other is just plain false.
But it gets tricky in cases where you're deciding between facts whose enclosing theories are incompatible. Is gravity a force, or is it an acceleration? Each is a fact in its own theory--the more relevant question has to do with your situation: which theory is more useful?
Your epistemology appears to allow for the absoluteness of facts to be itself an absolute fact. Mine doesn't. From your perspective I must appear to be out of touch with reality, and from my perspective you appear to be resting an awful lot on circularity. People have been having this debate for millennia, I don't think we're going to resolve it this year.
I think that a more fruitful question would be this: If one highschool uses textbooks that acknowledge that the philosophy of science is not itself a science--and presents the various competing views, and another highschool uses textbooks that assert the absolute truth of scientific facts without justification--which highschool produces more parents that opt their children out of vaccinations?
The nature of facts meta-epistemic, and therefore can't be a matter of knowable truth--in that domain, utility is all we have. The vaccination debate, however (I just picked an example from a hat, feel free to substitute your favorite pseudoscience) is a clash between two theories, one with great justification, and one with hardly any. It only persists because we don't educate people to evaluate competing theories, so low-effort alternatives appear to wide audiences as viable contenders.
But it gets tricky in cases where you're deciding between facts whose enclosing theories are incompatible. Is gravity a force, or is it an acceleration? Each is a fact in its own theory--the more relevant question has to do with your situation: which theory is more useful?
Your epistemology appears to allow for the absoluteness of facts to be itself an absolute fact. Mine doesn't. From your perspective I must appear to be out of touch with reality, and from my perspective you appear to be resting an awful lot on circularity. People have been having this debate for millennia, I don't think we're going to resolve it this year.
I think that a more fruitful question would be this: If one highschool uses textbooks that acknowledge that the philosophy of science is not itself a science--and presents the various competing views, and another highschool uses textbooks that assert the absolute truth of scientific facts without justification--which highschool produces more parents that opt their children out of vaccinations?
The nature of facts meta-epistemic, and therefore can't be a matter of knowable truth--in that domain, utility is all we have. The vaccination debate, however (I just picked an example from a hat, feel free to substitute your favorite pseudoscience) is a clash between two theories, one with great justification, and one with hardly any. It only persists because we don't educate people to evaluate competing theories, so low-effort alternatives appear to wide audiences as viable contenders.
>Is gravity a force, or is it an acceleration? Each is a fact in its own theory--the more relevant question has to do with your situation: which theory is more useful?
I would call that a model, not a fact. And, as the saying goes, all models are wrong.
If it's impossible to do an experiment that shows one model to be better than another in a situation, then the choice is meaningless. Both are fine.
I would call that a model, not a fact. And, as the saying goes, all models are wrong.
If it's impossible to do an experiment that shows one model to be better than another in a situation, then the choice is meaningless. Both are fine.
I would like to see a tool that lists all modern scientific hypotheses and theories along with the published experiments that support or refute the theory/hypothesis. The theories should be linked to show what builds upon what. Wikipedia is probably the closest we have to this right now.
As science gets more complex, we either need to create a way for people to perform this bottom-up reasoning themselves, or we need to appeal to authority.
Appeal to authority is dangerous and anti-scientific. IMO, people are right to reject that.
As science gets more complex, we either need to create a way for people to perform this bottom-up reasoning themselves, or we need to appeal to authority.
Appeal to authority is dangerous and anti-scientific. IMO, people are right to reject that.
I would love to see this too. Unfortunately, at present I don't know if we even have an institution that everyone would trust to provide this information in an impartial way.
Also, there are still judgments involved even with this task as you describe it. How is it decided which experiments support or refute a given theory/hypothesis? How widely do we cast our net for what theories/hypotheses get included? Do we impose requirements on the experiments themselves, and if so, what?
Also, there are still judgments involved even with this task as you describe it. How is it decided which experiments support or refute a given theory/hypothesis? How widely do we cast our net for what theories/hypotheses get included? Do we impose requirements on the experiments themselves, and if so, what?
If I were designing it, I'd have the experimenters determine support / refute. In order to be included, they would have to have a clear write-up of the experimental setup, detailed results, etc.
All theories could be included, the better the theory, the more confirming experiments it should have.
All theories could be included, the better the theory, the more confirming experiments it should have.
Is light a wave, or is it a particle?
__MatrixMan__: I'm going to lose karma for having a meta-discussion on HN, but I'd like to spare you some misery...
In my experience, the HN crowd will heavily downvote comments that question the metaphysics assumed in other readers' posts. Without regard to the validity or applicability of such a comment, it's likely to cost you karma. I don't think this forum will entertain the kind of discussion you're trying to have, sadly.
In my experience, the HN crowd will heavily downvote comments that question the metaphysics assumed in other readers' posts. Without regard to the validity or applicability of such a comment, it's likely to cost you karma. I don't think this forum will entertain the kind of discussion you're trying to have, sadly.
> it gets tricky in cases where you're deciding between facts whose enclosing theories are incompatible. Is gravity a force, or is it an acceleration?
This isn't deciding between facts. It's deciding between different theoretical interpretations of the same facts. The facts of gravity didn't change when Einstein discovered General Relativity. All that changed was the theoretical model.
> Your epistemology appears to allow for the absoluteness of facts to be itself an absolute fact.
I don't know what you mean by "facts" if facts aren't absolute. Once you do an experiment and record certain results, those results don't change. That's why we call them facts.
If you are claiming that those facts can change when we change theoretical models, I have no idea why you believe that. If you're agreeing that those facts don't change when we change theoretical models, then at least we agree on that, and then it's just a matter of me thinking your use of language is highly idiosyncratic.
> If one highschool uses textbooks that acknowledge that the philosophy of science is not itself a science--and presents the various competing views, and another highschool uses textbooks that assert the absolute truth of scientific facts without justification--which highschool produces more parents that opt their children out of vaccinations?
You're assuming that opting children out of vaccinations is necessarily a bad thing. But it might not be.
Consider: when you vaccinate someone, there is a balance between two risks. If the person is vaccinated, there is some probability that they will suffer harm due to the vaccination. If the person is not vaccinated, there is some probability that they will suffer harm from catching the disease the vaccine protects against.
In the world of half a century ago, when I was getting all the usual shots as a child, the second risk was demonstrably much higher than the first, because all of those diseases were common enough that the probability of catching them if you weren't vacccinated was significant, while the probability of suffering harm due to the vaccine was small (but not zero).
But in the world of today, where all of those diseases are extremely rare--precisely because of such a huge fraction of the population getting vaccinated in the past--the probability of catching the disease if you aren't vaccinated is much lower. So now even a much lower probability of some kind of harm from the vaccine itself can justify not getting vaccinated. And since probabilities that low are very hard to assess anyway, it is by no means unreasonable for some parents to be unwilling to vaccinate their children without having to have any wacky beliefs. For example, if a parent has a concern about the mercury in thimerosal (a common preservative used in vaccines), even if the risk of that harm is low, it might still be enough for a reasonable parent not to take the risk.
Note that this logic also allows parents to adjust to further changes, such as the recent increase in incidence of a number of diseases like measles. Such an increase pushes the tradeoff back towards vaccination even if there are low probability risks from the vaccine that haven't been fully quantified.
This isn't deciding between facts. It's deciding between different theoretical interpretations of the same facts. The facts of gravity didn't change when Einstein discovered General Relativity. All that changed was the theoretical model.
> Your epistemology appears to allow for the absoluteness of facts to be itself an absolute fact.
I don't know what you mean by "facts" if facts aren't absolute. Once you do an experiment and record certain results, those results don't change. That's why we call them facts.
If you are claiming that those facts can change when we change theoretical models, I have no idea why you believe that. If you're agreeing that those facts don't change when we change theoretical models, then at least we agree on that, and then it's just a matter of me thinking your use of language is highly idiosyncratic.
> If one highschool uses textbooks that acknowledge that the philosophy of science is not itself a science--and presents the various competing views, and another highschool uses textbooks that assert the absolute truth of scientific facts without justification--which highschool produces more parents that opt their children out of vaccinations?
You're assuming that opting children out of vaccinations is necessarily a bad thing. But it might not be.
Consider: when you vaccinate someone, there is a balance between two risks. If the person is vaccinated, there is some probability that they will suffer harm due to the vaccination. If the person is not vaccinated, there is some probability that they will suffer harm from catching the disease the vaccine protects against.
In the world of half a century ago, when I was getting all the usual shots as a child, the second risk was demonstrably much higher than the first, because all of those diseases were common enough that the probability of catching them if you weren't vacccinated was significant, while the probability of suffering harm due to the vaccine was small (but not zero).
But in the world of today, where all of those diseases are extremely rare--precisely because of such a huge fraction of the population getting vaccinated in the past--the probability of catching the disease if you aren't vaccinated is much lower. So now even a much lower probability of some kind of harm from the vaccine itself can justify not getting vaccinated. And since probabilities that low are very hard to assess anyway, it is by no means unreasonable for some parents to be unwilling to vaccinate their children without having to have any wacky beliefs. For example, if a parent has a concern about the mercury in thimerosal (a common preservative used in vaccines), even if the risk of that harm is low, it might still be enough for a reasonable parent not to take the risk.
Note that this logic also allows parents to adjust to further changes, such as the recent increase in incidence of a number of diseases like measles. Such an increase pushes the tradeoff back towards vaccination even if there are low probability risks from the vaccine that haven't been fully quantified.
> But in the world of today, where all of those diseases are extremely rare--precisely because of such a huge fraction of the population getting vaccinated in the past--the probability of catching the disease if you aren't vaccinated is much lower. So now even a much lower probability of some kind of harm from the vaccine itself can justify not getting vaccinated.
I think this is also a good example of the exact opposite point, however, that there is a decline in authority.
What you describe here is a rational assessment of risks, but it is also a collective action problem: the individual risk of infection is low precisely because everyone else vaccinates their children.
A Nash equilibrium generates a suboptimal outcome, where disease prevalence increases to the point where the perceived risks are equal. Worse yet, this has negative externalities for others, such as those too young to take a vaccine or who are allergic, since they can no longer rely on herd immunity.
Collective action problems like this are usually resolved with some kind of coordinating authority. In some environments that authority can be normal social suasion, but in others it needs to be explicitly regulatory.
I think this is also a good example of the exact opposite point, however, that there is a decline in authority.
What you describe here is a rational assessment of risks, but it is also a collective action problem: the individual risk of infection is low precisely because everyone else vaccinates their children.
A Nash equilibrium generates a suboptimal outcome, where disease prevalence increases to the point where the perceived risks are equal. Worse yet, this has negative externalities for others, such as those too young to take a vaccine or who are allergic, since they can no longer rely on herd immunity.
Collective action problems like this are usually resolved with some kind of coordinating authority. In some environments that authority can be normal social suasion, but in others it needs to be explicitly regulatory.
> the individual risk of infection is low precisely because everyone else vaccinates their children
Yes, this is true. However, this is easy for individuals to take into account as the percentage of vaccinated individuals changes: if fewer people get vaccinated, the incentive for a particular individual to do so increases. So I don't see this in itself as a collective action problem.
> A Nash equilibrium generates a suboptimal outcome, where disease prevalence increases to the point where the perceived risks are equal.
Not quite until perceived risks are equal; until perceived costs are equal. In other words, the equilibrium (which can change over time as the percentage of vaccinated individuals changes--see above) is where the expected cost of getting vaccinated exactly equals the expected cost of not getting vaccinated.
This in itself does not mean the outcome is suboptimal. However...
> this has negative externalities for others, such as those too young to take a vaccine or who are allergic
...this does, since the externalities are not considered by individuals when making their risk-cost calculations.
> Collective action problems like this are usually resolved with some kind of coordinating authority. In some environments that authority can be normal social suasion, but in others it needs to be explicitly regulatory.
The main coordinating authority in our society seems to me to be schools requiring kids to be vaccinated. That sets a hard ceiling on the percentage of non-vaccinated children, since parents who do not want to vaccinate have to either home school or pay for some form of private tutoring.
The question would be whether this needs to be a hard requirement, vs. simply an assessment of how many kids are actually vaccinated in the population and whether that percentage is low enough to have a significant negative impact on herd immunity.
But even that's not really the question, since, as I noted above, individuals can factor in how much herd immunity there is when making their own vaccination decisions. The only real coordination issue is due to the negative externalities: some percentage of people can't get vaccinated and so herd immunity is the only thing protecting them. So the real question is whether the percentage of people vaccinated because they voluntarily choose to get vaccinated after considering their individual costs vs. benefits is low enough that the risk to the people who can't get vaccinated is unacceptably high because of decreasing herd immunity.
I don't know if anyone has actually tried to analyze the issue this way.
Yes, this is true. However, this is easy for individuals to take into account as the percentage of vaccinated individuals changes: if fewer people get vaccinated, the incentive for a particular individual to do so increases. So I don't see this in itself as a collective action problem.
> A Nash equilibrium generates a suboptimal outcome, where disease prevalence increases to the point where the perceived risks are equal.
Not quite until perceived risks are equal; until perceived costs are equal. In other words, the equilibrium (which can change over time as the percentage of vaccinated individuals changes--see above) is where the expected cost of getting vaccinated exactly equals the expected cost of not getting vaccinated.
This in itself does not mean the outcome is suboptimal. However...
> this has negative externalities for others, such as those too young to take a vaccine or who are allergic
...this does, since the externalities are not considered by individuals when making their risk-cost calculations.
> Collective action problems like this are usually resolved with some kind of coordinating authority. In some environments that authority can be normal social suasion, but in others it needs to be explicitly regulatory.
The main coordinating authority in our society seems to me to be schools requiring kids to be vaccinated. That sets a hard ceiling on the percentage of non-vaccinated children, since parents who do not want to vaccinate have to either home school or pay for some form of private tutoring.
The question would be whether this needs to be a hard requirement, vs. simply an assessment of how many kids are actually vaccinated in the population and whether that percentage is low enough to have a significant negative impact on herd immunity.
But even that's not really the question, since, as I noted above, individuals can factor in how much herd immunity there is when making their own vaccination decisions. The only real coordination issue is due to the negative externalities: some percentage of people can't get vaccinated and so herd immunity is the only thing protecting them. So the real question is whether the percentage of people vaccinated because they voluntarily choose to get vaccinated after considering their individual costs vs. benefits is low enough that the risk to the people who can't get vaccinated is unacceptably high because of decreasing herd immunity.
I don't know if anyone has actually tried to analyze the issue this way.
> Once you do an experiment and record certain results, those results don't change.
You seem to believe that facts are like rocks: You can look at a rock with one pair of glasses, and then you can put a different pair of glasses on and be reasonably assured that you're looking at the same rock. This works because the laws of physics give us a context in which rocks can be individuated. Reality is a convenient authority for this sort of thing.
So far as I can tell, there is no such authority for facts. What wider context is there to appeal to if you want to know whether you're looking at the same fact in a different light, or a new fact? If you know of such a method, I am sincerely interested to know it.
Consider the Michelson Morely experiment. Initially, it established that the velocity of the aether relative to the Earth was 0. Now, we look back on it and say that it established that the speed of light in certain directions does not depend on certain orbital characteristics of the earth. I don't think it's so crazy to imagine a future where a new means of interpreting experiments has taken hold, and from which we would give yet a third description for the experiment established. I think this situation is simpler if these all count as separate facts.
> The facts of gravity didn't change when discovered General Relativity. All that changed was the theoretical model.
Do "the facts of gravity" include the predictions made by the theory of gravity? Because in a number of notable cases they did in fact change when Einstein's theory became the one we use for gravity.
Speaking of Einstein, before he pubished his paper on special relativity, wasn't it a fact that the velocity of a bullet fired from a train (relative to the track) is the sum of the train's velocity and the bullet's velocity? (i.e. the only relevant transformations re: velocity are galilean transformations)? We may not have noticed that this seemingly absolute fact was actually only a fact according to the galilean theory of motion, because no competing theories were available. But once alternatives became available, it was necessary to relativize the fact and add the "according to" part.
Given that we can't know which facts might later need to be relativized, isn't the safer move to assume that all of them are in scope for this kind of change? If we managed to install in everyone a proper respect for scientific authority, would Einstein have had the courage to disregard the fact about how velocities are added?
You seem to believe that facts are like rocks: You can look at a rock with one pair of glasses, and then you can put a different pair of glasses on and be reasonably assured that you're looking at the same rock. This works because the laws of physics give us a context in which rocks can be individuated. Reality is a convenient authority for this sort of thing.
So far as I can tell, there is no such authority for facts. What wider context is there to appeal to if you want to know whether you're looking at the same fact in a different light, or a new fact? If you know of such a method, I am sincerely interested to know it.
Consider the Michelson Morely experiment. Initially, it established that the velocity of the aether relative to the Earth was 0. Now, we look back on it and say that it established that the speed of light in certain directions does not depend on certain orbital characteristics of the earth. I don't think it's so crazy to imagine a future where a new means of interpreting experiments has taken hold, and from which we would give yet a third description for the experiment established. I think this situation is simpler if these all count as separate facts.
> The facts of gravity didn't change when discovered General Relativity. All that changed was the theoretical model.
Do "the facts of gravity" include the predictions made by the theory of gravity? Because in a number of notable cases they did in fact change when Einstein's theory became the one we use for gravity.
Speaking of Einstein, before he pubished his paper on special relativity, wasn't it a fact that the velocity of a bullet fired from a train (relative to the track) is the sum of the train's velocity and the bullet's velocity? (i.e. the only relevant transformations re: velocity are galilean transformations)? We may not have noticed that this seemingly absolute fact was actually only a fact according to the galilean theory of motion, because no competing theories were available. But once alternatives became available, it was necessary to relativize the fact and add the "according to" part.
Given that we can't know which facts might later need to be relativized, isn't the safer move to assume that all of them are in scope for this kind of change? If we managed to install in everyone a proper respect for scientific authority, would Einstein have had the courage to disregard the fact about how velocities are added?
> So far as I can tell, there is no such authority for facts.
Huh? You just described it: reality is the authority.
> I think this situation is simpler if these all count as separate facts.
No, they are different theoretical descriptions of the facts. The facts are the particular experimental apparatus Michelson and Morley used and the particular numbers they recorded when they made their measurements.
> Do "the facts of gravity" include the predictions made by the theory of gravity?
Of course not. Predictions aren't facts. They're things that you compare with facts in order to test theoretical models.
> Speaking of Einstein, before he pubished his paper on special relativity, wasn't it a fact that the velocity of a bullet fired from a train (relative to the track) is the sum of the train's velocity and the bullet's velocity?
No. As far as I know nobody at that time had made accurate enough measurements of the velocity of anything to be able to test the Newtonian prediction vs. the relativity prediction. But that doesn't mean the Newtonian prediction was correct before relativity was discovered. It certainly doesn't mean that something changed about the world described by physical models when physicists switched from using the Newtonian model to using the relativity model. All that changed was the model: the world the model was describing didn't change.
> Given that we can't know which facts might later need to be relativized
Facts never need to be relativized. Relativizing is something that happens when you switch theoretical models. You seem to be consistently confusing facts with models.
Huh? You just described it: reality is the authority.
> I think this situation is simpler if these all count as separate facts.
No, they are different theoretical descriptions of the facts. The facts are the particular experimental apparatus Michelson and Morley used and the particular numbers they recorded when they made their measurements.
> Do "the facts of gravity" include the predictions made by the theory of gravity?
Of course not. Predictions aren't facts. They're things that you compare with facts in order to test theoretical models.
> Speaking of Einstein, before he pubished his paper on special relativity, wasn't it a fact that the velocity of a bullet fired from a train (relative to the track) is the sum of the train's velocity and the bullet's velocity?
No. As far as I know nobody at that time had made accurate enough measurements of the velocity of anything to be able to test the Newtonian prediction vs. the relativity prediction. But that doesn't mean the Newtonian prediction was correct before relativity was discovered. It certainly doesn't mean that something changed about the world described by physical models when physicists switched from using the Newtonian model to using the relativity model. All that changed was the model: the world the model was describing didn't change.
> Given that we can't know which facts might later need to be relativized
Facts never need to be relativized. Relativizing is something that happens when you switch theoretical models. You seem to be consistently confusing facts with models.
Raw facts are meaningless without models, theories, or even, ideologies. Without meaning you can't do anything useful with it, or anything "that works." You always have to have a theory in order to predict the future based on facts and then have experiments to verify the predictions. No meaningful experiments can exist without a establishing theory.
All facts are alternative facts in the sense that facts are only accessible and made meaningful through theories and there is no one true theory.
All facts are alternative facts in the sense that facts are only accessible and made meaningful through theories and there is no one true theory.
> Raw facts are meaningless without models, theories, or even, ideologies.
No, they're not. They just don't allow you to make predictions without a model. But you don't need to agree on a theoretical model to agree that, for example, Michelson and Morley had a particular experimental setup and procedure and recorded particular numbers when they ran the experiment.
> You always have to have a theory in order to predict the future based on facts and then have experiments to verify the predictions.
A "theory" in this sense can be just about anything, from a simple guess to a detailed mathematical model with lots of ramifications. So I don't see that much is gained by making this observation.
No, they're not. They just don't allow you to make predictions without a model. But you don't need to agree on a theoretical model to agree that, for example, Michelson and Morley had a particular experimental setup and procedure and recorded particular numbers when they ran the experiment.
> You always have to have a theory in order to predict the future based on facts and then have experiments to verify the predictions.
A "theory" in this sense can be just about anything, from a simple guess to a detailed mathematical model with lots of ramifications. So I don't see that much is gained by making this observation.
Allow me to clarify: facts are meaningless in the literal sense that facts are devoid of meaning without interpretation. When you say facts be confirmed by experiments, the very confirmation already presupposes the existence of criteria by which you prove or disprove facts. Those criteria are precisely what constitutes theories.
Now back to the original question, it's true you can establish facts through experiments, but since facts are always mediated by theories, it's not very useful to discuss how one deals with purely raw facts and more useful to discuss how one approaches truth from mediated facts. I think OP meant facts in this sense.
Now back to the original question, it's true you can establish facts through experiments, but since facts are always mediated by theories, it's not very useful to discuss how one deals with purely raw facts and more useful to discuss how one approaches truth from mediated facts. I think OP meant facts in this sense.
> When you say facts be confirmed by experiments
I didn't say facts are confirmed by experiments. Facts are the experimental setup and results: what was done and what happened. Nothing has to be "confirmed"; the facts just are.
Theoretical models can be confirmed by experiments, but models are not facts. You appear to have the same confusion about this that MatrixMan has.
I didn't say facts are confirmed by experiments. Facts are the experimental setup and results: what was done and what happened. Nothing has to be "confirmed"; the facts just are.
Theoretical models can be confirmed by experiments, but models are not facts. You appear to have the same confusion about this that MatrixMan has.
> reality is the authority
Suppose you have two theories, and you run an experiment whose results produce two assertions, each couched in the language of their respective theories, (I'd call these assertions facts). You say that reality is the authority on whether the two assertions represent the same underlying fact or different underlying facts, but it's not like there's some oracle that I can consult in the matter. So how does using reality as an authority help me individuate these facts?
And if it doesn't, then of what use is the idea that facts don't change when theories change, (except perhaps as a political too towards the discrediting of new ideas).
> The facts are the particular experimental apparatus Michelson and Morley used and the particular numbers they recorded when they made their measurements.
So you've got a bunch of mirrors and a pattern of light, and then later in the day you have the same pattern of light. That's not facts, that's just phenomena. Facts are supposed to convince me of something, and they work because they take advantage of my having already accepted the theory that supports them.
I have to suspect that anybody who presents me "facts" that don't have this quality has something to gain by distracting from their unwillingness to argue for the superiority of the their theory.
(Debate antics aside, thanks for the conversation. I've been having fun.)
Also, I think you missed my point about the trains. The statement that nobody bothered relativize until Einstein was equivalent to this:
> A train moves at 10 mph and a bullet fired from a window in the direction of the train's motion moves at 10000 mph. The speed of the bullet as measured by an observer standing beside the track is 10010 mph.
It was initially poor style to relativize this fact because its supporting theory had no competitors. It was only when Einstein proposed that simple addition was insufficient that relativizing it made sense.
As for models, I've done a bit of model theory in geometry, and I've also studied models in physics (such as the Schrodinger model of the atom), but these don't resemble a pile of mirrors and a pattern of light--they're just the sort of thing theories are made of. If I'm missing some other sort of model, please let me know.
As near as I can tell, a fact is some correspondence between a model (which lives in a theory) and some phenomenon (which lives in reality). As such, facts without corresponding theories are nonsensical.
Suppose you have two theories, and you run an experiment whose results produce two assertions, each couched in the language of their respective theories, (I'd call these assertions facts). You say that reality is the authority on whether the two assertions represent the same underlying fact or different underlying facts, but it's not like there's some oracle that I can consult in the matter. So how does using reality as an authority help me individuate these facts?
And if it doesn't, then of what use is the idea that facts don't change when theories change, (except perhaps as a political too towards the discrediting of new ideas).
> The facts are the particular experimental apparatus Michelson and Morley used and the particular numbers they recorded when they made their measurements.
So you've got a bunch of mirrors and a pattern of light, and then later in the day you have the same pattern of light. That's not facts, that's just phenomena. Facts are supposed to convince me of something, and they work because they take advantage of my having already accepted the theory that supports them.
I have to suspect that anybody who presents me "facts" that don't have this quality has something to gain by distracting from their unwillingness to argue for the superiority of the their theory.
(Debate antics aside, thanks for the conversation. I've been having fun.)
Also, I think you missed my point about the trains. The statement that nobody bothered relativize until Einstein was equivalent to this:
> A train moves at 10 mph and a bullet fired from a window in the direction of the train's motion moves at 10000 mph. The speed of the bullet as measured by an observer standing beside the track is 10010 mph.
It was initially poor style to relativize this fact because its supporting theory had no competitors. It was only when Einstein proposed that simple addition was insufficient that relativizing it made sense.
As for models, I've done a bit of model theory in geometry, and I've also studied models in physics (such as the Schrodinger model of the atom), but these don't resemble a pile of mirrors and a pattern of light--they're just the sort of thing theories are made of. If I'm missing some other sort of model, please let me know.
As near as I can tell, a fact is some correspondence between a model (which lives in a theory) and some phenomenon (which lives in reality). As such, facts without corresponding theories are nonsensical.
> Suppose you have two theories, and you run an experiment whose results produce two assertions, each couched in the language of their respective theories, (I'd call these assertions facts).
I wouldn't. An experiment will produce one set of "assertions", about what was done and what happened. Those are facts.
Different theories might add different "assertions" on top of that, but that doesn't change what was done and what happened in the experiment, and the theoretical "assertions" aren't facts. They're theories.
> So you've got a bunch of mirrors and a pattern of light, and then later in the day you have the same pattern of light. That's not facts, that's just phenomena.
No, they're facts. What you are calling "phenomena" are facts. At least, I call them facts.
> a fact is some correspondence between a model (which lives in a theory) and some phenomenon (which lives in reality).
No, I would not call that a fact. The phenomenon is the fact. The correspondence is a successful test of the model.
To go all the way back to what I quoted from you to start this subthread: the question you asked was "which facts to use?" And my answer was "the ones that are confirmed by experiments". Now that I see what you meant by "facts", I think the way you should have phrased your question is simply "which theoretical models to use?" And the answer is still "the ones that are confirmed by experiments", but with the added note that "confirmed by experiments" means "confirmed as correctly describing the facts".
I wouldn't. An experiment will produce one set of "assertions", about what was done and what happened. Those are facts.
Different theories might add different "assertions" on top of that, but that doesn't change what was done and what happened in the experiment, and the theoretical "assertions" aren't facts. They're theories.
> So you've got a bunch of mirrors and a pattern of light, and then later in the day you have the same pattern of light. That's not facts, that's just phenomena.
No, they're facts. What you are calling "phenomena" are facts. At least, I call them facts.
> a fact is some correspondence between a model (which lives in a theory) and some phenomenon (which lives in reality).
No, I would not call that a fact. The phenomenon is the fact. The correspondence is a successful test of the model.
To go all the way back to what I quoted from you to start this subthread: the question you asked was "which facts to use?" And my answer was "the ones that are confirmed by experiments". Now that I see what you meant by "facts", I think the way you should have phrased your question is simply "which theoretical models to use?" And the answer is still "the ones that are confirmed by experiments", but with the added note that "confirmed by experiments" means "confirmed as correctly describing the facts".
If we water down the label "fact" so that it represents mere sense data--just the perception of an interferometer's output that happens to not vary based on time or orientation--then what good are facts anyway?
For them to be useful, they need to be in some way convincing, don't they?
For them to be useful, they need to be in some way convincing, don't they?
> If we water down the label "fact" so that it represents mere sense data
Not just sense data, but the records of sense data: the records of what was done and what happened during the experiment. Those records make it possible for other people besides the experimenters to know what was done and what happened. Without that the facts would be useless because only the experimenters themselves would ever know them.
Not just sense data, but the records of sense data: the records of what was done and what happened during the experiment. Those records make it possible for other people besides the experimenters to know what was done and what happened. Without that the facts would be useless because only the experimenters themselves would ever know them.
> It was initially poor style to relativize this fact
You're confusing facts with models again. The statement you give is not a fact: it's a prediction based on a theoretical model. Einstein proposed a different theoretical model, which we now know makes more accurate predictions. But no facts changed during this process. Thinking that switching models changed the facts is like thinking that switching from a less accurate map of a city to a more accurate map changes the layout of the streets in the actual city.
You're confusing facts with models again. The statement you give is not a fact: it's a prediction based on a theoretical model. Einstein proposed a different theoretical model, which we now know makes more accurate predictions. But no facts changed during this process. Thinking that switching models changed the facts is like thinking that switching from a less accurate map of a city to a more accurate map changes the layout of the streets in the actual city.
So the city has a layout, independent of me, and that layout is, as you say, a fact.
In order to recognize a particular patch of ground as a street, and not--say--an oddly shaped rock, I must recognize that it goes somewhere, so even though the facts are authoritative, I can only view them through their correspondence with a model (which is in this case, a map--either on paper or in my mind). Building that correspondence constitutes a successful test of the model.
So my belief about the best route to take to work is determined by my model which is more or less correct based on its correspondence with these facts.
Am I using the words your way now?
And if so, would you agree that "points A and B are 1 mile apart" is an example of a fact--or at least is a model that seems likely to be confirmed by contact with a fact?
In order to recognize a particular patch of ground as a street, and not--say--an oddly shaped rock, I must recognize that it goes somewhere, so even though the facts are authoritative, I can only view them through their correspondence with a model (which is in this case, a map--either on paper or in my mind). Building that correspondence constitutes a successful test of the model.
So my belief about the best route to take to work is determined by my model which is more or less correct based on its correspondence with these facts.
Am I using the words your way now?
And if so, would you agree that "points A and B are 1 mile apart" is an example of a fact--or at least is a model that seems likely to be confirmed by contact with a fact?
Ok, so I'm trying to get my head around what you mean by a fact. You've said:
> Michelson and Morley had a particular experimental setup and procedure and recorded particular numbers when they ran the experiment.
I believe that the facts you're referring to must be on page 685 of this document:
http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/MorleyMiller1905.pdf
Can sense be made of it without first embracing the theory, for example, which indicates that light is made up of waves?
> Michelson and Morley had a particular experimental setup and procedure and recorded particular numbers when they ran the experiment.
I believe that the facts you're referring to must be on page 685 of this document:
http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/MorleyMiller1905.pdf
Can sense be made of it without first embracing the theory, for example, which indicates that light is made up of waves?
> I believe that the facts you're referring to must be on page 685 of this document
The azimuths and wavelengths at the top of that page are facts, yes. Also, the description on the preceding pages of how the experiment was conducted contains plenty of facts.
The rest of p. 685 after the azimuths and wavelengths is all interpretation using a theoretical model.
The azimuths and wavelengths at the top of that page are facts, yes. Also, the description on the preceding pages of how the experiment was conducted contains plenty of facts.
The rest of p. 685 after the azimuths and wavelengths is all interpretation using a theoretical model.
I would call the first half of the page facts of optics, and the second half of the page facts of aether flow theory. The former are only true if you already accept some theory with sufficient machinery to map the device readout to a number corresponding with the concept 'wavelength'. And the latter are only true if you accept both optics and the aether theory that was popular at the time.
I see that you're trying to get something to stand on, some objective and unchanging reality to hold constant while new theories come and go--and I don't deny you its existence, but I don't see how statements about it can be encoded without making reference the theories in use by the experimenter.
Suppose that later these results need to be translated into the language of a new theory in order for them to be communicated with future generations (who may not know what a wavelength is). Once translated, would they not be new facts, made of new words and new numbers and true in a new theory?
There are alternatives, but they seem awfully problematic to me.
I see that you're trying to get something to stand on, some objective and unchanging reality to hold constant while new theories come and go--and I don't deny you its existence, but I don't see how statements about it can be encoded without making reference the theories in use by the experimenter.
Suppose that later these results need to be translated into the language of a new theory in order for them to be communicated with future generations (who may not know what a wavelength is). Once translated, would they not be new facts, made of new words and new numbers and true in a new theory?
There are alternatives, but they seem awfully problematic to me.
> I would call the first half of the page facts of optics, and the second half of the page facts of aether flow theory.
There is no such thing as "facts of a theory". Theories are not facts. I don't understand why you persist in talking about these two different things as if they were the same.
> I don't see how statements about it can be encoded without making reference the theories in use by the experimenter.
Huh? The portions I already referred to as giving facts do just that. You don't have to have any particular theory to understand what those portions are describing. What's the problem?
> Suppose that later these results need to be translated into the language of a new theory in order for them to be communicated with future generations (who may not know what a wavelength is).
The word "wavelength" doesn't occur anywhere in the description of how the experimental apparatus was set up, how the observations were made, and what the observations were (as opposed to theoretical model-based descriptions).
I think you're making this a lot harder than it needs to be by refusing to distinguish between factual descriptions of an experiment and theoretical interpretations of the results.
There is no such thing as "facts of a theory". Theories are not facts. I don't understand why you persist in talking about these two different things as if they were the same.
> I don't see how statements about it can be encoded without making reference the theories in use by the experimenter.
Huh? The portions I already referred to as giving facts do just that. You don't have to have any particular theory to understand what those portions are describing. What's the problem?
> Suppose that later these results need to be translated into the language of a new theory in order for them to be communicated with future generations (who may not know what a wavelength is).
The word "wavelength" doesn't occur anywhere in the description of how the experimental apparatus was set up, how the observations were made, and what the observations were (as opposed to theoretical model-based descriptions).
I think you're making this a lot harder than it needs to be by refusing to distinguish between factual descriptions of an experiment and theoretical interpretations of the results.
Really science shouldn't operate on authority in the first place ideally - it should speak for itself. In practice however there are limits to both time and ability to understand. It should be listened to for being more right as opposed to position.
The most disturbing part isn't not trusting scientist but not trusting evidence, even that gathered by themselves.
It is one thing to say believe light has infinite speed but after playing around with a laser and a receiver noticing the reflection time varies. It is another to insist it has it even after doing research and experimentation.
I suspect Sophism is the main culprit really - arguing based on feelings as opposed to facts. Now feelings have their place but their role is to guide goals. Not wanting to take another part time job on top of a full time one for more money is fair. Denying that taking an extra job would boost total income is delusionals (the sustainability of doing so is another topic).
The most disturbing part isn't not trusting scientist but not trusting evidence, even that gathered by themselves.
It is one thing to say believe light has infinite speed but after playing around with a laser and a receiver noticing the reflection time varies. It is another to insist it has it even after doing research and experimentation.
I suspect Sophism is the main culprit really - arguing based on feelings as opposed to facts. Now feelings have their place but their role is to guide goals. Not wanting to take another part time job on top of a full time one for more money is fair. Denying that taking an extra job would boost total income is delusionals (the sustainability of doing so is another topic).
> In practice however there are limits to both time and ability to understand.
It does seem that for some big ticket items like global warming the way to go would be have an open sourced app people can download and play with the simulations themselves.
The scientists working on this stuff do make efforts to put this material together in a comprehensible form, so it's all out there. But it's very hard to trace anything back to the original data, and it seems like we're getting to the point where enough tools to do this are becoming ubiquitous.
> I suspect Sophism is the main culprit really - arguing based on feelings as opposed to facts.
I think that's very much our default behavior. When I've seen policy discussions it seems overwhelmingly that people look at it through a personal lens, and then they've set themselves up so criticism of their position is criticism of them. And then it's bloody difficult to deescalate without seeming condescending.
It does seem that for some big ticket items like global warming the way to go would be have an open sourced app people can download and play with the simulations themselves.
The scientists working on this stuff do make efforts to put this material together in a comprehensible form, so it's all out there. But it's very hard to trace anything back to the original data, and it seems like we're getting to the point where enough tools to do this are becoming ubiquitous.
> I suspect Sophism is the main culprit really - arguing based on feelings as opposed to facts.
I think that's very much our default behavior. When I've seen policy discussions it seems overwhelmingly that people look at it through a personal lens, and then they've set themselves up so criticism of their position is criticism of them. And then it's bloody difficult to deescalate without seeming condescending.
> It does seem that for some big ticket items like global warming the way to go would be have an open sourced app people can download and play with the simulations themselves.
It all depends on who writes the simulation. Tweak a few parameters and you have a balmy, lush green paradise in the Midwest without any winter snow.
It all depends on who writes the simulation. Tweak a few parameters and you have a balmy, lush green paradise in the Midwest without any winter snow.
The opening paragraphs of this article are just another example of what appears to be an ongoing attempt to manufacture conflict between "religion" and "science". The books that were burned at Ephesus were explicitly identified in Acts 19:19 as sorcery books, not "books of nature". Stuff like this gets published in Nature and people wonder why "science" is losing its credibility?
Oh, well, as long as it was sorcery. Burning those books is a completely normal thing for completely normal people to do.
Have you... read the passage, or done the slightest research into the historical context in which it was set?
Have you? Did you read the article? What in god's name is phd514 arguing with?
No where in the damn fine article is the phrase "books of nature" mentioned. The article is describing the context in which modern scientific thought gained currency among the educated and the powerful, both in 17th century Europe and the 19th century Ottoman Empire, how that authority waned in the mid-20th century and today, and how we can work to use those historical examples to "break the whack-a-mole" machine rather than playing whack-a-mole with vaccine deniers, flat-earthers, and so forth.
Here is the context from the fine article the poster is upset with:
"Hanging in the Louvre Museum in Paris is an imposing painting, The Preaching of St Paul at Ephesus. In this 1649 work by Eustache Le Sueur, the fiery apostle lifts his right hand as if scolding the audience, while clutching a book of scripture in his left. Among the rapt or fearful listeners are people busily throwing books into a fire. Look carefully, and you see geometric images on some of the pages."
In the context of 1649, a painting that depicted the burning of geometry books had a very particular meaning. However, instead of noticing that the discussion is focused on Le Suer's painting, phd413 decided that his religion was being attacked.
Does this context make phd514's comment make any more sense? If not, in what context does it make sense?
The only context that I can see is that of a religious person who didn't read the fine article before getting upset and commenting.
As an aside, so what if the bible says those books were full of sorcery? So what if they were? I don't reckon at any time that burning books has been a considered a great idea by people who read, you know, books. (I might make an exception if you found an authentic functional Necronomicon.)
No where in the damn fine article is the phrase "books of nature" mentioned. The article is describing the context in which modern scientific thought gained currency among the educated and the powerful, both in 17th century Europe and the 19th century Ottoman Empire, how that authority waned in the mid-20th century and today, and how we can work to use those historical examples to "break the whack-a-mole" machine rather than playing whack-a-mole with vaccine deniers, flat-earthers, and so forth.
Here is the context from the fine article the poster is upset with:
"Hanging in the Louvre Museum in Paris is an imposing painting, The Preaching of St Paul at Ephesus. In this 1649 work by Eustache Le Sueur, the fiery apostle lifts his right hand as if scolding the audience, while clutching a book of scripture in his left. Among the rapt or fearful listeners are people busily throwing books into a fire. Look carefully, and you see geometric images on some of the pages."
In the context of 1649, a painting that depicted the burning of geometry books had a very particular meaning. However, instead of noticing that the discussion is focused on Le Suer's painting, phd413 decided that his religion was being attacked.
Does this context make phd514's comment make any more sense? If not, in what context does it make sense?
The only context that I can see is that of a religious person who didn't read the fine article before getting upset and commenting.
As an aside, so what if the bible says those books were full of sorcery? So what if they were? I don't reckon at any time that burning books has been a considered a great idea by people who read, you know, books. (I might make an exception if you found an authentic functional Necronomicon.)
It's not at all clear that the books contain "geometry" per se in the painting. I can't find a source either way but if you've ever seen alchemical or astrological figures they could be mistaken for math.
The people were destroying their own books after hearing a new way of looking at the world. How different is this from some kid throwing away his Joel Osteen book after taking a philosophy class? But I agree that this was impulsive and they should have given them away instead of destroying them.
phd514 makes a valid point: this article needlessly provokes conflict between science and religion, even saying with concern that "St Paul is making a comeback", the horror, as if encouraging people to burn books and "reject science" is his main work in history.
The people were destroying their own books after hearing a new way of looking at the world. How different is this from some kid throwing away his Joel Osteen book after taking a philosophy class? But I agree that this was impulsive and they should have given them away instead of destroying them.
phd514 makes a valid point: this article needlessly provokes conflict between science and religion, even saying with concern that "St Paul is making a comeback", the horror, as if encouraging people to burn books and "reject science" is his main work in history.
Replying here since we ran out of room down below:
Compared to this Nature article, Ataturk was very direct. Read these quotes that I found using 3 seconds of difficult googling, and then decide on what side of the debate he would land.
"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men" [1]
"It is known by the world that, in our state administration, our main program is the Republican People's Party program. The principles it covers are the main lines that illuminate us in management and politics. But these principles should never be held equal to the dogmas of books that are assumed to have descended from the sky. We have received our inspirations directly from life, not from sky or unseen." [2]
--------------------------
[1] Quoted in Atatürk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey, by Andrew Mango; "In a book published in 1928, Grace Ellison quotes [Atatürk], presumably in 1926-27", Grace Ellison Turkey Today (London: Hutchinson, 1928)
[2] Atatürk'ün Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi'nin V. Dönem 3. Yasama Yılını Açış Konuşmaları (in Turkish). "... Dünyaca bilinmektedir ki, bizim devlet yönetimimizdeki ana programımız, Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi programıdır. Bunun kapsadığı prensipler, yönetimde ve politikada bizi aydınlatıcı ana çizgilerdir. Fakat bu prensipleri, gökten indiği sanılan kitapların doğmalarıyla asla bir tutmamalıdır. Biz, ilhamlarımızı, gökten ve gaipten değil, doğrudan doğruya yaşamdan almış bulunuyoruz."
Compared to this Nature article, Ataturk was very direct. Read these quotes that I found using 3 seconds of difficult googling, and then decide on what side of the debate he would land.
"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men" [1]
"It is known by the world that, in our state administration, our main program is the Republican People's Party program. The principles it covers are the main lines that illuminate us in management and politics. But these principles should never be held equal to the dogmas of books that are assumed to have descended from the sky. We have received our inspirations directly from life, not from sky or unseen." [2]
--------------------------
[1] Quoted in Atatürk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey, by Andrew Mango; "In a book published in 1928, Grace Ellison quotes [Atatürk], presumably in 1926-27", Grace Ellison Turkey Today (London: Hutchinson, 1928)
[2] Atatürk'ün Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi'nin V. Dönem 3. Yasama Yılını Açış Konuşmaları (in Turkish). "... Dünyaca bilinmektedir ki, bizim devlet yönetimimizdeki ana programımız, Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi programıdır. Bunun kapsadığı prensipler, yönetimde ve politikada bizi aydınlatıcı ana çizgilerdir. Fakat bu prensipleri, gökten indiği sanılan kitapların doğmalarıyla asla bir tutmamalıdır. Biz, ilhamlarımızı, gökten ve gaipten değil, doğrudan doğruya yaşamdan almış bulunuyoruz."
This is fair, and not inconsistent with other public speeches I've found, which mention the failures of "Pan-Islamism" and spurn the idea of a caliphate. So I think I was off base about Ataturk. He was also a hardcore nationalist by any modern standard, which helps a lot when trying to get people in a nation to do stuff. I still think that, in the US at least, sneering at religion or defining it against science is a terrible way to further science.
There are really 2 types of "religious" people in the US [1], the "USA #1 + God" group, and the "church every week" type. These need to be approached a bit differently, I think. The first group's opinions really fall into the existing political polarization issues more than any explicitly faith-based concern. In both cases, understanding and using the groups' language would help a lot to communicate science.
[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/29/religious-ty...
There are really 2 types of "religious" people in the US [1], the "USA #1 + God" group, and the "church every week" type. These need to be approached a bit differently, I think. The first group's opinions really fall into the existing political polarization issues more than any explicitly faith-based concern. In both cases, understanding and using the groups' language would help a lot to communicate science.
[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/29/religious-ty...
That wasn't phd514's point at all. It's clear he didn't bother to read the article. (lol, look at me, I'm upset people didn't read the article before commenting. I'm turning into such an old fart. Maybe I should load up my newsreader and post about cats. Also, you should look up what Pythagoras believed. Whew!)
Now, if you're making an entirely separate argument that the author went out of his way hurt people's feelings and "provoke conflict," that's another story.
I don't think that's the case, but maybe I've got a tin ear for that sort of thing these days. I'm not persuaded.
Let's say that, hey, maybe he did. My response is, "So, what?"
The target audience for this article or this book isn't the sort of person who is going to get their feelings hurt by suggesting that the St. Paul depicted in the painting (which had its own context, the 17th century European context, which is the context described by the article). The target audience of this book is the set of people who commonly think, "Gee, I wish I could convince lots more folks that global warming is real before large swaths of the world become uninhabitable by multi-cellular animal life."
Frankly, the kind of person who would let this up their nose is probably not going to be persuaded by anything we have to say, anyway.
Now, if you're making an entirely separate argument that the author went out of his way hurt people's feelings and "provoke conflict," that's another story.
I don't think that's the case, but maybe I've got a tin ear for that sort of thing these days. I'm not persuaded.
Let's say that, hey, maybe he did. My response is, "So, what?"
The target audience for this article or this book isn't the sort of person who is going to get their feelings hurt by suggesting that the St. Paul depicted in the painting (which had its own context, the 17th century European context, which is the context described by the article). The target audience of this book is the set of people who commonly think, "Gee, I wish I could convince lots more folks that global warming is real before large swaths of the world become uninhabitable by multi-cellular animal life."
Frankly, the kind of person who would let this up their nose is probably not going to be persuaded by anything we have to say, anyway.
It matters because there is a large overlap between the people who need to pay more attention to science and religious people (by both his and my estimate). So needlessly dragging a religious figure completely works against what he's trying to accomplish.
He brings up Ataturk; imagine how Ataturk's modernization plan would have worked if he went out of his way to rail against the prophet Mohammed's perceived science denial.
He brings up Ataturk; imagine how Ataturk's modernization plan would have worked if he went out of his way to rail against the prophet Mohammed's perceived science denial.
As an aside...
"...how that authority [of scientific thought] waned in the mid-20th century and today..."
The high point of the authority of science in the United States was probably between ~1950, after Sputnik, and ~1980, say before Reagan's "Star Wars" proposal. Certainly, the descent had started by the early '90s, when a scientist went before a congressional committee and couldn't find anything more useful to say about the SSC project than "the God particle".
The latter brings up a good point: the authority of science would probably be more respected if scientists didn't spend so much time fighting each other.
"...how that authority [of scientific thought] waned in the mid-20th century and today..."
The high point of the authority of science in the United States was probably between ~1950, after Sputnik, and ~1980, say before Reagan's "Star Wars" proposal. Certainly, the descent had started by the early '90s, when a scientist went before a congressional committee and couldn't find anything more useful to say about the SSC project than "the God particle".
The latter brings up a good point: the authority of science would probably be more respected if scientists didn't spend so much time fighting each other.
It had some trouble in mid 20th century Germany, which is what I gather the article was hinting at during its discussion of Hannah Arendt.
I don't understand why Nature has decided to dilute its brand by posting these poorly researched, non-peer reviewed blogs.
Nature has had book previews and book reviews for as long as I've been subscribed.
Regarding the article being poorly researched, maybe you have a particular part that you felt was wrong? I'd hope that the author wouldn't need to research his new book before writing about it.
I have no idea how an author would submit a book preview for peer review.
Regarding the article being poorly researched, maybe you have a particular part that you felt was wrong? I'd hope that the author wouldn't need to research his new book before writing about it.
I have no idea how an author would submit a book preview for peer review.
> Galileo lived in an era that knew two principal sources of authority:
For a counterpoint: Galileo went to prison for his convictions. Do scientists nowadays project the same force of argument and power of will? There is widespread distrust from scientists themselves about a lot of the science being published. Most sciences leech off credibility from the success of physics. But credibility ranges from "most findings being published are likely false", to being unable to reproduce, to liberal arts where "everything goes". When scientists can't be even arsed to publish their preprints on a public repository, are they willing to stand by their science like galileo, and is it a surprise that laymen have started having their doubts? Also, I follow a bunch of scientists of my field on twitter and half their tweets are political. Perhaps if some scientists were not so overly political, the public would not respond in kind.
> The authority of science rested on people, not on tools or methods or charts and data.
But Mustafa Kemal was a military general, and it was the military that took it upon them to guard the secular state in Turkey, up to this day (last coup was 2 years ago). It's not easy for science to win over people. it takes work
For a counterpoint: Galileo went to prison for his convictions. Do scientists nowadays project the same force of argument and power of will? There is widespread distrust from scientists themselves about a lot of the science being published. Most sciences leech off credibility from the success of physics. But credibility ranges from "most findings being published are likely false", to being unable to reproduce, to liberal arts where "everything goes". When scientists can't be even arsed to publish their preprints on a public repository, are they willing to stand by their science like galileo, and is it a surprise that laymen have started having their doubts? Also, I follow a bunch of scientists of my field on twitter and half their tweets are political. Perhaps if some scientists were not so overly political, the public would not respond in kind.
> The authority of science rested on people, not on tools or methods or charts and data.
But Mustafa Kemal was a military general, and it was the military that took it upon them to guard the secular state in Turkey, up to this day (last coup was 2 years ago). It's not easy for science to win over people. it takes work
There is now a general crisis of authority. Just recently I have learned one peculiar theory (from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mmlmxamw_k&fbclid=IwAR3A42D...). Some moon landing photos (and maybe films) are really fake. There are people who believe that this is a proof that the whole moon landing was just staged - it is kind of natural to think like that, but a more probable theory is that it just proofs that a press officer did not have good material and just used what was available. Traditional media are kind of not very strict with this - I even have some personal experience about that, but people have much more romantic view on it and treat each photo or other material as fact and true. With the internet we have more to reconcile. I don't think this is bad - maybe media just needs to change. With some time we'll adapt.
It is similar case with science, maybe it is not that perfect as we used to view it. It is very good at where the incentives are well aligned - but they are not always 'adequate': https://equilibriabook.com/inadequacy-and-modesty/
It is similar case with science, maybe it is not that perfect as we used to view it. It is very good at where the incentives are well aligned - but they are not always 'adequate': https://equilibriabook.com/inadequacy-and-modesty/
There are two dangers. One is the rejection of the power of science and the understanding it gives us of various kinds of natural phenomena. The other the over-extension of science into areas outside of its domain, the belief that science itself can single-handedly guide politics, history, and the self.
A bigger problem is when and how to rely on "subject experts". My car mechanic knows far more about cars than I do, but he/she may also be biased into recommending unnecessary costly repairs to line her/her pocket.
Climate change skeptics often question the financial motivation of climatologists. It's certainly something to consider, but they rarely propose alternatives.
For example, a committee could be set up to investigate climate change science. The members would be already-retired volunteers from non-climate STEM disciplines who get the same stipend regardless of their findings, and are not permitted to receive money for books or speeches on the subject afterward. Their background would have to be mostly apolitical, meaning any political opinions in the public record are fleeting and incidental. The selection process would be similar to jury duty.
Climate change skeptics often question the financial motivation of climatologists. It's certainly something to consider, but they rarely propose alternatives.
For example, a committee could be set up to investigate climate change science. The members would be already-retired volunteers from non-climate STEM disciplines who get the same stipend regardless of their findings, and are not permitted to receive money for books or speeches on the subject afterward. Their background would have to be mostly apolitical, meaning any political opinions in the public record are fleeting and incidental. The selection process would be similar to jury duty.
> Climate change skeptics often question the financial motivation of climatologists. It's certainly something to consider, but they rarely propose alternatives.
I don't think this argument is being made in good faith.
More importantly, it's kind of absurd on face. Science pays horribly. See: literally any thread on HN about PhD programs. See also: levels.fyi vs. the starting salary for asst. profs at your local state university branch campus.
Whenever someone makes this argument, I show them a picture of the apartment I lived in during grad school and then point out that even the "winners" of the rat race who get professorships can leave academia and double their income over night.
I don't think this argument is being made in good faith.
More importantly, it's kind of absurd on face. Science pays horribly. See: literally any thread on HN about PhD programs. See also: levels.fyi vs. the starting salary for asst. profs at your local state university branch campus.
Whenever someone makes this argument, I show them a picture of the apartment I lived in during grad school and then point out that even the "winners" of the rat race who get professorships can leave academia and double their income over night.
The fact they are not paid well may be used as more evidence they are "bribe-able". I'm not saying they have been bribed, only that low pay cannot be reliable used as evidence either way.
It'd not just that they are not paid well. It's the fact that they have very explicitly and consistently chosen science over money. If they wanted money, they could switch jobs tomorrow and have more money (and more free time).
Climate researchers mostly have tenure. They cannot be fired for going against majority opinion. And in most countries except the US, they do not rely on outside funding to any significant degree.
So participating in a giant fraud would actually be the most dangerous option for them, financially. Instead, they could expose it and, if convincing, would at the very least make a lot of money on book deals and the lecture circuit. Maybe even a Nobel.
Alternatively, they could switch their focus. With a solid foundation in physics, dynamic systems, etc. there are any number of topics they could easily work on.
So participating in a giant fraud would actually be the most dangerous option for them, financially. Instead, they could expose it and, if convincing, would at the very least make a lot of money on book deals and the lecture circuit. Maybe even a Nobel.
Alternatively, they could switch their focus. With a solid foundation in physics, dynamic systems, etc. there are any number of topics they could easily work on.
I agree with you, but that's not enough to convince roughly 40% of the country who think the results stem from financial influence.
Thus, I'd like to ask that 40%: what kind of commission or study technique would you be satisfied with?
Thus, I'd like to ask that 40%: what kind of commission or study technique would you be satisfied with?
The title says it all: the author thinks science is supposed to be an "authority". That way of thinking about science is precisely what has to stop.
But that's not what the article says.
> that's not what the article says.
Meaning, the article doesn't say science is supposed to be an authority? Let's see:
"It is tempting to think that scientific authority is natural and will soon reassert itself like a sturdy self-righting boat knocked over by a rogue wave. The ugly truth is that science is more like Facebook, whose positive features are also vulnerabilities. Precisely because it allows us to connect and share, Facebook creates opportunities for misuse. Similarly, science is an exemplary form of enquiry because it is technical, fallible, done in communities and able to reshape our values. But these very features allow detractors to reject the authority even of eminent experts."
Sure sounds to me like the author thinks science should be an authority.
"Early proponents of the authority of science had to understand the machine and develop countermeasures. Galileo, a rhetorical bulldozer, was a master at it. When his enemies appealed to theology, he went right back at them by citing their own authorities in neat ripostes, such as “The Bible tells us the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go!” This strategy is harder in today’s world."
In other words, bullshit arguments from authority are harder to make today than they were in Galileo's time. And the author thinks this is a problem.
Meaning, the article doesn't say science is supposed to be an authority? Let's see:
"It is tempting to think that scientific authority is natural and will soon reassert itself like a sturdy self-righting boat knocked over by a rogue wave. The ugly truth is that science is more like Facebook, whose positive features are also vulnerabilities. Precisely because it allows us to connect and share, Facebook creates opportunities for misuse. Similarly, science is an exemplary form of enquiry because it is technical, fallible, done in communities and able to reshape our values. But these very features allow detractors to reject the authority even of eminent experts."
Sure sounds to me like the author thinks science should be an authority.
"Early proponents of the authority of science had to understand the machine and develop countermeasures. Galileo, a rhetorical bulldozer, was a master at it. When his enemies appealed to theology, he went right back at them by citing their own authorities in neat ripostes, such as “The Bible tells us the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go!” This strategy is harder in today’s world."
In other words, bullshit arguments from authority are harder to make today than they were in Galileo's time. And the author thinks this is a problem.
Words have multiple meanings. What you are doing is dishonest strawmanning by conflating multiple meanings of the word "authority."
> What you are doing is dishonest strawmanning by conflating multiple meanings of the word "authority."
No, what I am doing is giving meaning to the word "authority" according to how the author actually uses it.
No, what I am doing is giving meaning to the word "authority" according to how the author actually uses it.
Maybe nature should first take responsibility for their own role in discrediting science before asking others to do so, and stop publishing articles on discredited takes on complex problems such as the gender pay gap [1].
There is no excuse for a scientific magazine to publish articles with methodology that has been shown to misrepresent the problem at hand so many times. It certainly doesn’t help people’s trust in science when they do so.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04309-8
There is no excuse for a scientific magazine to publish articles with methodology that has been shown to misrepresent the problem at hand so many times. It certainly doesn’t help people’s trust in science when they do so.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04309-8
> Contemporary science deniers have not one (religious) motive, but many — greed, fear, bias, convenience, profits, politics — to which they cling with various degrees of sincerity and cynicism.
While doubtless describing many, this is a straw man when it comes to broad mistrust of scientific expertise. Issues like psychology's replication crisis and the continuously flip flopping advocate-science in areas like nutrition make people justly suspicious of the scientific establishment, regardless of how they would feel about an ideal scientific process.
While doubtless describing many, this is a straw man when it comes to broad mistrust of scientific expertise. Issues like psychology's replication crisis and the continuously flip flopping advocate-science in areas like nutrition make people justly suspicious of the scientific establishment, regardless of how they would feel about an ideal scientific process.
Adding to the comments of science politicisation, I also believe that the "popularisation" of science has taken a significant blow to its public perception.
Take all "I f-g love science"-like websites that portray research as people spending public money on if chocolate makes you better at sex.
Take all "I f-g love science"-like websites that portray research as people spending public money on if chocolate makes you better at sex.
I've been thinking about this piece all day and I can finally articulate what my problem is with it.
Science is the rejection of authority in the 'authorial' sense of the word. Pre-scientific thinking relied almost entirely on authorities to determine what was right or true. Science is thus the rejection of the notion that an authority of any kind is a substitute for evidence.
Scientific knowledge, when presented as an authority is thus just as abhorrent as text from any other authority. We scientists trust it because we often have no other choice, but also because over decades of training we have all done the labs to actually see these principles operate first hand. Thus we accept the principles based on our own experience of them.
I hate to say it, but if someone hasn't had at least some exposure to a laboratory setting of some kind, or experimentation of some kind, then the fact that scientific knowledge is "right" is completely lost on them, and it is indistinguishable from any other knowledge from authority. Belief in the scientific process might be a substitute, but at that point it is no different that belief in revealed truth -- right for the wrong reasons means failure is just as likely.
Science is the rejection of authority in the 'authorial' sense of the word. Pre-scientific thinking relied almost entirely on authorities to determine what was right or true. Science is thus the rejection of the notion that an authority of any kind is a substitute for evidence.
Scientific knowledge, when presented as an authority is thus just as abhorrent as text from any other authority. We scientists trust it because we often have no other choice, but also because over decades of training we have all done the labs to actually see these principles operate first hand. Thus we accept the principles based on our own experience of them.
I hate to say it, but if someone hasn't had at least some exposure to a laboratory setting of some kind, or experimentation of some kind, then the fact that scientific knowledge is "right" is completely lost on them, and it is indistinguishable from any other knowledge from authority. Belief in the scientific process might be a substitute, but at that point it is no different that belief in revealed truth -- right for the wrong reasons means failure is just as likely.
"Scientific authority"? Science isn't a religion, it isn't politics. Why talk of it in that manner?
There shouldn't be an appeal to "scientific authority" but rather to empirical replicable testing and theories.
Also, the basis of science is the humble admission that what we believe to be true today is only true until further testing disproves it. It's the basis of scientific theory that it is true ( not forever ) but only until future tests may show it to be false. And this is why modern science has continually progressed since there isn't an "authority" to prevent new discoveries and thoughts and ideas. It's why the current "lamarckian" epigenetic studies can happen which goes against the "darwinist orthodoxy" of biology the past 150 years.
The problem with science today is the same problem with news, media, religion, schools, etc. Politics. Somehow politics has pushed its way into every facet of our life and politics tends to ruin everything it touches.
There shouldn't be an appeal to "scientific authority" but rather to empirical replicable testing and theories.
Also, the basis of science is the humble admission that what we believe to be true today is only true until further testing disproves it. It's the basis of scientific theory that it is true ( not forever ) but only until future tests may show it to be false. And this is why modern science has continually progressed since there isn't an "authority" to prevent new discoveries and thoughts and ideas. It's why the current "lamarckian" epigenetic studies can happen which goes against the "darwinist orthodoxy" of biology the past 150 years.
The problem with science today is the same problem with news, media, religion, schools, etc. Politics. Somehow politics has pushed its way into every facet of our life and politics tends to ruin everything it touches.
"The imperial powers, especially after Sultan Abdülmecid I (1823–61), saw the cause as a lack of Western-style science. Yet could they import it, and still be faithful Muslims and patriotic citizens? The debate took place at all levels of Ottoman society, from government to popular culture, in novels, plays and even cartoons. When Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder and first president of the Turkish Republic, declared in 1924 that “the truest guide is knowledge and science”, it was the outcome of an extensive self-examination that amounted to a large-scale humanities education. The debate turned on who the Ottoman people thought they were, and who they wanted to become. The authority of science rested on people, not on tools or methods or charts and data."
And yet, is not Turkey still struggling with that same question, 100 years later?
"[Authority], [Hannah Arendt] thought, is neither innate nor automatic, and facts alone don’t have it. It is possible only thanks to institutions that create what she called public space. Without that, it is possible for people who are not personally accomplished, who pontificate in recycled stock phrases, who polarize situations and who are insatiable braggarts coveting media coverage, to acquire power and influence."
And how often have proponents of science been guilty of those same actions?
And yet, is not Turkey still struggling with that same question, 100 years later?
"[Authority], [Hannah Arendt] thought, is neither innate nor automatic, and facts alone don’t have it. It is possible only thanks to institutions that create what she called public space. Without that, it is possible for people who are not personally accomplished, who pontificate in recycled stock phrases, who polarize situations and who are insatiable braggarts coveting media coverage, to acquire power and influence."
And how often have proponents of science been guilty of those same actions?
"Without that, it is possible for people who are not personally accomplished, who pontificate in recycled stock phrases, who polarize situations and who are insatiable braggarts coveting media coverage, to acquire power and influence."
This is almost perfectly personified in the form of Bill Nye the Science Guy post-2000 or thereabouts. I also feel this applies to practically all figures in the "pop science" scene to a lesser degree. Few meet the standard of being an "insatiable braggart" but most are attention hungry and willing to abandon their stated principles in pursuit of furthering their influence.
This is almost perfectly personified in the form of Bill Nye the Science Guy post-2000 or thereabouts. I also feel this applies to practically all figures in the "pop science" scene to a lesser degree. Few meet the standard of being an "insatiable braggart" but most are attention hungry and willing to abandon their stated principles in pursuit of furthering their influence.
I dunno, whatabout you tell me?
Science became commoditized and we found out ( just like we found out with doctors ) that lots of scientific authority came from the science being behind the closed doors with People Who Know guarding the access.
And just like with basic medicine people are now saying "Show me!" and "What about this?" and the scientists are either unwilling or unable to defend their positions.
That's why the trust in science is eroding.
And just like with basic medicine people are now saying "Show me!" and "What about this?" and the scientists are either unwilling or unable to defend their positions.
That's why the trust in science is eroding.
People by large still believe in the scientific process, they just don't trust the people who claim practicing science. To an outsider it seems that these days that universities mostly concern themselves with activism and feelings and less so with facts and logic. In their claim of intellectual superiority they come off very unintellectual and people notice it.
Many of Galileo's peers were threatened by him, as they were more interested in interpreting Aristotle then investigating nature. So, they used political processes to attack him instead of engaging him in honest debate. They used authority rather than truth. The authority / government of the day in his area was the Catholic Church. Despite these attacks, Galileo remained a committed Christian, saying "God is known by nature in his works, and by doctrine in his revealed word."
Science that depends on authority for success is the kind of science that attacked Galileo. It's the kind of science that attacks people today for not caving to whatever prevailing consensus holds sway.
Science questions the status quo to see what reality really is, and is not threatened when questions are asked.
Science that depends on authority for success is the kind of science that attacked Galileo. It's the kind of science that attacks people today for not caving to whatever prevailing consensus holds sway.
Science questions the status quo to see what reality really is, and is not threatened when questions are asked.
No. People don't care about right or wrong on the abstract. As long as science is producing for them, they'll believe it. When it's not, others will attempt to penetrate the market.
Right now science is automating their jobs, nagging them about driving their cars (CO2), and generally making the world complicated. Others tell them that it's someone else's fault, and all they need is the will to attack that enemy. Science has no counterpoint to this marketing message. So why buy into a product that doesn't tell you it has a solution to your problems?
Science isn't producing, so the ever-fickle public looks for market competition.
Right now science is automating their jobs, nagging them about driving their cars (CO2), and generally making the world complicated. Others tell them that it's someone else's fault, and all they need is the will to attack that enemy. Science has no counterpoint to this marketing message. So why buy into a product that doesn't tell you it has a solution to your problems?
Science isn't producing, so the ever-fickle public looks for market competition.
Like many instruments of human thought, science can be co-opted for malevolent and exploitative purposes. The antidote is critical thinking.
How to teach one to think critically? And do so truly without bias or prejudice?
How to teach one to think critically? And do so truly without bias or prejudice?
This book is worth a read, on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Expertise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Expertise
Science by nature is constantly changing and discovering the ways in which it was wrong before, so the idea of "scientific authority" was always more or less imaginary. Furthermore, what gets presented to the public as "science" is increasingly a series of clickbaity tall tales and biased studies.
Scientific authority is dying because it's not in people's interest to take scientists as an "authority". That's not to say that the cynicism that's replacing it is better, though.
Scientific authority is dying because it's not in people's interest to take scientists as an "authority". That's not to say that the cynicism that's replacing it is better, though.
Stop giving creedance to people that can say with a straight face “the science is settled”. That would be a start. It’s the oxymoron of our times.
The earth is not flat. The science is settled.
The theory seems well supported. Unless the ‘evil demon’ of epistemology is having his way with us...
I’m not sure that’s settled.
I’m not sure that’s settled.
Replace ‘scientific authority’ and replace with any institution.
The collapse of the news (economically-classifieds, technologically-fake news from Russia, literarily-the best jobs are outside of media organizations, locality - no local news, etc.) has caused people to lose faith in every institution.
The fun is in predicting where this ends up...
Especially now that fake video news will easily be disseminated soon.
The collapse of the news (economically-classifieds, technologically-fake news from Russia, literarily-the best jobs are outside of media organizations, locality - no local news, etc.) has caused people to lose faith in every institution.
The fun is in predicting where this ends up...
Especially now that fake video news will easily be disseminated soon.
The notion of "scientific authority" is contradictory with the scientific method. The scientific method is to independently validate an idea, theory, experiment.
The scientific authority is that belief instilled to the public that there is an advantage, or a reason for doing things in a way backed by science, as opposed as doing things backed by authority.
The scientific authority is that belief instilled to the public that there is an advantage, or a reason for doing things in a way backed by science, as opposed as doing things backed by authority.
Meanwhile, at the top of reddit is this article:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/hip-hop-and-mozart...
>Scientists Played Music to Cheese as It Aged. Hip-Hop Produced the Funkiest Flavor
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/hip-hop-and-mozart...
>Scientists Played Music to Cheese as It Aged. Hip-Hop Produced the Funkiest Flavor
>TFW you visit "Hacker News" and find that the prevailing attitude is "Epistemic Helplessness."
:3
:3
No mention of the role of WW2 (and previous industrialized wars) in cementing science as something worth investing in?
The victors of WW2 were countries that invested heavily in science and technology, and they won because they invested heavily in science and technology. Radar, sonar, flight, automatic fire-control computers, industrialization, oil refining, steel, penicillin, synthetic rubber, codebreaking, nukes - it's very likely that without them, the winners of WW2 would be very different. And many of those innovations were made by scientists who ethnically were born into "the other side", but left Europe because of Hitler's persecution of academics and scientists. This was not lost on either the US or USSR during the Cold War - we invested heavily in science & science education in the 50s and 60s because it was a way to gain a military advantage over our adversaries.
Most of the people who fought in WW2 are dead now, the institutional memory is fading, the idea of a future war for survival is largely unthinkable, and so many people don't see the point in better understanding the natural world through rigorous observation. When you're alive, you're free to have all sorts of different opinions; when you're dead, the only fact that matters is that you're dead. The natural world doesn't care whether you're alive or dead, and selection bias is the most powerful force in science.
This is not an argument that we need another war to get people to believe in science! The biggest success of science is in building a world where people are free to not believe in it. But it's worth remembering that that world might very well be temporary, and if it disappears, I'd rather be on the side with the better models of reality.
The victors of WW2 were countries that invested heavily in science and technology, and they won because they invested heavily in science and technology. Radar, sonar, flight, automatic fire-control computers, industrialization, oil refining, steel, penicillin, synthetic rubber, codebreaking, nukes - it's very likely that without them, the winners of WW2 would be very different. And many of those innovations were made by scientists who ethnically were born into "the other side", but left Europe because of Hitler's persecution of academics and scientists. This was not lost on either the US or USSR during the Cold War - we invested heavily in science & science education in the 50s and 60s because it was a way to gain a military advantage over our adversaries.
Most of the people who fought in WW2 are dead now, the institutional memory is fading, the idea of a future war for survival is largely unthinkable, and so many people don't see the point in better understanding the natural world through rigorous observation. When you're alive, you're free to have all sorts of different opinions; when you're dead, the only fact that matters is that you're dead. The natural world doesn't care whether you're alive or dead, and selection bias is the most powerful force in science.
This is not an argument that we need another war to get people to believe in science! The biggest success of science is in building a world where people are free to not believe in it. But it's worth remembering that that world might very well be temporary, and if it disappears, I'd rather be on the side with the better models of reality.
> The victors of WW2 were countries that invested heavily in science and technology
So were the losers. But you are right, both sides were forced to concentrate on developing new technologies by the mutual struggle. The more capable side won.
So were the losers. But you are right, both sides were forced to concentrate on developing new technologies by the mutual struggle. The more capable side won.
Foucault brings up interesting points regarding science and power. In that those with power have control over what kind of information is created and distributed. We can see this through corporate sponsored science, where they both control the production of new knowledge, and attempt to convince the public of one thing or another that supports their cause through the production of knowledge.
IMO this is one of the reasons we are observing an epistemic crisis in our political sphere, "post-truth" if you will. Where it isn't about what is said, but about who says it and the manufacturer of such knowledge. A lot of modern "woke" thought (anti-vax, flat earth, climate change denialism) centers around an opposition to modern institutions of knowledge manufacture. So anti-vax is less about believing that vaccines are harmful, and more about being opposed to the western medical establishment and forced medication by the government. Climate change denialism is less about holding the view there is no change, but more about opposing the "progressives" and the "NWO lobbyists" who are trying to force change down our throat. Flat earth movement is less about believing that the Earth is flat, and more about being opposed to anti-christian sources of knowledge as well as being opposed to information manufactured by the government. I won't say that they don't believe these things, but when we are talking about scientific authority, we need to understand why these people choose to let certain knowledge manufacturers have authority over others. In some respects, their heart is in the right place, being opposed to centralized institutions of knowledge production, it is just sad that a lot of them are prone to irritating theories like these.
Another issue with current science is of course funding difficulties and publication bias. The feedback loop of needing to have something to show for your work that is going to provide immediate benefit somewhere isn't doing any favors.
IMO this is one of the reasons we are observing an epistemic crisis in our political sphere, "post-truth" if you will. Where it isn't about what is said, but about who says it and the manufacturer of such knowledge. A lot of modern "woke" thought (anti-vax, flat earth, climate change denialism) centers around an opposition to modern institutions of knowledge manufacture. So anti-vax is less about believing that vaccines are harmful, and more about being opposed to the western medical establishment and forced medication by the government. Climate change denialism is less about holding the view there is no change, but more about opposing the "progressives" and the "NWO lobbyists" who are trying to force change down our throat. Flat earth movement is less about believing that the Earth is flat, and more about being opposed to anti-christian sources of knowledge as well as being opposed to information manufactured by the government. I won't say that they don't believe these things, but when we are talking about scientific authority, we need to understand why these people choose to let certain knowledge manufacturers have authority over others. In some respects, their heart is in the right place, being opposed to centralized institutions of knowledge production, it is just sad that a lot of them are prone to irritating theories like these.
Another issue with current science is of course funding difficulties and publication bias. The feedback loop of needing to have something to show for your work that is going to provide immediate benefit somewhere isn't doing any favors.
We need a distributed scientific inquiry system that exists on the scale of social media. Imagine if instead of Twitter optimizing for attention, it optimized for rigorous scientific inquiry. The world would be a much more intelligent, reasonable place.
Two recent events relevant to scientific authority: the past recommendation of a nutritional pyramid that contributed to a generation of obesity and the anti-vaxxer movement that has resulted in a measles outbreak. Neither of these are black and white scenarios. Perhaps the nutritional pyramid had some positive effects. And perhaps not getting vaccinated has resulted in the savings of thousands of lives. Scientific authority rests not on being right, but on reasoned disclosure of evidence.
We have "scientific studies" being paid for by companies with a vested interest in the results. (Disclosure, I am writing this on an iMac with my iPhone sitting next to me). Today you can read how the Apple iWatch will detect AFIB. It is a study paid for by Apple, published by Stanford Medicine. From med.stanford.edu "The results of the Apple Heart Study highlight the potential role that innovative digital technology can play in creating more predictive and preventive health care". And who can argue with the truth of that?
But certainly the study is presented with the expectation of encouraging people to buy Apple products. Neither the Apple site nor the Stanford site make it clear that false positives for AFIB can result in unnecessary medical procedures along with their financial costs and health risks.
I'm not singling out of Apple or Stanford - I have great respect for both of them - but I have less trust in them than I did yesterday. There are far worse instances: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074....
Bringing back scientific authority requires earning trust.
We have "scientific studies" being paid for by companies with a vested interest in the results. (Disclosure, I am writing this on an iMac with my iPhone sitting next to me). Today you can read how the Apple iWatch will detect AFIB. It is a study paid for by Apple, published by Stanford Medicine. From med.stanford.edu "The results of the Apple Heart Study highlight the potential role that innovative digital technology can play in creating more predictive and preventive health care". And who can argue with the truth of that?
But certainly the study is presented with the expectation of encouraging people to buy Apple products. Neither the Apple site nor the Stanford site make it clear that false positives for AFIB can result in unnecessary medical procedures along with their financial costs and health risks.
I'm not singling out of Apple or Stanford - I have great respect for both of them - but I have less trust in them than I did yesterday. There are far worse instances: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074....
Bringing back scientific authority requires earning trust.
I think to get science back to authority
Simply 3 things need to happen
a) Academia must rid self of clandestine corporate sponsorship (so make it very transparent, or do not use it)
b) Academia must rid itself of 'Coins-for-grades' systems of grading academic progress of the students
c) Academia must rid itself of so-called-new humanities that are basically preparatory schools for political activists
It is also fairly exhausting to read these maniacal conjectures, as presented by Robert P. Crease in the article, linking US President Trump with various fringe movements.
It will not work, it will not change the public view of his achievements, successes and his progress on dismantling the corrupt, do-as-we-say-but-not-as-we-do conglomerates in business, education, politics and entertainment industries.
"... The same is true of the ebbing of scientific authority, seen in everything from denialism over vaccine utility to the ambivalence in US President Donald Trump’s administration over the Iran nuclear deal, hammered out by scientists. .."
a) Academia must rid self of clandestine corporate sponsorship (so make it very transparent, or do not use it)
b) Academia must rid itself of 'Coins-for-grades' systems of grading academic progress of the students
c) Academia must rid itself of so-called-new humanities that are basically preparatory schools for political activists
It is also fairly exhausting to read these maniacal conjectures, as presented by Robert P. Crease in the article, linking US President Trump with various fringe movements.
It will not work, it will not change the public view of his achievements, successes and his progress on dismantling the corrupt, do-as-we-say-but-not-as-we-do conglomerates in business, education, politics and entertainment industries.
"... The same is true of the ebbing of scientific authority, seen in everything from denialism over vaccine utility to the ambivalence in US President Donald Trump’s administration over the Iran nuclear deal, hammered out by scientists. .."
"Science" has real problems. We can't even discuss controversial viewpoints, such as case-specific dangers with vaccines (yes, they are real, and the CDC covered up data) and climate skepticism (does lowering CO2 really do anything meaningful, vs. the fact that we're coming out of an ice age from 10K+ years ago).
But it's impossible to have an evidence-backed rational conversation about these topics with scientists, let alone the general public.
But it's impossible to have an evidence-backed rational conversation about these topics with scientists, let alone the general public.
This article is ironically akin to the 'The Preaching of St Paul', except that instead of burning Galileo's work, the author is trying to burn religious texts and dissenting viewpoints to their "settled science".