3 ms·

All of us? Scientific experiments always involve some degree of assumption. I'm most skeptical of those who don't state their assumptions.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- geofft 11y ago
  How about the assumption that the fundamental constants of the universe are not slowly changing day-to-day?
  - unabst 11y ago
    A better word for that would be "premise" or "axiom". Premises and axioms are objective exceptions with objective merits. Assumptions are too personal because they infer belief which is purely subjective. Nature doesn't care about what anyone believes and science should never be a democracy. Assumptions also imply some independent existential entity as valid and are self-validating, whereas premises and axioms are highly self-deprecating. Hence, assumptions are dogmatic self-fulfilling prophesies that are an end unto itself, whereas premises are unfortunate unavoidable constraints as a means to an end. They are what couldn't be eliminated despite towering doubt and cynicism. Premises lead to science, axioms to logic, and assumptions to religion (and the like -- not saying it is good or bad).
    - Retra 11y ago
      You're making a distinction that I've never heard anyone make before, and I don't think you're making a convincing argument for it now.
      - unabst 11y ago
        The distinction between axiom and assumption is quite clear, so I'll assume you are referring to premise. The distinction already exists, which is the beauty of words. I am not making this distinction up. I am merely enforcing them as we do as speakers by the words we choose, based on the accuracy of our expressions. From Popper: > A theoretical system may be said to be axiomatized if ... (d) necessary, for the same purpose; which means that they should contain no superfluous assumptions [0]. So either Popper is wrong, or theories should not include unnecessary assumptions. But how do we know if an assumption is necessary without doing the science? And after we do it, are we still going to call necessary assumptions assumptions, even with its subjective implications? Only a person is capable of assuming. A theory with assumptions is still subjective. A premise on the other hand is objective and specific. It's "a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion" [1]. It's a simple device in logic that asserts a dependency. Or in other words, a "necessary assumption". So then would it not be safer to say axiomatized theories have premises, not assumptions? And in Popper's words, yet to be axiomatized theories have assumptions. That is what makes them hypotheses. And so all the words and their distinctions fall cleanly into place (I did not make anything up). The original article in Nature was written on the premise that science is based on assumptions and that scientists doing the science rely on assumptions. This is not the premise of science, and is incorrect. Refining our word selection to reflect this understanding would be of great service, particularly to the students. -- [0] https://books.google.com/books?id=cAKCAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=%22no+superfluous+assumptions%22+popper&source=bl&ots=2SpoXnlniS&sig=hocFKDmxKzHeOFlKUoQ0mhOr1lE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q6AEwA2oVChMImc3VrtHSxwIVFCuICh3eywzT#v=onepage&q=%22no%20superfluous%20assumptions%22%20popper&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=cAKCAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA51&lpg=P... [1] Just from the dictionary, as to avoid my own words. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/premise http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/premise
- sciguy77 11y ago
  First off, there's no need for all-caps. This isn't 4chan. > The fact that assumptions are considered as some unavoidable, forgivable, intricate part of science is part of what fuels anti-science and politics. No one here, as far as I can tell, is saying, 'oh well, science is full of assumptions therefore science is invalid.' The problem is not with science in general being valid or invalid, but rather with the sorts of experiments being conducted right now. Studies that are not replicable most of the time are bad science, which is different than science itself being 'bad.' I'm not saying such faulty experiments and studies are unavoidable and forgivable. Quite the opposite, they're flawed and need to be scrutinized more, not less. Finally, this is not an incurable problem. Bayesian math is one potential solution. There are others.
  - unabst 11y ago
    > 'oh well, science is full of assumptions therefore science is invalid.' No, they are saying "science is based on assumption, but in this case 'many scientists' were making the wrong assumptions." The title should have said "scientists find errors in p-values as premises." Assumptions are avoided, not depended upon. Bad assumptions would certainly lead to irreplicable experiments also. The distinction you make between science and its experiments is not a common distinction. If science = experiments, then you totally agree that this kind of science is bad science. Which was precisely my point.
  - omginternets 11y ago
    >First off, there's no need for all-caps. This isn't 4chan. Oh man, it looks like I missed something priceless.
- qudat 11y ago
  I agree that science strives to remove bias from its body of knowledge, but it's absolutely unavoidable for humans to paint their subjective experiences onto it. Humans have to bring their own preconceptions to any scientific experiment, even the medium by which we convey the knowledge is bathed in assumptions about what those words mean. Every facet of human knowledge is premised on how humans experience the universe. Given your definition, I don't think anything we know would be considered a fact. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG3sfrK5B4E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG3sfrK5B4E
  - unabst 11y ago
    > Every facet of human knowledge is premised on how humans experience the universe Absolutely. But that is why this is where we start. Before science, we had no way to invalidate illusions and validate what was real because assumption on their own are neither. They are naked intuitions pending validation. For the longest time we were unable to validate them and we ended up with the mess we had before science. Basically, no one would ever have made it to Mars. But with scientific validation knowledge becomes more than just an assumption or an intuition based on an experience, or a theory we came up with that we find ingenious because, well, we came up with it. By overcoming our assumptions we achieve objectivity, universality, and factuality. We discover knowledge that has rigid practical persistence. In this process something transcends from our subjective personal ideas to becoming objective impersonal facts. There is no self in science. And it is from this arduous feat that technology is born. There is nothing in this monitor or the components of this phone that are based on assumptions. These devices are selfless. "Assumption" is as evil a word as "metaphysics" and "subjective" in science. Yet, there are still people who use the word as a synonym for axiom. This is simply bad word-choice. The correct term here would be "premise" and you used it yourself. Theories can have premises, but not assumptions. Are the premises assumed? No. They are granted. Since this is HN, here is an analogy to software. A program that assumes certain behavior code or of external APIs will be rigged with bugs. Every aspect of it's execution must be tested, and the assumptions of the programmer must be eliminated by production. Of course, being human, we start with assumptions - such as "this would be the perfect library for this project". The "assumptions" that we being with however, eventually manifest themselves into "premises". And in software, these are the dependencies of a program. It is only natural for software to be dependent on other software. What is unnatural and anti-software would be to make assumptions about other software especially within its own execution. The path from the assumptions of subjective raw experience to the subjective consumption of reliable technology is paved with the work of competent scientists (and analogously, by competent programmers). > Given your definition, I don't think anything we know would be considered a fact. If fact is to mean truth, then sure. But there is an abundance of statements that have been backed by evidence. And all these statements are truer than most. Measurably truthier, rather, and that is what counts because that leave room for progress. This is a better definition of "fact".

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

geofft 11y ago
How about the assumption that the fundamental constants of the universe are not slowly changing day-to-day?
- unabst 11y ago
  A better word for that would be "premise" or "axiom". Premises and axioms are objective exceptions with objective merits. Assumptions are too personal because they infer belief which is purely subjective. Nature doesn't care about what anyone believes and science should never be a democracy. Assumptions also imply some independent existential entity as valid and are self-validating, whereas premises and axioms are highly self-deprecating. Hence, assumptions are dogmatic self-fulfilling prophesies that are an end unto itself, whereas premises are unfortunate unavoidable constraints as a means to an end. They are what couldn't be eliminated despite towering doubt and cynicism. Premises lead to science, axioms to logic, and assumptions to religion (and the like -- not saying it is good or bad).
  - Retra 11y ago
    You're making a distinction that I've never heard anyone make before, and I don't think you're making a convincing argument for it now.
    - unabst 11y ago
      The distinction between axiom and assumption is quite clear, so I'll assume you are referring to premise. The distinction already exists, which is the beauty of words. I am not making this distinction up. I am merely enforcing them as we do as speakers by the words we choose, based on the accuracy of our expressions. From Popper: > A theoretical system may be said to be axiomatized if ... (d) necessary, for the same purpose; which means that they should contain no superfluous assumptions [0]. So either Popper is wrong, or theories should not include unnecessary assumptions. But how do we know if an assumption is necessary without doing the science? And after we do it, are we still going to call necessary assumptions assumptions, even with its subjective implications? Only a person is capable of assuming. A theory with assumptions is still subjective. A premise on the other hand is objective and specific. It's "a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion" [1]. It's a simple device in logic that asserts a dependency. Or in other words, a "necessary assumption". So then would it not be safer to say axiomatized theories have premises, not assumptions? And in Popper's words, yet to be axiomatized theories have assumptions. That is what makes them hypotheses. And so all the words and their distinctions fall cleanly into place (I did not make anything up). The original article in Nature was written on the premise that science is based on assumptions and that scientists doing the science rely on assumptions. This is not the premise of science, and is incorrect. Refining our word selection to reflect this understanding would be of great service, particularly to the students. -- [0] https://books.google.com/books?id=cAKCAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=%22no+superfluous+assumptions%22+popper&source=bl&ots=2SpoXnlniS&sig=hocFKDmxKzHeOFlKUoQ0mhOr1lE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q6AEwA2oVChMImc3VrtHSxwIVFCuICh3eywzT#v=onepage&q=%22no%20superfluous%20assumptions%22%20popper&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=cAKCAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA51&lpg=P... [1] Just from the dictionary, as to avoid my own words. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/premise http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/premise
sciguy77 11y ago
First off, there's no need for all-caps. This isn't 4chan. > The fact that assumptions are considered as some unavoidable, forgivable, intricate part of science is part of what fuels anti-science and politics. No one here, as far as I can tell, is saying, 'oh well, science is full of assumptions therefore science is invalid.' The problem is not with science in general being valid or invalid, but rather with the sorts of experiments being conducted right now. Studies that are not replicable most of the time are bad science, which is different than science itself being 'bad.' I'm not saying such faulty experiments and studies are unavoidable and forgivable. Quite the opposite, they're flawed and need to be scrutinized more, not less. Finally, this is not an incurable problem. Bayesian math is one potential solution. There are others.
- unabst 11y ago
  > 'oh well, science is full of assumptions therefore science is invalid.' No, they are saying "science is based on assumption, but in this case 'many scientists' were making the wrong assumptions." The title should have said "scientists find errors in p-values as premises." Assumptions are avoided, not depended upon. Bad assumptions would certainly lead to irreplicable experiments also. The distinction you make between science and its experiments is not a common distinction. If science = experiments, then you totally agree that this kind of science is bad science. Which was precisely my point.
- omginternets 11y ago
  >First off, there's no need for all-caps. This isn't 4chan. Oh man, it looks like I missed something priceless.
qudat 11y ago
I agree that science strives to remove bias from its body of knowledge, but it's absolutely unavoidable for humans to paint their subjective experiences onto it. Humans have to bring their own preconceptions to any scientific experiment, even the medium by which we convey the knowledge is bathed in assumptions about what those words mean. Every facet of human knowledge is premised on how humans experience the universe. Given your definition, I don't think anything we know would be considered a fact. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG3sfrK5B4E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG3sfrK5B4E
- unabst 11y ago
  > Every facet of human knowledge is premised on how humans experience the universe Absolutely. But that is why this is where we start. Before science, we had no way to invalidate illusions and validate what was real because assumption on their own are neither. They are naked intuitions pending validation. For the longest time we were unable to validate them and we ended up with the mess we had before science. Basically, no one would ever have made it to Mars. But with scientific validation knowledge becomes more than just an assumption or an intuition based on an experience, or a theory we came up with that we find ingenious because, well, we came up with it. By overcoming our assumptions we achieve objectivity, universality, and factuality. We discover knowledge that has rigid practical persistence. In this process something transcends from our subjective personal ideas to becoming objective impersonal facts. There is no self in science. And it is from this arduous feat that technology is born. There is nothing in this monitor or the components of this phone that are based on assumptions. These devices are selfless. "Assumption" is as evil a word as "metaphysics" and "subjective" in science. Yet, there are still people who use the word as a synonym for axiom. This is simply bad word-choice. The correct term here would be "premise" and you used it yourself. Theories can have premises, but not assumptions. Are the premises assumed? No. They are granted. Since this is HN, here is an analogy to software. A program that assumes certain behavior code or of external APIs will be rigged with bugs. Every aspect of it's execution must be tested, and the assumptions of the programmer must be eliminated by production. Of course, being human, we start with assumptions - such as "this would be the perfect library for this project". The "assumptions" that we being with however, eventually manifest themselves into "premises". And in software, these are the dependencies of a program. It is only natural for software to be dependent on other software. What is unnatural and anti-software would be to make assumptions about other software especially within its own execution. The path from the assumptions of subjective raw experience to the subjective consumption of reliable technology is paved with the work of competent scientists (and analogously, by competent programmers). > Given your definition, I don't think anything we know would be considered a fact. If fact is to mean truth, then sure. But there is an abundance of statements that have been backed by evidence. And all these statements are truer than most. Measurably truthier, rather, and that is what counts because that leave room for progress. This is a better definition of "fact".