8 ms·

You should come to my workplace and tell this to actual scientists, who seem to have no trouble hypothesizing things they are unable to falsify, who pick up met

You should come to my workplace and tell this to actual scientists, who seem to have no trouble hypothesizing things they are unable to falsify, who pick up methods because "other people are doing this", not because of some underlying epistemological criterion, and whose epistemologically broken hypotheses have no trouble getting published in top-flight journals. I also object to you saying "better explanation" without defining what that is. What makes something "better"? It's more intellectually satisfying? It feels "right"? It has a lower p-value? The ultimate subjectivity of this criterion, which is really at the root of all scientific endeavor, is why philosophy of science remains so difficult to pin down. In the end what makes up scientific knowledge is that a bunch of people we call "scientists" approve of it, and pass it on in their writing and speech. Philosophers of science are welcome to come up with theories about how science operates, but I suggest they might benefit from some anthropological approaches, because scientists are sure not reading and applying their philosophy books.

BurningFrog 7y ago
The actual scientific establishment at any given time and place is never going to be a 100% pure implementation of scientific ideals. Some might not be doing science at all, even though it says so on the building and their business cards.
- crazydoggers 7y ago
  This. And that’s always what these criticisms miss. Science’s strength is that any one individual or even groups of individuals can be bias. That bias might persist (theories of static universe, vitalism, etc etc) for a long time within the scientific community. But science is the only method that eventually will rut out the biases. It’s self correcting, but you need to look at it from the long view.
  - anongraddebt 7y ago
    That's generally right. However, a non-trivial number of well-educated, scientifically minded persons do not take a long enough view. A possible explanation: it is difficult for humans to care about research timelines that may or may not be longer than the average human life. Maybe it's some sociological theory X, and you think, "well, yeah, X has some kinks, but they should be worked out within the next decade or so." In reality, you should essentially have no attachment to said theory. And in reality, far too many people have attachments to one or more theories that have yet to be proved out fully, and could be proved out fully in a decade/century/etc. or worse... never proved out at all. In the case of currently 'proved out' (whatever we take that to mean) theories, a non-trivial number of persons have excessive attachment to one or more of them, since, taking a long view, said theories could be overturned or reinterpreted, etc.
  - astazangasta 7y ago
    >But science is the only method that eventually will rut out the biases. It’s self correcting, but you need to look at it from the long view. This is just dogmatic nonsense. Absent a mechanism, how does this vaunted self-correction operate? If the individuals that make up the scientific community can't be trusted to be free of bias, and that bias can persist for generations, what, in point of fact, is the mechanism for rejecting it? The fact is that insight does not emerge from any particular method, and science really has no foolproof way to advance inexorably towards the truth. This is why scientific advancement is frequently stalled - because it isn't fucking foolproof. You can claim otherwise, but you're at odds with both any kind of theoretical basis and with the observed history of science.
    - crazydoggers 7y ago
      > This is just dogmatic nonsense. Absent a mechanism, how does this vaunted self-correction operate? There is indeed a mechanism. All it takes is a single individual that lacks the bias to develop a competing hypotheses that can be tested through experiment. A single person can take down years of group bias. The reason this is possible is because the scientific method requires evidence and the ability to falsify competing hypothesis. If for instance you went against the current “bias” that now takes Darwinian evolution for a given, and proved your hypothesis with data, then the scientific community would be forced (and indeed would honestly be delighted) to embrace the new understanding. > This is why scientific advancement is frequently stalled - because it isn't fucking foolproof. You can claim otherwise, but you're at odds with both any kind of theoretical basis and with the observed history of science. History shows an inexorable march forward in understanding the universe brought about via the scientific method. At no point in the history of the scientific method has this been reversed. It may be true that advancement stalls out in certain areas, but that’s to be expected. No other method has ever shown anything close to the scientific methods ability to understand how the universe actually functions. Any given hypothesis, any given experiment, any given consensus is not “foolproof”. But the scientific method over the long run is indeed “foolproof”, because ultimately data and it’s ability to falsify hypothesis will always overturn mistakes. “I have steadily endeavoured to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved, as soon as facts are shown to be opposed to it.” — Charles Darwin
lisper 7y ago
> You should come to my workplace and tell this to actual scientists I would be happy to do that if your workplace is not too far away and you want to invite me to speak. > I also object to you saying "better explanation" without defining what that is. What makes something "better"? The short version of the answer to that is: a superior explanation is one that explains more phenomena with fewer ad hoc assumptions and free parameters. (There are other characteristics of good explanations. For example, they are hard to change without losing their explanatory power. The classic example of a bad explanation that runs afoul of this criterion is Ptolemaic epicycles: why circles? Why not some other shape? It turns out that any shape can actually be used to construct Ptolemaic epicycles because what Ptolemy actually discovered was Fourier analysis, though he didn't realize it at the time.) The long version of the answer is: read Popper. Or David Deutsch.

BurningFrog 7y ago

The actual scientific establishment at any given time and place is never going to be a 100% pure implementation of scientific ideals. Some might not be doing science at all, even though it says so on the building and their business cards.

crazydoggers 7y ago
This. And that’s always what these criticisms miss. Science’s strength is that any one individual or even groups of individuals can be bias. That bias might persist (theories of static universe, vitalism, etc etc) for a long time within the scientific community. But science is the only method that eventually will rut out the biases. It’s self correcting, but you need to look at it from the long view.
- anongraddebt 7y ago
  That's generally right. However, a non-trivial number of well-educated, scientifically minded persons do not take a long enough view. A possible explanation: it is difficult for humans to care about research timelines that may or may not be longer than the average human life. Maybe it's some sociological theory X, and you think, "well, yeah, X has some kinks, but they should be worked out within the next decade or so." In reality, you should essentially have no attachment to said theory. And in reality, far too many people have attachments to one or more theories that have yet to be proved out fully, and could be proved out fully in a decade/century/etc. or worse... never proved out at all. In the case of currently 'proved out' (whatever we take that to mean) theories, a non-trivial number of persons have excessive attachment to one or more of them, since, taking a long view, said theories could be overturned or reinterpreted, etc.
- astazangasta 7y ago
  >But science is the only method that eventually will rut out the biases. It’s self correcting, but you need to look at it from the long view. This is just dogmatic nonsense. Absent a mechanism, how does this vaunted self-correction operate? If the individuals that make up the scientific community can't be trusted to be free of bias, and that bias can persist for generations, what, in point of fact, is the mechanism for rejecting it? The fact is that insight does not emerge from any particular method, and science really has no foolproof way to advance inexorably towards the truth. This is why scientific advancement is frequently stalled - because it isn't fucking foolproof. You can claim otherwise, but you're at odds with both any kind of theoretical basis and with the observed history of science.
  - crazydoggers 7y ago
    > This is just dogmatic nonsense. Absent a mechanism, how does this vaunted self-correction operate? There is indeed a mechanism. All it takes is a single individual that lacks the bias to develop a competing hypotheses that can be tested through experiment. A single person can take down years of group bias. The reason this is possible is because the scientific method requires evidence and the ability to falsify competing hypothesis. If for instance you went against the current “bias” that now takes Darwinian evolution for a given, and proved your hypothesis with data, then the scientific community would be forced (and indeed would honestly be delighted) to embrace the new understanding. > This is why scientific advancement is frequently stalled - because it isn't fucking foolproof. You can claim otherwise, but you're at odds with both any kind of theoretical basis and with the observed history of science. History shows an inexorable march forward in understanding the universe brought about via the scientific method. At no point in the history of the scientific method has this been reversed. It may be true that advancement stalls out in certain areas, but that’s to be expected. No other method has ever shown anything close to the scientific methods ability to understand how the universe actually functions. Any given hypothesis, any given experiment, any given consensus is not “foolproof”. But the scientific method over the long run is indeed “foolproof”, because ultimately data and it’s ability to falsify hypothesis will always overturn mistakes. “I have steadily endeavoured to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved, as soon as facts are shown to be opposed to it.” — Charles Darwin

lisper 7y ago

> You should come to my workplace and tell this to actual scientists I would be happy to do that if your workplace is not too far away and you want to invite me to speak. > I also object to you saying "better explanation" without defining what that is. What makes something "better"? The short version of the answer to that is: a superior explanation is one that explains more phenomena with fewer ad hoc assumptions and free parameters. (There are other characteristics of good explanations. For example, they are hard to change without losing their explanatory power. The classic example of a bad explanation that runs afoul of this criterion is Ptolemaic epicycles: why circles? Why not some other shape? It turns out that any shape can actually be used to construct Ptolemaic epicycles because what Ptolemy actually discovered was Fourier analysis, though he didn't realize it at the time.) The long version of the answer is: read Popper. Or David Deutsch.