3 ms·

Science is incorruptible. Scientists are not. Don't conflate the imperfections of the humans implementing science as being problems with science. Whatever you'

Science is incorruptible. Scientists are not. Don't conflate the imperfections of the humans implementing science as being problems with science. Whatever you're proposing as the alternative to science has the same problem: it's implemented by imperfect humans. What's your alternative?

xhkkffbf 7y ago
Ah, I wouldn't be so sure. John Ioannidis's work does a great job of showing how science as we've defined it can generate results that are wrong. There are plenty of phenomena that can't be easily sussed out using the scientific method of controlled experimentation. The simplest example is if you need two parts A AND B to generate an effect. If you add A, you get nothing. If you add B, you get nothing. The scientific method suggests that both A and B do nothing. It takes a bit more clever work to recognize that both are required, but the scientific method insists on simplifying the model. The point is that even science isn't well-defined and we need to be super flexible.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > The scientific method suggests that both A and B do nothing. It takes a bit more clever work to recognize that both are required, but the scientific method insists on simplifying the model. Huh? No it doesn't. This is complete nonsense. The scientific method would deal with this by hypothesizing that A combined with B might do something, then testing the hypothesis, and discovering that it does. Generating that hypothesis might be difficult--nobody said science was easy. But there's nothing about the scientific method that can't handle the situation you propose. There are hundreds of examples of this. Try, for example, hydrochloric acid and baking soda as your A and B--I've never mixed these two and don't know what they produce, but based on my knowledge of acids and baking soda, I hypothesize they will result in CO2, even though neither of these decomposes into that gas by itself.
einpoklum 7y ago
> Science is incorruptible You're taking that a tad too far. Remember, for long periods of time, certain disciplines were considered to be "science" which weren't quite that. It's not just individual personal failings.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Okay, but that's a semantic argument. The word "science" doesn't mean that any more.
  - einpoklum 7y ago
    Alchemy used to be considered science. Chemistry - the same science - used to have people concerned with ether and phlogiston. Apparently some physicians truly believed that it was aberrant for women to have a large clitoris; and still today, many doctors believe it's medically beneficial to cut off males' foreskins. etc.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      Nothing you're saying is a disproof of what I said. How do you know turning lead into gold isn't possible? Science. How do you know ether and phlogiston aren't real? Science. How do you know it's not aberrant for women to have large clitori? Well "aberrant" is subjective, so that's really not even a scientific claim, so science certainly can't be blamed for that. How do you know it's not medically beneficial to cut off males' foreskins? Science. You can't accuse science of screwing up those beliefs: science is the only reason you know those beliefs are wrong. These are examples of science working. This subthread started with me saying "Science is incorruptible. Scientists are not. Don't conflate the imperfections of the humans implementing science as being problems with science." If anything, your examples prove my point. What you've shown is that scientists have believed some wildly inaccurate things in the past, and science has corrected them.

xhkkffbf 7y ago

Ah, I wouldn't be so sure. John Ioannidis's work does a great job of showing how science as we've defined it can generate results that are wrong. There are plenty of phenomena that can't be easily sussed out using the scientific method of controlled experimentation. The simplest example is if you need two parts A AND B to generate an effect. If you add A, you get nothing. If you add B, you get nothing. The scientific method suggests that both A and B do nothing. It takes a bit more clever work to recognize that both are required, but the scientific method insists on simplifying the model. The point is that even science isn't well-defined and we need to be super flexible.

kerkeslager 7y ago
> The scientific method suggests that both A and B do nothing. It takes a bit more clever work to recognize that both are required, but the scientific method insists on simplifying the model. Huh? No it doesn't. This is complete nonsense. The scientific method would deal with this by hypothesizing that A combined with B might do something, then testing the hypothesis, and discovering that it does. Generating that hypothesis might be difficult--nobody said science was easy. But there's nothing about the scientific method that can't handle the situation you propose. There are hundreds of examples of this. Try, for example, hydrochloric acid and baking soda as your A and B--I've never mixed these two and don't know what they produce, but based on my knowledge of acids and baking soda, I hypothesize they will result in CO2, even though neither of these decomposes into that gas by itself.

einpoklum 7y ago

> Science is incorruptible You're taking that a tad too far. Remember, for long periods of time, certain disciplines were considered to be "science" which weren't quite that. It's not just individual personal failings.

kerkeslager 7y ago
Okay, but that's a semantic argument. The word "science" doesn't mean that any more.
- einpoklum 7y ago
  Alchemy used to be considered science. Chemistry - the same science - used to have people concerned with ether and phlogiston. Apparently some physicians truly believed that it was aberrant for women to have a large clitoris; and still today, many doctors believe it's medically beneficial to cut off males' foreskins. etc.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    Nothing you're saying is a disproof of what I said. How do you know turning lead into gold isn't possible? Science. How do you know ether and phlogiston aren't real? Science. How do you know it's not aberrant for women to have large clitori? Well "aberrant" is subjective, so that's really not even a scientific claim, so science certainly can't be blamed for that. How do you know it's not medically beneficial to cut off males' foreskins? Science. You can't accuse science of screwing up those beliefs: science is the only reason you know those beliefs are wrong. These are examples of science working. This subthread started with me saying "Science is incorruptible. Scientists are not. Don't conflate the imperfections of the humans implementing science as being problems with science." If anything, your examples prove my point. What you've shown is that scientists have believed some wildly inaccurate things in the past, and science has corrected them.