5 ms·

Not entirely related with the article, will probably be downvoted knowing HN but the title makes something come to mind: Science is being so hold back by scient

Not entirely related with the article, will probably be downvoted knowing HN but the title makes something come to mind: Science is being so hold back by scientists that are too afraid to go beyond their model. Someone in a book wrote that Science is a religion too in a sense because it is as dogmatic as any religion. I tend to agree.

snovv_crash 7y ago
Science progresses one funeral at a time?
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  > <subject> progresses one funeral at a time? One of my favorite quips along those same lines is "X is Y years of progress being held back by Z years of tradition."
alexithym 7y ago
It's incorrect to compare science to religion. In science, there are no facts that are presented as being undeniably true. Rather, all scientific facts can be independently derived and understood to be true by any person. This emphasis on reproducibility means that no scientific lesson has to be taken on faith, eliminating any sense of dogma. Furthermore, as our understanding of the world improves, we often challenge dated scientific ideas and prove them wrong using empirical evidence. If science was truly dogmatic this would never happen, because dogma requires facts to be presented as being undeniably true, forever.
- SimplyUnknown 7y ago
  If reproducibility is so important then why are we in the middle of a reproducibility crisis? [1] If reproducibility was really that important then the scientific body would be more focused on replicating results rather racing to being the first group to publish an idea or securing funding. Scientific foundations are seldom challenged or refuted. The last paradigm shift in physics or maths was over one hundred years ago. And as soon as someone challenges them (as the author does) the criticisms are refuted. Say what you will, but science is mostly a social affair. Works of prominent groups are more likely to be accepted than works of groups with less status in the scientific community. Belief in scientific work may not rely on faith, but it is a far cry from pure scientific method. I'm not trying to be cynical here and do think a good scientific body advances humanity, but the current state of the scientific community might be closer to religion than one hopes it should be. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
  - alexithym 7y ago
    Because we are human, science in practice will always fall short of perfect adherence of the scientific method. However, the fact remains that the two are fundamentally different, because one is existentially founded on dogma, and the other isn't.
    - jaredgorski 7y ago
      “the fact remains ... one is existentially founded on dogma, and the other isn’t.” You’ve responded to a rhetorical challenge against your position by essentially stating your position, which is circular thinking. It’s not a “fact” or even a forgone conclusion that religion is, by necessity, more dogmatic than any other human activity. Humans engage in political dogmatism every day, for example, perhaps even rivaling religion in certain regions and at certain points. Non-religious dogma has also fueled many recent wars.
      - alexithym 7y ago
        I didn't restate my position - I made the observation that the human practice of science falls short of being devoid of dogmatism, but that that doesn't make science itself dogmatic. I never made the claim that religion is more dogmatic than other human activity, only that it is certainly more dogmatic than science. Nothing in science is presented as being incontrovertibly true, while religion existentially depends upon the undeniable existence of God. No proof is offered for the existence of this God, making religion dogmatic.
  - clucas 7y ago
    So, first off, according to the wikipedia article you linked, physics isn't really involved in the replication crisis. Second, re: the scientific community being closer to religion: I think you could analogize the replication crisis to religious movements like the Protestant reformation, where a large-ish group of Christians said "whoa, we're way off base here, we need to get back to the fundamentals." But when a religion does that, it's going back to scripture, or whatever. In the replication crisis, going back to fundamentals means basing our understanding on reproducible experiments - i.e. predicting based on a model, then testing to see if your prediction is right, thus potentially validating the model. The fact that reproducibility is the first principle that causes a crisis in science leads me to believe that science is in a better place than religion to discover fundamental truths, at least about the physical world. So in this sense, the replication crisis is exactly what proves that science is not like religion. (If you want to argue that religion is more useful than psychology or sociology when it comes to understanding people's motivations and ways to make them behave productively... I would sign up for your newsletter, but I wouldn't join your religion.)
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  > In science, there are no facts that are presented as being undeniably true. Not quite correct. Science and math are full of axioms.
- rafaelvasco 7y ago
  It's absolutely correct as they both originate from the same place: The need to understand reality. They just took different approaches. Both have a lot to give to one another. I mean religion in a general sense. Those that say otherwise are too focused on one side and ignoring the other. Both of them have distortions, dogmas and bs of course.
  - alexithym 7y ago
    I agree that people could benefit from an understanding of both, but I'm finding it hard to see how the actual body of scientific work could be improved by incorporating religion in any way.
    - rafaelvasco 7y ago
      Not religion, but there are ancient texts, that are sacred for several religions, not the Bible, which contain a lot of Wisdom and insight that i think science could benefit upon by exploring and studying it, instead of ignoring it as mere mysticism. Well there are/were some scientists exploring it but they're the minority;
eesmith 7y ago
Except for all those times that scientists went beyond their model and overturned the previous models. Overturned scientific models: Lyellian uniformitarianism, the pre-Agassiz model that the Earth was gradually cooling so Ice Ages couldn't have existed (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#History_of_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#History_of_research ), Newton's theory of gravitation, and classical statistical mechanics (the "ultraviolet catastrophe"). Plus, the wide-spread belief that "all models are wrong" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong - or the modified "all models are wrong, but some are useful". Which doesn't match the dogmatism attributed to religion, does it?
- dnautics 7y ago
  Well yeah, but those are all rather old results.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    And your username contains three vowels. That is, I fail to see what your comment adds to the topic of how dogmatism in science is equal to that of religion, causing scientists to be too afraid to go beyond their model. I'll cherry pick some titles from the 9000+ results of a search for "a new model" on Goggle Scholar for the last year, at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=%22a+new+model+for%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=%22a+new+mo... : > A new model for the biochemistry of pectin synthesis: GAUTs synthesize diverse HG glycans in structurally and functionally distinct plant cell wall polymers > The needle model: A new model for the main hydration peak of alite > Barriers to Hydraulic Fracture Height Growth: A New Model for Sliding Interfaces > A new model for MR evaluation of liver function with gadoxetic acid, including both uptake and excretion > A new model for esker formation sheds light on the processes within subglacial tunnels > Theorizing Transgender Identity for Clinical Practice: A New Model for Understanding Gender > Mutation of Murine Rpl5 reveals a New Model for Diamond Blackfan Anemia Characterized By Defective Erythropoiesis How do I conclude that scientists are too afraid to go beyond their existing models?
m4r35n357 7y ago
I bet you can't back up a single one of your claims. Are you actually qualified to make them?
CaptArmchair 7y ago
What relevant measure would you use to support your claim that 'science is hold back'? And what arguments support your claim that scientists are by far the root cause to this? 'scientific progress' is a paradox. There is no absolute way of measuring the velocity at which science advances. You can't translate this into a value on a speed-o-meter and then make assertions based on what the dial says. The entire point of science is the discovery of new knowledge and insights about reality. It's the pursuit of trying to know the unknown. Inherently, it's not possible to know up front (a) how long it will take to validate your thesis and (b) whether validating your thesis will yield the result you hoped to find (i.e. a cure for cancer) Looking back at science in the past and then comparing that to today's state of affairs is hindsight bias. "But, it used to be that scientists got more funding to do research. Think about the Race to the Moon!" But then you forget that science isn't practiced in a vacuum. Never has. Scientists happen to work in earnest on particular questions because the external circumstances are aligned in a way that enables - or disenfranchises - them to work on those questions. Older research always predicates current research. For example, there would have been little point to assume that machine learning could have been a thing in the late 1800's as neither Von Neumann nor Turing had come around to set the stage. Science begets science, and you can't rush that retroactively. Then there's politics and economics. Full time science comes at a premium. Science happens where there's money. Either through public grants, in academic institutions or large institutions with a sizable R&D section. As such, the type of science that dominates an era depends largely on the zeitgeist. Reducing science to pure quantitative research or the empirical method is intellectual dishonest as well. Any research is based on a foundation of need, curiosity and imagination. As such, the number of papers published or conferences attended are very much skewed reflection of the generated value.
- rafaelvasco 7y ago
  Sorry, 'science is held back' is the correct term. Thank you.
- Psyladine 7y ago
  Specifically in mathematics, Grigori Perelman abandoned the field due to political favoritism by Shing-Tung Yau. In more *systemic terms, a cabal of researchers focused effort (and more importantly, limited funding) to only one aspect of alzheimers research: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225

snovv_crash 7y ago

Science progresses one funeral at a time?

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
> <subject> progresses one funeral at a time? One of my favorite quips along those same lines is "X is Y years of progress being held back by Z years of tradition."

alexithym 7y ago

It's incorrect to compare science to religion. In science, there are no facts that are presented as being undeniably true. Rather, all scientific facts can be independently derived and understood to be true by any person. This emphasis on reproducibility means that no scientific lesson has to be taken on faith, eliminating any sense of dogma. Furthermore, as our understanding of the world improves, we often challenge dated scientific ideas and prove them wrong using empirical evidence. If science was truly dogmatic this would never happen, because dogma requires facts to be presented as being undeniably true, forever.

SimplyUnknown 7y ago
If reproducibility is so important then why are we in the middle of a reproducibility crisis? [1] If reproducibility was really that important then the scientific body would be more focused on replicating results rather racing to being the first group to publish an idea or securing funding. Scientific foundations are seldom challenged or refuted. The last paradigm shift in physics or maths was over one hundred years ago. And as soon as someone challenges them (as the author does) the criticisms are refuted. Say what you will, but science is mostly a social affair. Works of prominent groups are more likely to be accepted than works of groups with less status in the scientific community. Belief in scientific work may not rely on faith, but it is a far cry from pure scientific method. I'm not trying to be cynical here and do think a good scientific body advances humanity, but the current state of the scientific community might be closer to religion than one hopes it should be. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
- alexithym 7y ago
  Because we are human, science in practice will always fall short of perfect adherence of the scientific method. However, the fact remains that the two are fundamentally different, because one is existentially founded on dogma, and the other isn't.
  - jaredgorski 7y ago
    “the fact remains ... one is existentially founded on dogma, and the other isn’t.” You’ve responded to a rhetorical challenge against your position by essentially stating your position, which is circular thinking. It’s not a “fact” or even a forgone conclusion that religion is, by necessity, more dogmatic than any other human activity. Humans engage in political dogmatism every day, for example, perhaps even rivaling religion in certain regions and at certain points. Non-religious dogma has also fueled many recent wars.
    - alexithym 7y ago
      I didn't restate my position - I made the observation that the human practice of science falls short of being devoid of dogmatism, but that that doesn't make science itself dogmatic. I never made the claim that religion is more dogmatic than other human activity, only that it is certainly more dogmatic than science. Nothing in science is presented as being incontrovertibly true, while religion existentially depends upon the undeniable existence of God. No proof is offered for the existence of this God, making religion dogmatic.
- clucas 7y ago
  So, first off, according to the wikipedia article you linked, physics isn't really involved in the replication crisis. Second, re: the scientific community being closer to religion: I think you could analogize the replication crisis to religious movements like the Protestant reformation, where a large-ish group of Christians said "whoa, we're way off base here, we need to get back to the fundamentals." But when a religion does that, it's going back to scripture, or whatever. In the replication crisis, going back to fundamentals means basing our understanding on reproducible experiments - i.e. predicting based on a model, then testing to see if your prediction is right, thus potentially validating the model. The fact that reproducibility is the first principle that causes a crisis in science leads me to believe that science is in a better place than religion to discover fundamental truths, at least about the physical world. So in this sense, the replication crisis is exactly what proves that science is not like religion. (If you want to argue that religion is more useful than psychology or sociology when it comes to understanding people's motivations and ways to make them behave productively... I would sign up for your newsletter, but I wouldn't join your religion.)
AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
> In science, there are no facts that are presented as being undeniably true. Not quite correct. Science and math are full of axioms.
rafaelvasco 7y ago
It's absolutely correct as they both originate from the same place: The need to understand reality. They just took different approaches. Both have a lot to give to one another. I mean religion in a general sense. Those that say otherwise are too focused on one side and ignoring the other. Both of them have distortions, dogmas and bs of course.
- alexithym 7y ago
  I agree that people could benefit from an understanding of both, but I'm finding it hard to see how the actual body of scientific work could be improved by incorporating religion in any way.
  - rafaelvasco 7y ago
    Not religion, but there are ancient texts, that are sacred for several religions, not the Bible, which contain a lot of Wisdom and insight that i think science could benefit upon by exploring and studying it, instead of ignoring it as mere mysticism. Well there are/were some scientists exploring it but they're the minority;

eesmith 7y ago

Except for all those times that scientists went beyond their model and overturned the previous models. Overturned scientific models: Lyellian uniformitarianism, the pre-Agassiz model that the Earth was gradually cooling so Ice Ages couldn't have existed (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#History_of_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#History_of_research ), Newton's theory of gravitation, and classical statistical mechanics (the "ultraviolet catastrophe"). Plus, the wide-spread belief that "all models are wrong" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong - or the modified "all models are wrong, but some are useful". Which doesn't match the dogmatism attributed to religion, does it?

dnautics 7y ago
Well yeah, but those are all rather old results.
- eesmith 7y ago
  And your username contains three vowels. That is, I fail to see what your comment adds to the topic of how dogmatism in science is equal to that of religion, causing scientists to be too afraid to go beyond their model. I'll cherry pick some titles from the 9000+ results of a search for "a new model" on Goggle Scholar for the last year, at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=%22a+new+model+for%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=%22a+new+mo... : > A new model for the biochemistry of pectin synthesis: GAUTs synthesize diverse HG glycans in structurally and functionally distinct plant cell wall polymers > The needle model: A new model for the main hydration peak of alite > Barriers to Hydraulic Fracture Height Growth: A New Model for Sliding Interfaces > A new model for MR evaluation of liver function with gadoxetic acid, including both uptake and excretion > A new model for esker formation sheds light on the processes within subglacial tunnels > Theorizing Transgender Identity for Clinical Practice: A New Model for Understanding Gender > Mutation of Murine Rpl5 reveals a New Model for Diamond Blackfan Anemia Characterized By Defective Erythropoiesis How do I conclude that scientists are too afraid to go beyond their existing models?

m4r35n357 7y ago

I bet you can't back up a single one of your claims. Are you actually qualified to make them?

CaptArmchair 7y ago

What relevant measure would you use to support your claim that 'science is hold back'? And what arguments support your claim that scientists are by far the root cause to this? 'scientific progress' is a paradox. There is no absolute way of measuring the velocity at which science advances. You can't translate this into a value on a speed-o-meter and then make assertions based on what the dial says. The entire point of science is the discovery of new knowledge and insights about reality. It's the pursuit of trying to know the unknown. Inherently, it's not possible to know up front (a) how long it will take to validate your thesis and (b) whether validating your thesis will yield the result you hoped to find (i.e. a cure for cancer) Looking back at science in the past and then comparing that to today's state of affairs is hindsight bias. "But, it used to be that scientists got more funding to do research. Think about the Race to the Moon!" But then you forget that science isn't practiced in a vacuum. Never has. Scientists happen to work in earnest on particular questions because the external circumstances are aligned in a way that enables - or disenfranchises - them to work on those questions. Older research always predicates current research. For example, there would have been little point to assume that machine learning could have been a thing in the late 1800's as neither Von Neumann nor Turing had come around to set the stage. Science begets science, and you can't rush that retroactively. Then there's politics and economics. Full time science comes at a premium. Science happens where there's money. Either through public grants, in academic institutions or large institutions with a sizable R&D section. As such, the type of science that dominates an era depends largely on the zeitgeist. Reducing science to pure quantitative research or the empirical method is intellectual dishonest as well. Any research is based on a foundation of need, curiosity and imagination. As such, the number of papers published or conferences attended are very much skewed reflection of the generated value.

rafaelvasco 7y ago
Sorry, 'science is held back' is the correct term. Thank you.
Psyladine 7y ago
Specifically in mathematics, Grigori Perelman abandoned the field due to political favoritism by Shing-Tung Yau. In more *systemic terms, a cabal of researchers focused effort (and more importantly, limited funding) to only one aspect of alzheimers research: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225