6 ms·

At the very end of this grand tour: > Science has its problems, but it’s still the best we got. I would agree if you're doing particle physics and looking for

by ken 7y ago

At the very end of this grand tour: > Science has its problems, but it’s still the best we got. I would agree if you're doing particle physics and looking for p < 0.0000003 then absolutely. Science is a great tool for the kinds of investigations of the natural world which can be understood by science. If you're doing social science by scraping some data from the internet and looking for p < 0.05, that's a very different story. I'm not actually sure what aspect of this qualifies as "science", besides using p-values to analyze the data. Even if all the categorization and sampling and analyses were perfect, it's using commit messages and known bugs with known fixes, all of which are essentially self-reported.

carapace 7y ago
From my POV the real problem is that there are phenomenon that apparently cannot be studied scientifically. Like Reiki. Now I'm not a scientist but I am a huge proponent of science. Carl Sagan is among my personal heroes, okay? I am in favor of science over superstition and irrationality. One day I encountered a phenomenon that is as real and physically dramatic as, say, the electric field of a Van de Graff generator. Being a fan of science I went looking for the math/science/engineering for this phenomenon. Long story short, after a few years of research, I discovered that: 1) this phenomenon has been known since antiquity in a pre-scientific way; 2) several researchers had independently (re-)discovered it multiple times going back about 2.5 centuries; 3) each time it had achieved a certain notoriety but then been debunked and subsequently ignored or forgotten. The first was Mesmer & "animal magnetism", but there are several others including Baron Von Reichenbach & the "Odic force", and Wilhelm Reich & "Orgone". This is repeating today with several kinds of "energy healing" including Reiki (which is distinguished by being Japanese and unabashedly theistic (Rei means Divine)) where practice is widespread, but lacking scientific validation. As I say, I've felt Reiki, so I know it's real, but so far I've personally never been able to interest any scientists in studying it, despite offering to demonstrate it. And the studies that have been done haven't helped. The Wikipedia article for Reiki just straight up calls it pseudoscience.
- Analemma_ 7y ago
  To the extent that Reiki or any other alternative medicine technique actually does anything, it's easily explainable by the placebo effect. You know what we call alternative medicine that works? Medicine.
  - yters 7y ago
    The placebo effect itself is fairly spooky.
    - disgruntledphd2 7y ago
      Not really. It's all Descartes fault, essentially, by postulating the "mind" as distinct from matter. More specifically, placebo pain-relief has been associated with endogenously produced opioids for approximately 40 years now (1978, I believe). More recent research suggests that much of the variance in the effects of pain-killers can be associated with these endogenously produced opioids (when the patient was not aware of the pain-relief, responses were similar). So essentially, the placebo effect is just a normal part of your body responding to medical treatment, regardless of the efficacy of said treatment. I'm talking about pain because most of the research is on pain, but the principles are similar where placebos tend to be effective (not against infections, sadly but pain and depression seem to be extremely placebo-responsive).
  - carapace 7y ago
    I've heard that joke before, and it's not as funny as you might imagine. But anyway, well, see, there you go. Meaning no disrespect, my whole point is that you and others like you cannot or will not "see" this thing, yet it's definitely "there". I think it's got to be the "social side of science" somehow preventing otherwise-rational minds from seeing what's right in front of them (even during a scientific study of Reiki.)
  - sean2 7y ago
    I disagree: I've known some poorer folks, who swear by Reiki, which if I understand correctly is massage (proven in studies to accelerate certain types of healing) and maybe some herbal rubs. I and my rich coworkers, with good insurance, go to professional physical therapists and get real, proven Medicine, which mainly consists of massage and some prescription topicals. I don't need either the placebo effect, nor mystical energy to explain Reiki. Ditto for most alternative medicines I've seen friends swear by.
eueyyxebe 7y ago
It's worth remembering that even physics isn't immune to this, it doesn't hit headlines often but there's certainly been criticism and dialogue orbiting the various domains of physics that exist at a largely theoretical level and impossible to disprove level. At the same time, the history of physics has actual examples of situations where theory was decades ahead of the discoveries that would facilitate validating the claims and predictions being made. It all boils down to if an approach or school of thought provides utility or other value beyond what's currently available. Philosophy had almost the opposite problem at one time ironically, the concern that theory was gaining precision but becoming unhelpful for formulating comprehensible statements (in the non-mathematical sense) about the human experience. The greater problem is the politicalization of science for which I'll use Gender Studies, though this is not to say Gender Studies is the only politicized field nor that it is the most egregious offender in any way. Having a cohesive theory of gender is useful, especially for comparing and contrasting different cultures even if it's at a level that's superficial compared to other fields like physics. At the same time, some social movements have realized that they can use aspects of gender theory to grant themselves legitimacy while leveraging the exclusionary nature of academia to silence criticism and largely control the public dialogue. A good example of the utility gained having a theory of gender is the various African refugee groups who have come to the United States over the years. I had the luck to interview a psychologist who did work helping to evaluate and integrate some of The Lost Boys of Sudan. Many of the Lost Boys exhibited signs of mental trauma and her role in helping them integrate into American life was trying to provide relief for this trauma. She noted that a major challenge initially was that there was common mindset, stemming from a mix of age and a group outlook rooted in the need to survive, where personal problems weren't viewed or even necessarily understood the way they are in the U.S. The result was that many of the refugees she was working with not only didn't see the point in many of her questions (and by extension how to answer them) they also had difficulty engaging with her at all in a manner condusive to therapy as it's practiced in the U.S. Handwaving a lot for brevity, her initial approach was to explore a trait she had observed and viewed as a quiet but severe sort of masculinity that was extremely common amongst the boys she was working with. Making early progress was largely about coming to understand this quality better and speaking to it in ways that introduced new concepts by breaking them down into smaller ideas which could then be explored by discussing them as contrasts. Is 'quiet masculinity' an especially scientific descriptor? Probably not, but it was nonetheless useful to her as an ad-hoc compass concept for breaking down barriers to providing effective therapy and it was made possible by synthesizing her understanding of gender theory with her broader knowledge of human psychology. Contrasting the previous anecdote is my experience with undergraduate Gender Studies courses which are often a mix of course work on theoretical fundamentals and lecture presentations. The presentations are rarely outright superfluous from what I've observed but it'd be dishonest to say that they aren't also laced heavily with normative political statements masquerading as sensibility and which offer nothing extra to the lecture in terms of information or utility. This sort of soapbox sophistry is unhelpful because when it's eventually brought to the spotlight it erodes the public's trust in academia which is often too compartmentalized and arcane for a layperson to see where one subfield ends and another begins. This is, in my opinion, why the social sciences in general make for such an easy punching bag. Because it quickly becomes unclear why in one situation an idea is treated as rediculous while in another it might be presented as a key component of some broader framework. The penultimate point to all of this being, it's because science deals with running into hard problems that it's important to recognize when we're mostly paving familiar territory and when we're operating mainly with ideas that are 'the best we've got'. The ladder is no less helpful in the face of total ignorance but it can be much more vulnerable to biases of perspective and culture. Vigilant introspection is therefore a constant necessity.

by ken 7y ago

carapace 7y ago

From my POV the real problem is that there are phenomenon that apparently cannot be studied scientifically. Like Reiki. Now I'm not a scientist but I am a huge proponent of science. Carl Sagan is among my personal heroes, okay? I am in favor of science over superstition and irrationality. One day I encountered a phenomenon that is as real and physically dramatic as, say, the electric field of a Van de Graff generator. Being a fan of science I went looking for the math/science/engineering for this phenomenon. Long story short, after a few years of research, I discovered that: 1) this phenomenon has been known since antiquity in a pre-scientific way; 2) several researchers had independently (re-)discovered it multiple times going back about 2.5 centuries; 3) each time it had achieved a certain notoriety but then been debunked and subsequently ignored or forgotten. The first was Mesmer & "animal magnetism", but there are several others including Baron Von Reichenbach & the "Odic force", and Wilhelm Reich & "Orgone". This is repeating today with several kinds of "energy healing" including Reiki (which is distinguished by being Japanese and unabashedly theistic (Rei means Divine)) where practice is widespread, but lacking scientific validation. As I say, I've felt Reiki, so I know it's real, but so far I've personally never been able to interest any scientists in studying it, despite offering to demonstrate it. And the studies that have been done haven't helped. The Wikipedia article for Reiki just straight up calls it pseudoscience.

Analemma_ 7y ago
To the extent that Reiki or any other alternative medicine technique actually does anything, it's easily explainable by the placebo effect. You know what we call alternative medicine that works? Medicine.
- yters 7y ago
  The placebo effect itself is fairly spooky.
  - disgruntledphd2 7y ago
    Not really. It's all Descartes fault, essentially, by postulating the "mind" as distinct from matter. More specifically, placebo pain-relief has been associated with endogenously produced opioids for approximately 40 years now (1978, I believe). More recent research suggests that much of the variance in the effects of pain-killers can be associated with these endogenously produced opioids (when the patient was not aware of the pain-relief, responses were similar). So essentially, the placebo effect is just a normal part of your body responding to medical treatment, regardless of the efficacy of said treatment. I'm talking about pain because most of the research is on pain, but the principles are similar where placebos tend to be effective (not against infections, sadly but pain and depression seem to be extremely placebo-responsive).
- carapace 7y ago
  I've heard that joke before, and it's not as funny as you might imagine. But anyway, well, see, there you go. Meaning no disrespect, my whole point is that you and others like you cannot or will not "see" this thing, yet it's definitely "there". I think it's got to be the "social side of science" somehow preventing otherwise-rational minds from seeing what's right in front of them (even during a scientific study of Reiki.)
- sean2 7y ago
  I disagree: I've known some poorer folks, who swear by Reiki, which if I understand correctly is massage (proven in studies to accelerate certain types of healing) and maybe some herbal rubs. I and my rich coworkers, with good insurance, go to professional physical therapists and get real, proven Medicine, which mainly consists of massage and some prescription topicals. I don't need either the placebo effect, nor mystical energy to explain Reiki. Ditto for most alternative medicines I've seen friends swear by.

eueyyxebe 7y ago

It's worth remembering that even physics isn't immune to this, it doesn't hit headlines often but there's certainly been criticism and dialogue orbiting the various domains of physics that exist at a largely theoretical level and impossible to disprove level. At the same time, the history of physics has actual examples of situations where theory was decades ahead of the discoveries that would facilitate validating the claims and predictions being made. It all boils down to if an approach or school of thought provides utility or other value beyond what's currently available. Philosophy had almost the opposite problem at one time ironically, the concern that theory was gaining precision but becoming unhelpful for formulating comprehensible statements (in the non-mathematical sense) about the human experience. The greater problem is the politicalization of science for which I'll use Gender Studies, though this is not to say Gender Studies is the only politicized field nor that it is the most egregious offender in any way. Having a cohesive theory of gender is useful, especially for comparing and contrasting different cultures even if it's at a level that's superficial compared to other fields like physics. At the same time, some social movements have realized that they can use aspects of gender theory to grant themselves legitimacy while leveraging the exclusionary nature of academia to silence criticism and largely control the public dialogue. A good example of the utility gained having a theory of gender is the various African refugee groups who have come to the United States over the years. I had the luck to interview a psychologist who did work helping to evaluate and integrate some of The Lost Boys of Sudan. Many of the Lost Boys exhibited signs of mental trauma and her role in helping them integrate into American life was trying to provide relief for this trauma. She noted that a major challenge initially was that there was common mindset, stemming from a mix of age and a group outlook rooted in the need to survive, where personal problems weren't viewed or even necessarily understood the way they are in the U.S. The result was that many of the refugees she was working with not only didn't see the point in many of her questions (and by extension how to answer them) they also had difficulty engaging with her at all in a manner condusive to therapy as it's practiced in the U.S. Handwaving a lot for brevity, her initial approach was to explore a trait she had observed and viewed as a quiet but severe sort of masculinity that was extremely common amongst the boys she was working with. Making early progress was largely about coming to understand this quality better and speaking to it in ways that introduced new concepts by breaking them down into smaller ideas which could then be explored by discussing them as contrasts. Is 'quiet masculinity' an especially scientific descriptor? Probably not, but it was nonetheless useful to her as an ad-hoc compass concept for breaking down barriers to providing effective therapy and it was made possible by synthesizing her understanding of gender theory with her broader knowledge of human psychology. Contrasting the previous anecdote is my experience with undergraduate Gender Studies courses which are often a mix of course work on theoretical fundamentals and lecture presentations. The presentations are rarely outright superfluous from what I've observed but it'd be dishonest to say that they aren't also laced heavily with normative political statements masquerading as sensibility and which offer nothing extra to the lecture in terms of information or utility. This sort of soapbox sophistry is unhelpful because when it's eventually brought to the spotlight it erodes the public's trust in academia which is often too compartmentalized and arcane for a layperson to see where one subfield ends and another begins. This is, in my opinion, why the social sciences in general make for such an easy punching bag. Because it quickly becomes unclear why in one situation an idea is treated as rediculous while in another it might be presented as a key component of some broader framework. The penultimate point to all of this being, it's because science deals with running into hard problems that it's important to recognize when we're mostly paving familiar territory and when we're operating mainly with ideas that are 'the best we've got'. The ladder is no less helpful in the face of total ignorance but it can be much more vulnerable to biases of perspective and culture. Vigilant introspection is therefore a constant necessity.