4 ms·

I think "show just how science works" has become a bit of a meme for "we need to roll back this mistaken/over-ambitious claim". I googled for some evidence: O

by dash2 6y ago

I think "show just how science works" has become a bit of a meme for "we need to roll back this mistaken/over-ambitious claim". I googled for some evidence: Our climate data was wrong, which shows how science works: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/research-highlight-pointing-out-flaws-climate-change-data-two-studies-show-how-science-works https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/research-highlight-pointing-ou... Re the replication crisis: "Negative opinions about psychology as a science already exist. We have the opportunity to show how science works by directly investigating and addressing the problems." https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/champions-of-psychological-science-brian-nosek/comment-page-1 https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/champions-of-p... I didn't find any others, but if you doubt my thesis, that's just the magic of science at work!

kenjackson 6y ago
> I think "show just how science works" has become a bit of a meme for "we need to roll back this mistaken/over-ambitious claim". You say this as if it's a small feat. The willingness to rollback a claim you made, ambitious or mundane, is surprisingly difficult for people to do. Most of science is about making claims based on the best evidence that you have with some level of confidence. Where we run into problems, just look in the news, is when claims become invariant, regardless of new data, methods, theories.
- dnautics 6y ago
  You're arguing past GP. It's one thing to be mistaken for subtle or deep reasons and say "this is how science works". It's another to be sloppy and say "this is how science works". I'm not even saying scientists shouldn't ever be sloppy, you should definitely start sloppy and there's also a sense in which if observations are reproducible across sloppy setups it's more robust - but also, maybe one should not take out a headline-grabbing presser based on sloppy or shaky work. And it's hard to argue that the social structure of contemporary scientific discovery doesn't incentives this sort of sloppiness.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > It's one thing to be mistaken for subtle or deep reasons and say "this is how science works". It's another to be sloppy and say "this is how science works". There is a difference, but since both kinds of errors are widespread among humans, and science addresses both problems with a common solution, and nonscientific methods of generating systems of belief about the material world are prone to error due to their failures to correct both problems, I don't think there's really that material of a difference unless you mean “you” in the narrow individual sense of the specific actor making the initial error, in which case—and only in which case—is the difference at all significant.
    - dash2 6y ago
      Unfortunately science too has its own failure modes, including the incentives to overclaim. I don't say this was true here. Source: am academic scientist, though not in a very rigorous field.
Valgrim 6y ago
Regarding the climate data: Climate change is definitely happening. The problem is that the current model for sea ice growth is wrong because we're missing something (hypotheses need to be tested: maybe the salinity of water is dropping at the surface, maybe there's a change in water currents), but sea ice grow and melt every year. The ice shelves, however, are melting at a record pace.
- dnautics 6y ago
  "Climate change is definitely happening" This is such a non statement. Climate always changes. The correct statement is "the earth is definitely warming".
  - dagss 6y ago
    No. Climate does not always change at the extreme rate it is changing now. A change in 4 degrees celsius in a century is very different from a change in 4 degrees celsius over 10 000 years. The term "climate change" almost always refers to the current rapid changes over a century as opposed to natural rates of change; if someone misunderstands that I suspect that it is because they have decided to misunderstand it.
  - bananamerica 6y ago
    The term “climate change” has a universally accepted meaning and ignoring that is useless nitpicking. There’s a rhetorical component to language.
    - dnautics 6y ago
      No it's not. When language is changed as a coordinated political effort to rebrand something it creates something akin to a streisand effect. For commercial products, whatever, no press is bad press. For science, it's a problem.
  - twojacobtwo 6y ago
    This is just being pedantic. I have never encountered anyone in-person who did not immediately understand and/or equate "climate change" as "the earth is warming". If we want to get the message across to the average person, this type of tut-tut message does no good.
bananamerica 6y ago
Isn’t the ability to “roll back this mistaken/over-ambitious claim” a core feature of the scientific process?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by dash2 6y ago

kenjackson 6y ago

> I think "show just how science works" has become a bit of a meme for "we need to roll back this mistaken/over-ambitious claim". You say this as if it's a small feat. The willingness to rollback a claim you made, ambitious or mundane, is surprisingly difficult for people to do. Most of science is about making claims based on the best evidence that you have with some level of confidence. Where we run into problems, just look in the news, is when claims become invariant, regardless of new data, methods, theories.

dnautics 6y ago
You're arguing past GP. It's one thing to be mistaken for subtle or deep reasons and say "this is how science works". It's another to be sloppy and say "this is how science works". I'm not even saying scientists shouldn't ever be sloppy, you should definitely start sloppy and there's also a sense in which if observations are reproducible across sloppy setups it's more robust - but also, maybe one should not take out a headline-grabbing presser based on sloppy or shaky work. And it's hard to argue that the social structure of contemporary scientific discovery doesn't incentives this sort of sloppiness.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > It's one thing to be mistaken for subtle or deep reasons and say "this is how science works". It's another to be sloppy and say "this is how science works". There is a difference, but since both kinds of errors are widespread among humans, and science addresses both problems with a common solution, and nonscientific methods of generating systems of belief about the material world are prone to error due to their failures to correct both problems, I don't think there's really that material of a difference unless you mean “you” in the narrow individual sense of the specific actor making the initial error, in which case—and only in which case—is the difference at all significant.
  - dash2 6y ago
    Unfortunately science too has its own failure modes, including the incentives to overclaim. I don't say this was true here. Source: am academic scientist, though not in a very rigorous field.

Valgrim 6y ago

Regarding the climate data: Climate change is definitely happening. The problem is that the current model for sea ice growth is wrong because we're missing something (hypotheses need to be tested: maybe the salinity of water is dropping at the surface, maybe there's a change in water currents), but sea ice grow and melt every year. The ice shelves, however, are melting at a record pace.

dnautics 6y ago
"Climate change is definitely happening" This is such a non statement. Climate always changes. The correct statement is "the earth is definitely warming".
- dagss 6y ago
  No. Climate does not always change at the extreme rate it is changing now. A change in 4 degrees celsius in a century is very different from a change in 4 degrees celsius over 10 000 years. The term "climate change" almost always refers to the current rapid changes over a century as opposed to natural rates of change; if someone misunderstands that I suspect that it is because they have decided to misunderstand it.
- bananamerica 6y ago
  The term “climate change” has a universally accepted meaning and ignoring that is useless nitpicking. There’s a rhetorical component to language.
  - dnautics 6y ago
    No it's not. When language is changed as a coordinated political effort to rebrand something it creates something akin to a streisand effect. For commercial products, whatever, no press is bad press. For science, it's a problem.
- twojacobtwo 6y ago
  This is just being pedantic. I have never encountered anyone in-person who did not immediately understand and/or equate "climate change" as "the earth is warming". If we want to get the message across to the average person, this type of tut-tut message does no good.

bananamerica 6y ago

Isn’t the ability to “roll back this mistaken/over-ambitious claim” a core feature of the scientific process?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]