4 ms·

That's true of a lot of the "science" that makes its way into the media spotlight. Much of that is actually just PR: "Hershey's scientists find chocolate is bet

That's true of a lot of the "science" that makes its way into the media spotlight. Much of that is actually just PR: "Hershey's scientists find chocolate is better than sex!", etc. I don't think you'll find that true at all of serious, impactful papers that actually have an influence on consensus in a field. If that were true, then the figure for scientific consensus being true would be much lower than 90%. But I don't believe that. I'd have to wonder what these scientists were doing, that I could just waltz in and blow them away with my wits and reason. I mean, what are the other scientists in this hypothetical field _doing_? Are they that incompetent or corrupt, that I can just blow a hole in their field based on casual observation? Why can't they see the same things I can? This brings me back to that journal benchmark. Do you think you could write a summary paper discounting a substantial body of research for exhibiting various flaws? If so, do you think it would be accepted? I suggest there are few fields where it's really that easy.

Alex3917 15y ago
"If that were true, then the figure for scientific consensus being true would be much lower than 90%." I think if you actually look at research about the historical validity of science, you'll in fact find that the 90% figure is a wild overestimate. There are dozens of disciplines where virtually every single scientific consensus in the entire field has been overturned. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_... http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/11/lies-damne...
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- tel 15y ago
  Sure. That's why it's dynamic knowledge. Scientific fact is, by design, wrong. We have completely overturned the luminiferous aether. It is in hindsight a really, really stupid theory. It was, at the time, quite difficult to disprove, though. It is highly likely that our current situation is identical, if more sophisticated by a revolution or ten. So we're not really talking about scientific knowledge. We're talking about recommendations based on scientific knowledge. As it turns out, small changes in our understanding can actually lead to massive changes in policy. This is a good part of why scientists hate to posture on policies — it's difficult to distinguish them from knowledge statements and scientists make their reputation on trying to only utter true knowledge statements. --- In practice, this means that your best bet is still to trust scientists stating predictions 100% of the time unless you've got some significant understanding of the field they're talking about. Autism and vaccination are uncorrelated is a fact about the world. Whether we should be afraid of vaccination is a normative policy. The first can (should) inform the second, but you can certainly argue about it.
- aterimperator 15y ago
  "There are dozens of disciplines where virtually every single scientific consensus in the entire field has been overturned." You seem to be arguing that since mankind once thought the world was flat and was wrong, and then mankind thought the world was round and was wrong (more oblate spheroidal), and then mankind thought the world was oblate spheroidal and was wrong, we definitely can't trust the scientific consensus that the world is approximately oblate spheroidal with a very slight bulge south of the equator. Indeed, maybe the earth will turn out to be cubical tomorrow, and a taurus the day after that. "Wrong" is a relative statement. Saying the earth is flat is more wrong than saying the earth is a sphere, and saying the earth is a sphere is more wrong than saying the earth is oblate spheroidal. Yes they're all wrong, just as newtonian mechanics was, strictly speaking, "wrong", yet no one looks at a car and says "that was built using newtonian mechanics, and therefore can't possibly work". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0
realitygrill 15y ago
Certainly doable in medicine: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/2/218.abstract http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/2/218.abstract

Alex3917 15y ago

"If that were true, then the figure for scientific consensus being true would be much lower than 90%." I think if you actually look at research about the historical validity of science, you'll in fact find that the 90% figure is a wild overestimate. There are dozens of disciplines where virtually every single scientific consensus in the entire field has been overturned. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_... http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/11/lies-damne...

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
tel 15y ago
Sure. That's why it's dynamic knowledge. Scientific fact is, by design, wrong. We have completely overturned the luminiferous aether. It is in hindsight a really, really stupid theory. It was, at the time, quite difficult to disprove, though. It is highly likely that our current situation is identical, if more sophisticated by a revolution or ten. So we're not really talking about scientific knowledge. We're talking about recommendations based on scientific knowledge. As it turns out, small changes in our understanding can actually lead to massive changes in policy. This is a good part of why scientists hate to posture on policies — it's difficult to distinguish them from knowledge statements and scientists make their reputation on trying to only utter true knowledge statements. --- In practice, this means that your best bet is still to trust scientists stating predictions 100% of the time unless you've got some significant understanding of the field they're talking about. Autism and vaccination are uncorrelated is a fact about the world. Whether we should be afraid of vaccination is a normative policy. The first can (should) inform the second, but you can certainly argue about it.
aterimperator 15y ago
"There are dozens of disciplines where virtually every single scientific consensus in the entire field has been overturned." You seem to be arguing that since mankind once thought the world was flat and was wrong, and then mankind thought the world was round and was wrong (more oblate spheroidal), and then mankind thought the world was oblate spheroidal and was wrong, we definitely can't trust the scientific consensus that the world is approximately oblate spheroidal with a very slight bulge south of the equator. Indeed, maybe the earth will turn out to be cubical tomorrow, and a taurus the day after that. "Wrong" is a relative statement. Saying the earth is flat is more wrong than saying the earth is a sphere, and saying the earth is a sphere is more wrong than saying the earth is oblate spheroidal. Yes they're all wrong, just as newtonian mechanics was, strictly speaking, "wrong", yet no one looks at a car and says "that was built using newtonian mechanics, and therefore can't possibly work". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0

realitygrill 15y ago

Certainly doable in medicine: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/2/218.abstract http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/2/218.abstract