6 ms·

The key quote: "The tribalistic sociology that has led to a large group of people calling themselves “string theorists” when what they do has nothing to do wit

• pdonis 6y ago
  > It's my personal bias but I see every group this way. I have the same "bias". What people seem to forget is that the scientific method was supposed to be a way to develop theories that made good predictions in spite of the fact that humans, both individually and in groups, are unreliable and do all sorts of crazy things for all sorts of crazy reasons. Calling oneself a "scientist" or having an advanced degree does not make one less susceptible to that. One has to set up institutions that will harness the craziness of humans and human groups in a direction that, on average and over the long term, is productive. But what most people call "science" today is not such an institution. For example, the real message of the "replication crisis" is that most of what the average person is told is "science" is actually nothing of the sort. A sane institution of science would never have labelled that stuff as "science" in the first place; it would have said "sorry, we're still working on this, no results yet". And a lot of times it would say that and there never would be any results, and science would say "no results from this line of research; that's to be expected since many lines of research that initially look promising don't pan out".
  • cycomanic 6y ago
    The are several things about the replication crisis. First, it is important to remember that science always had unethical behaviour, intrigue and politics. In the end the best science always won, but it might have taken significant time. One could also say that by the very nature of us speaking about it, it can't be an existential crisis. Finally, I would argue that the large problem stems not from within science, but from how "science administratio/funding" has changed. Essentially, the idea of making science more (a)countable/measurable has lead to a state where scientists spend large fractions (>30%) of their time applying for funding. Also the funding is very much tied to some measurable outcomes, so there is just no time left to dedicade to reproducing results, because you can't get funding for it. I believe we as society need to come back to a view of seeing science as a general good, without the need to produce some immediate measurable outcomes (in fact this is true for many aspects of society) . Unfortunately the MBAs are running the show almost everywhere so I don't see this happening anytime soon.
    • pdonis 6y ago
      > science always had unethical behaviour, intrigue and politics Yes, this is part of what I was referring to when I said that humans do all kinds of crazy things for all kinds of crazy reasons. > In the end the best science always won I'm not sure I agree. I would agree if you limited your claim to hard science--areas where we can nail down the best theory by lots of data and controlled experiments--but many areas that are called "science" are not amenable to that. > by the very nature of us speaking about it, it can't be an existential crisis I'm not sure I agree with that either. > I believe we as society need to come back to a view of seeing science as a general good, without the need to produce some immediate measurable outcomes I agree with this, but I would also add that science should be viewed as a tool for finding good predictive theories, no matter what those theories end up predicting. Unfortunately much funding of science now is given with the expectation that a particular kind of result will be what "science" predicts.
      • bonoboTP 6y ago
        I've been thinking about it lately how this may be a linguistic game. Science is just a label and when anything turns out to be wrong, we just say, "well that's part of the scientific process". In this way science can never be really wrong, because it is always open to being proved wrong and if so, it just incorporates that new fix/criticism as a new part of science. (Similarly philosophy seems to be impossible to criticize well without the criticism becoming labeled as philosophy itself) I think it's rather that we have had a bunch of great curious people who worked on interesting stuff and found out a lot about nature. But we can't equate that with institutional credentialed authoritative "Science". I guess there is some underlying scientific ethos, that can be learned between the lines, but I don't think it's a clear method (as in the intro textbook definition).
• kestonis 6y ago
  >String theory, and the 'reproducability problem' I do not know what is your experience with science, but it is not how it works. In most cases research leads to unexpected results in grand scale. F.e. Research in string theory field led to developing new mathematics which eventually helped to calculate particle paths in LHS, which helped to make gathering data manageable and which lead to discovering Higgs boson. >most socially unaware people (often science) 99% successful scientists are very socially aware. Usually socially unaware people do not become successful even in science. >social artifacts can dominate their sphere Because thats how world works. F.e. phd student does his own research, then he consults with his professor, who suggests how to add marketable layer to his research and with that layer his research becomes one for string theorists, though it was not his initial goal. This marketable layer helps him get the grant. >Now, the existential issue of the fact that their 'entire worldview' and 'life-long work' is tied up in something, delusions can become very strongly internalized. This is made by popular media, movies. Most scientists live normal life, create families, try separate work from life, therefore research does not come from worldview.
  • jariel 6y ago
    "Research in string theory field led to developing new mathematics which eventually helped to calculate particle paths in LHS," I think this is koolaid. String Theory is Probably Wrong. Thousands of PhDs have been minted, a zillion talks and publications, conferences, think tanks, books, 'Science PR' - all for wish-wash. That 'String Theory helped some thing over in the corner' does not validate all the investment. With the clearly lacking 'Self Awareness', it's possible that Science could have gone in a variety of directions, producing or necessitating all sorts of other, likely more useful things, out of which some 'useful math' may have also been developed. But instead we put a lot of effort into vaporware. Why? Because it's human nature - people don't want to accept they are riding a meme, and lack objectivity. ... "This is made by popular media, movies. Most scientists live normal life, create families, try separate work from life, therefore research does not come from worldview. " Again, I don't think you're maybe grasping what I am saying. It's normative for people, especially serious people, to be wrapped up in a 'world view'. Businessmen talk about 'free markets' all day long, often completely ignoring real externalities. Socialist politicians, clouded by their goodwill, are often dangerously unaware of basic economics, the realities of Supply and Demand. Military Generals may sometimes see a possible 'military solution to every geopolitical problem'. It's even 'more normal' for someone working on something arcane and abstract to be tied up in their passion and ambition. Case and Point: String Theory. It seems as though String Theory is probably mostly hogwash. How many String Theorists would admit that? Or even the very real possibility of it? And how many will take their 'belief' to the grave? It's obviously not 'entirely a waste' - but if Science wants to really maintain credibility, it needs a giant dose of self awareness there - and also with the 'reproducibility' problem. Edit: for some nice examples of cultish, self re-affirming behaviour [1]. [1] https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375