6 ms·

"Scientists are meant to know what’s going on, but in this particular case, we are deeply confused." What? I'm a scientist, I often don’t know what’s going on!

"Scientists are meant to know what’s going on, but in this particular case, we are deeply confused." What? I'm a scientist, I often don’t know what’s going on! I see it more as my duty to help others understand that that is ok, and often even a good thing because that is when the fun starts. Science is a method, not a “state”. States are for religions, they “know” what’s going on because "it has been written!". Us scientists are always writing.

heyoo 5y ago
Also, how can it be surprising that a brain-related phenomenon is not well understood? I mean, I can think of a few brain-related questions with no good answers: - What is consciousness and how does a brain become conscious? - How and why is one specific consciousness attached to one specific brain (& body)? Why am I controlling my body and not yours?
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  I agree with your sentiment in general. However, I will note that the second question only makes sense for non-biological, dualistic notions of consciousness. If consciousness is taken to be a function or phenomenon happening in my brain&body, then there is no question to ask. It would be like asking 'why am I digesting my food and not yours'.
  - konschubert 5y ago
    > why am I digesting my food and not yours haha :D To take it a bit further, I am not sure if the first question makes a lot of sense either.
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      I think the first question does make sense. By the same analogy, asking what is digestion precisely and how the stomach digests food is perfectly sensible. I would also note that the second question can make sense, but only if you believe consciousness is not strictly tied to the brain and body.
- mellavora 5y ago
  Why assume a consciousness requires a brain? Why assume consciousness is necessarily linked and/or only a property of isolated individuals (vs a community, possibly multi-species)? Do we define consciousness as awareness of 1 the general environment, 2 of the self as a distinct part of that environment, 3 of the (Freudian) ego as the self? note that 2 & 3 especially make some pretty strong assumptions-- is it possible to separate something from environment (consider the impact of your microbiome), & for #3, is a person who has temporarily suspended ego (meditation, high-flow state, psychedelic drugs) conscious? Former brain scientist speaking.
  - nextaccountic 5y ago
    We have some evidence that our own consciousness is specially linked to our brains, because brain alterations can alter it in a way that modifying other body parts don't. For example, removing a foot vs removing a portion of my brain will have different impacts on my mind. So, it seems I'm a brain mostly (or a nervous system?), or at least it seems it's my brain that is talking to you. The question is: are my feet conscious too? What if it looks like I'm a brain because only the brain can talk? Regarding the consciousness of multi-organisms: we are like a colony of many cells already! So it's possible that a group of humans may share consciousness somehow (but this seems different than my own, personal consciousness). Likewise, we use our environment as an extension of our minds, or at least, spiders do[0]. Perhaps that's what the rest of our bodies is for our brain: just part of the environment. I took a couple of neuroscience classes. [0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532680-900-spiders-think-with-their-webs-challenging-our-ideas-of-intelligence/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532680-900-spiders-...
  - teekert 5y ago
    Because consciousness itself degrades as the brain degrades? In more or less Predictable ways even.
    - nicoburns 5y ago
      Human consciousness does. But we have no idea which other things in our environment are conscious. We can't directly observe even other humans' consciousness.
dmos62 5y ago
A scientist is meant to be curious. Saying you fully understand something is the opposite.
- smitty1e 5y ago
  The mainstream media suffers from representational drift as it seeks to build scientists into secular priests whose dicta must be obeyed.
  - EasyTiger_ 5y ago
    This is exactly what it feels like. Worship at the altar of Science™ or else, anything else is blasphemy.
    - cogman10 5y ago
      There's nuance that's often hard to capture. There are core parts of our understanding that would take a lot of counter evidence to really change. For example, evolution. It's as close to a fact as you can possibly get. On the flip side, there is always fringe parts of science that we are actively generating new models and theories around. The problem is distinguishing between the two. Yes, you are an idiot if you think the earth is flat. No, you aren't an idiot if you think that we don't have a full understanding of how the brain works. Scientific "blasphemy" is making a claim with little evidence that runs counter to the current accepted and working models which have mountains of evidence behind them. It's the "Let's rewrite the whole system" mentality whenever you encounter a small bug in the software. Scientific understanding is generally a bunch of small fixes and tweaks vs rewriting things ever few years.
      - teekert 5y ago
        I just want to add that yes, evolution by natural selection is a mechanism that can help us understand how the natural world came to be as it is. But not entirely. There is also sexual selection for example which leaves species with traits that decrease their pure chances of survival as an individual (think of peacocks dragging along that ridiculous but beautiful tail). And maybe there are more effects, yet undiscovered. I know that group selection is still often a center of debate. I like David Sloan Wilson's work about it [0]. So, yes evolution by several forms of selection is pretty well established but by no means do we fully understand how the natural world came to be as it is today. Which is nice if you ask me. As you say, we are tweaking this theory. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sloan_Wilson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sloan_Wilson
nimbleal 5y ago
Most religions would say much the same, in fact — if you read the “experts”. So it’s very similar: a laity who believe everything is understood and a priesthood in awe at the mystery.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  `knowledge blinds`
wly_cdgr 5y ago
Heh, came here to moan about this also. I bet the scientists interviewed for this story groaned so hard when they read that line. It's like...a Hollywood blockbuster idea of "scientist"
FatalLogic 5y ago
This may be better expressed as "When scientists publish research, they usually have some hypothesis (or hypotheses) to explain it, or maybe a theory they were hoping to prove". But in this unusual case, they admit they are confused.
- xwolfi 5y ago
  No, it s an admission by the journalist he believed scientists were like modern priests, and an expression of his surprise when he realized that Science destroyed comfortable certainty to instead provide more questions. It's fine for many people, but some like this writer, still can't shake the idea the world must have omniscient oracles.
- kubanczyk 5y ago
  Scientists do not hope to prove theories (except mathematics, where they have axioms, so they can prove things - sometimes). Scientists may propose a novel model. Then they check whether the model predicts reality better than the old model within some boundaries. Rinse and repeat. Although a model will probably seem to be "explaining" reality, this is mostly misleading and by all means unnecessary. Pop-sci will explain anything to anyone anyway, they can even explain Hawking radiation without showing even one equation.
- N1H1L 5y ago
  In fact confusion is good. It shows honesty, and is way more exciting to the scientific community. I think however the intersection and pop culture and science is what makes us queasy about scientific confusion. Often, while we don't know somethings completely, we know them quite well enough (anthropogenic global warming from carbon emissions, lung cancer from cigarette smoking etc). However, if there is scientific uncertainty it often becomes an invitation for quacks and charlatans - which is why scientists are sometimes so hesitant to speculate in public.
heroku 5y ago
Religion is the laws to let you do science at peace, and has nothing to do with how science works.
- idiotsecant 5y ago
  It sure seems like that has not been true historically. Religions are organizations full of people that have worldviews. When science finds evidence contradicting those worldviews it often becomes quite a bit less 'peaceful' real quick.
- anthk 5y ago
  False. Civilization and law.
keanebean86 5y ago
Imagine how boring the universe would be if we understood everything. I'm sure we'd adapt but it would be tough for a while knowing we accumulated the totality of knowledge.
- teekert 5y ago
  We would start bothering lesser beings, as the Q do ;)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- geenew 5y ago
  There was a good Futurama episode about that. The Professor got ahold of a new microscope that let him see down to the smallest particle, and from that he discovered the unified theory. He won the Nobel prize, but was tremendously unhappy. For, with no more questions to answer, what was the purpose of living? Fry then asked a question in his savant way: why is the unified theory what it is, instead of something else? The professor then realized there was another question to ask, one that would take decades to answer, thousands of postgrads, and flaming dump trucks of grant money. He was happy again. “And, now that I've found all the answers, I realise that what I was living for were the questions!” (Futurama, Reincarnation, 2nd part)
cortesoft 5y ago
That was my first thought... if scientists knew what is going on, they would be out of a job. I think some people confuse scientists with science teachers or science students. Scientists aren’t people who spend their time learning about what we already know, they are people trying to discover things we don’t know.
splithalf 5y ago
To say that religion “knows” is to be fundamentally unaware of religion. The core tenant of judeo-Christian belief systems is one of piety - being humble and accepting the fallibility of humans and thirsting to overcome those imperfections by studying the universe to better understand the divine principals which we call “truth.”
- anthk 5y ago
  He, good joke. Then they should kick the prayings and beliefs out and just start doing... science.
  - splithalf 5y ago
    Yes compared to “anthk”, Newton was an idiot. “He”indeed.
    - anthk 5y ago
      Argumentum ad autoritam. Something said from Newton wont make it true.
      - splithalf 5y ago
        No, I was making an empirical argument: most great scientists have been religious. It would not be too hard to quantify this if you scraped a few Wikipedia links.
        anthk 5y ago
        >most great scientists have been religious So what? Argumentum ad populum again. Seriously, your country needs a hard basis on logic, math and scientific method. If not, your are doomed. Hard.
- cogman10 5y ago
  Yeah... And how many religions would accept someone that says "I don't think we have enough evidence for the existence of god". Or "This holy text appears to have some flaws that make me question whether or not it was divinely inspired". Religions are specifically claiming that they know a fundamental truth about existence. Their core tenants are one of knowing a truth that doesn't have supporting evidence and cannot be falsified.

heyoo 5y ago

Also, how can it be surprising that a brain-related phenomenon is not well understood? I mean, I can think of a few brain-related questions with no good answers: - What is consciousness and how does a brain become conscious? - How and why is one specific consciousness attached to one specific brain (& body)? Why am I controlling my body and not yours?

tsimionescu 5y ago
I agree with your sentiment in general. However, I will note that the second question only makes sense for non-biological, dualistic notions of consciousness. If consciousness is taken to be a function or phenomenon happening in my brain&body, then there is no question to ask. It would be like asking 'why am I digesting my food and not yours'.
- konschubert 5y ago
  > why am I digesting my food and not yours haha :D To take it a bit further, I am not sure if the first question makes a lot of sense either.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    I think the first question does make sense. By the same analogy, asking what is digestion precisely and how the stomach digests food is perfectly sensible. I would also note that the second question can make sense, but only if you believe consciousness is not strictly tied to the brain and body.
mellavora 5y ago
Why assume a consciousness requires a brain? Why assume consciousness is necessarily linked and/or only a property of isolated individuals (vs a community, possibly multi-species)? Do we define consciousness as awareness of 1 the general environment, 2 of the self as a distinct part of that environment, 3 of the (Freudian) ego as the self? note that 2 & 3 especially make some pretty strong assumptions-- is it possible to separate something from environment (consider the impact of your microbiome), & for #3, is a person who has temporarily suspended ego (meditation, high-flow state, psychedelic drugs) conscious? Former brain scientist speaking.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  We have some evidence that our own consciousness is specially linked to our brains, because brain alterations can alter it in a way that modifying other body parts don't. For example, removing a foot vs removing a portion of my brain will have different impacts on my mind. So, it seems I'm a brain mostly (or a nervous system?), or at least it seems it's my brain that is talking to you. The question is: are my feet conscious too? What if it looks like I'm a brain because only the brain can talk? Regarding the consciousness of multi-organisms: we are like a colony of many cells already! So it's possible that a group of humans may share consciousness somehow (but this seems different than my own, personal consciousness). Likewise, we use our environment as an extension of our minds, or at least, spiders do[0]. Perhaps that's what the rest of our bodies is for our brain: just part of the environment. I took a couple of neuroscience classes. [0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532680-900-spiders-think-with-their-webs-challenging-our-ideas-of-intelligence/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24532680-900-spiders-...
- teekert 5y ago
  Because consciousness itself degrades as the brain degrades? In more or less Predictable ways even.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    Human consciousness does. But we have no idea which other things in our environment are conscious. We can't directly observe even other humans' consciousness.

dmos62 5y ago

A scientist is meant to be curious. Saying you fully understand something is the opposite.

smitty1e 5y ago
The mainstream media suffers from representational drift as it seeks to build scientists into secular priests whose dicta must be obeyed.
- EasyTiger_ 5y ago
  This is exactly what it feels like. Worship at the altar of Science™ or else, anything else is blasphemy.
  - cogman10 5y ago
    There's nuance that's often hard to capture. There are core parts of our understanding that would take a lot of counter evidence to really change. For example, evolution. It's as close to a fact as you can possibly get. On the flip side, there is always fringe parts of science that we are actively generating new models and theories around. The problem is distinguishing between the two. Yes, you are an idiot if you think the earth is flat. No, you aren't an idiot if you think that we don't have a full understanding of how the brain works. Scientific "blasphemy" is making a claim with little evidence that runs counter to the current accepted and working models which have mountains of evidence behind them. It's the "Let's rewrite the whole system" mentality whenever you encounter a small bug in the software. Scientific understanding is generally a bunch of small fixes and tweaks vs rewriting things ever few years.
    - teekert 5y ago
      I just want to add that yes, evolution by natural selection is a mechanism that can help us understand how the natural world came to be as it is. But not entirely. There is also sexual selection for example which leaves species with traits that decrease their pure chances of survival as an individual (think of peacocks dragging along that ridiculous but beautiful tail). And maybe there are more effects, yet undiscovered. I know that group selection is still often a center of debate. I like David Sloan Wilson's work about it [0]. So, yes evolution by several forms of selection is pretty well established but by no means do we fully understand how the natural world came to be as it is today. Which is nice if you ask me. As you say, we are tweaking this theory. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sloan_Wilson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sloan_Wilson

nimbleal 5y ago

Most religions would say much the same, in fact — if you read the “experts”. So it’s very similar: a laity who believe everything is understood and a priesthood in awe at the mystery.

agumonkey 5y ago
`knowledge blinds`

wly_cdgr 5y ago

Heh, came here to moan about this also. I bet the scientists interviewed for this story groaned so hard when they read that line. It's like...a Hollywood blockbuster idea of "scientist"

FatalLogic 5y ago

This may be better expressed as "When scientists publish research, they usually have some hypothesis (or hypotheses) to explain it, or maybe a theory they were hoping to prove". But in this unusual case, they admit they are confused.

xwolfi 5y ago
No, it s an admission by the journalist he believed scientists were like modern priests, and an expression of his surprise when he realized that Science destroyed comfortable certainty to instead provide more questions. It's fine for many people, but some like this writer, still can't shake the idea the world must have omniscient oracles.
kubanczyk 5y ago
Scientists do not hope to prove theories (except mathematics, where they have axioms, so they can prove things - sometimes). Scientists may propose a novel model. Then they check whether the model predicts reality better than the old model within some boundaries. Rinse and repeat. Although a model will probably seem to be "explaining" reality, this is mostly misleading and by all means unnecessary. Pop-sci will explain anything to anyone anyway, they can even explain Hawking radiation without showing even one equation.
N1H1L 5y ago
In fact confusion is good. It shows honesty, and is way more exciting to the scientific community. I think however the intersection and pop culture and science is what makes us queasy about scientific confusion. Often, while we don't know somethings completely, we know them quite well enough (anthropogenic global warming from carbon emissions, lung cancer from cigarette smoking etc). However, if there is scientific uncertainty it often becomes an invitation for quacks and charlatans - which is why scientists are sometimes so hesitant to speculate in public.

heroku 5y ago

Religion is the laws to let you do science at peace, and has nothing to do with how science works.

idiotsecant 5y ago
It sure seems like that has not been true historically. Religions are organizations full of people that have worldviews. When science finds evidence contradicting those worldviews it often becomes quite a bit less 'peaceful' real quick.
anthk 5y ago
False. Civilization and law.

keanebean86 5y ago

Imagine how boring the universe would be if we understood everything. I'm sure we'd adapt but it would be tough for a while knowing we accumulated the totality of knowledge.

teekert 5y ago
We would start bothering lesser beings, as the Q do ;)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
geenew 5y ago
There was a good Futurama episode about that. The Professor got ahold of a new microscope that let him see down to the smallest particle, and from that he discovered the unified theory. He won the Nobel prize, but was tremendously unhappy. For, with no more questions to answer, what was the purpose of living? Fry then asked a question in his savant way: why is the unified theory what it is, instead of something else? The professor then realized there was another question to ask, one that would take decades to answer, thousands of postgrads, and flaming dump trucks of grant money. He was happy again. “And, now that I've found all the answers, I realise that what I was living for were the questions!” (Futurama, Reincarnation, 2nd part)

cortesoft 5y ago

That was my first thought... if scientists knew what is going on, they would be out of a job. I think some people confuse scientists with science teachers or science students. Scientists aren’t people who spend their time learning about what we already know, they are people trying to discover things we don’t know.

splithalf 5y ago

To say that religion “knows” is to be fundamentally unaware of religion. The core tenant of judeo-Christian belief systems is one of piety - being humble and accepting the fallibility of humans and thirsting to overcome those imperfections by studying the universe to better understand the divine principals which we call “truth.”

anthk 5y ago
He, good joke. Then they should kick the prayings and beliefs out and just start doing... science.
- splithalf 5y ago
  Yes compared to “anthk”, Newton was an idiot. “He”indeed.
  - anthk 5y ago
    Argumentum ad autoritam. Something said from Newton wont make it true.
    - splithalf 5y ago
      No, I was making an empirical argument: most great scientists have been religious. It would not be too hard to quantify this if you scraped a few Wikipedia links.
      - anthk 5y ago
        >most great scientists have been religious So what? Argumentum ad populum again. Seriously, your country needs a hard basis on logic, math and scientific method. If not, your are doomed. Hard.
cogman10 5y ago
Yeah... And how many religions would accept someone that says "I don't think we have enough evidence for the existence of god". Or "This holy text appears to have some flaws that make me question whether or not it was divinely inspired". Religions are specifically claiming that they know a fundamental truth about existence. Their core tenants are one of knowing a truth that doesn't have supporting evidence and cannot be falsified.