5 ms·

>what tools do you use to scientifically analyze the scientific process? Iterating on existing systems to see if you can get results to converge and also testi

>what tools do you use to scientifically analyze the scientific process? Iterating on existing systems to see if you can get results to converge and also testing new systems to see if they also result in known good values.

licebmi__at__ 5y ago
That seems broad enough to describe the human history isn’t it? So, “keep doing what you do”?
- chromaton 5y ago
  Not necessarily. You could just fall back on authority, superstition, or navel-gazing.
  - dpe82 5y ago
    That would probably fall under "testing [new/other] systems to see if they also result in known good values."
munificent 5y ago
It's fun to realize how deeply ingrained the current scientific process is in our way of thinking. All of these ideas that you tacitly take for granted are itself mutable parts of the scientific process: * That iterative improvement and hill-climbing is an effective process for improving results. * That replication of experiments and convergence is a truth-generating enterprise. * That truth can be expressed numerically. * That there are some values that are "known good". By what process? According to whom? To be clear, I don't disagree with those. However, these rules aren't baked into the firmament of the universe. They are processes we humans have chosen to apply in our social process of reaching conensus on truth. In other words, this list here isn't physics, it's technology. It's entirely possible to imagine a culture whose truth finding bodies don't take for granted one or more of these rules at all. That culture might be more or less effective (again, according to what metrics?), but it would still be well-defined.
- xxpor 5y ago
  The only nit I'd pick with the list is: * That truth can be expressed numerically. Isn't the basic point of quantum physics that this isn't true? We can only make guesses with probabilities, but we can't know the actual truth, and therefore can't express it numerically.
  - munificent 5y ago
    Sure, but the probabilities are numbers too. Which is again sort of acknowledging the need to fit quantum mechanics into a numeric framework. Imagine you were studying ice cream flavors. You might design a study like, "We'll ask a lot of people and the flavor that the most people prefer is the best." In other words, the metaprocess you use to design your experiment itself tacitly assumes you need a numeric result. The presumption of comparison and quantifying frames the questions you even think to ask. But you can imagine an alternate culture that when studying ice cream flavors doesn't even ask questions with numeric answers. It could be, "We'll ask a lot of people to try flavors and write poems about the experience." We wouldn't even call this "science". Because there is a hidden border around even the term that affects how we are able to evolve the scientific process.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      Funny thing about quantum mechanics... we use numbers to describe probabilities and functions to describe probability distributions. But the mathematical models we use are incomplete (and, looking at neutron decay, incompatible) so can we really conclude that numbers are the right abstraction? And no, not poems. Elements of finite groups are not numbers, but they crop up in physics frequently. Topologies are not numbers, but they're also significant in physics.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- chromaton 5y ago
  Yeah, I'm reminded of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance where the author was driven to insanity by the quest to define "quality".

licebmi__at__ 5y ago

That seems broad enough to describe the human history isn’t it? So, “keep doing what you do”?

chromaton 5y ago
Not necessarily. You could just fall back on authority, superstition, or navel-gazing.
- dpe82 5y ago
  That would probably fall under "testing [new/other] systems to see if they also result in known good values."

munificent 5y ago

It's fun to realize how deeply ingrained the current scientific process is in our way of thinking. All of these ideas that you tacitly take for granted are itself mutable parts of the scientific process: * That iterative improvement and hill-climbing is an effective process for improving results. * That replication of experiments and convergence is a truth-generating enterprise. * That truth can be expressed numerically. * That there are some values that are "known good". By what process? According to whom? To be clear, I don't disagree with those. However, these rules aren't baked into the firmament of the universe. They are processes we humans have chosen to apply in our social process of reaching conensus on truth. In other words, this list here isn't physics, it's technology. It's entirely possible to imagine a culture whose truth finding bodies don't take for granted one or more of these rules at all. That culture might be more or less effective (again, according to what metrics?), but it would still be well-defined.

xxpor 5y ago
The only nit I'd pick with the list is: * That truth can be expressed numerically. Isn't the basic point of quantum physics that this isn't true? We can only make guesses with probabilities, but we can't know the actual truth, and therefore can't express it numerically.
- munificent 5y ago
  Sure, but the probabilities are numbers too. Which is again sort of acknowledging the need to fit quantum mechanics into a numeric framework. Imagine you were studying ice cream flavors. You might design a study like, "We'll ask a lot of people and the flavor that the most people prefer is the best." In other words, the metaprocess you use to design your experiment itself tacitly assumes you need a numeric result. The presumption of comparison and quantifying frames the questions you even think to ask. But you can imagine an alternate culture that when studying ice cream flavors doesn't even ask questions with numeric answers. It could be, "We'll ask a lot of people to try flavors and write poems about the experience." We wouldn't even call this "science". Because there is a hidden border around even the term that affects how we are able to evolve the scientific process.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Funny thing about quantum mechanics... we use numbers to describe probabilities and functions to describe probability distributions. But the mathematical models we use are incomplete (and, looking at neutron decay, incompatible) so can we really conclude that numbers are the right abstraction? And no, not poems. Elements of finite groups are not numbers, but they crop up in physics frequently. Topologies are not numbers, but they're also significant in physics.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
chromaton 5y ago
Yeah, I'm reminded of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance where the author was driven to insanity by the quest to define "quality".