4 ms·

"It's not unusual in school to hear this religion of science put another way, science is the beautiful application of reason and logic that slowly and inexorabl

"It's not unusual in school to hear this religion of science put another way, science is the beautiful application of reason and logic that slowly and inexorably moves from ignorance to truth. "Bullshit." At this point, I stopped taking you seriously. No. That is exactly what science is: an ongoing dialogue between scientists, using experiments to collect data to validate (improve certainty of) or disprove theories, theories which over time paint increasingly accurate pictures of how the thing we know as reality really works. The garbage claims you ascribe to scientists are usually not made by scientists; instead, the claims usually come from the media who either don't understand the underlying science, or who do understand it but are sensationalizing the scientific result in an effort to get more people interested. A problem only arises when Joe Sixpacks (who not only dominate society but Congress as well), who are completely ignorant of science, end up using media reporting of science to make decisions.

ChuckMcM 15y ago
I found that part annoying as well, he goes on with one of his main points: "What I'm concerned about is that the average scientific layman reader -- the person who assumes they are just as up-to-date on scientific matters as possible -- has no freaking idea where the real science leaves off and where the bullshit begins." Which I completely agree with. There is the scientific method which strives to discover truth though rigor and their is the use of 'science' in rhetoric which attempts to lend truthiness to speculation or wishful thinking. The blog post would have benefited greatly from taking this version of it, pulling out all of the actual things the author wanted to say, and then laying those out in a more cohesive fashion. For those interested in the abuse of numbers in rhetoric I can reccomend the book 'Proofiness' [1] which talks about ways people abuse mathematics as a rhetorical tool. Science is one of those things that also helps lay people feel better about believing in something. I agree with the original author's disappointment as to how it is being abused. But I also note that the author gets confused between how journalists report science vs what the science actually said. It is always a good idea to track down the original paper or study and read it to see what the journalist left out or simply missed. [1] http://www.amazon.com/dp/0670022160/ http://www.amazon.com/dp/0670022160/
lutorm 15y ago
"slowly and inexorably moves from ignorance to truth." I don't think that's what science is. It moves in fits and starts, has fads that come and go. Sure, if you average over long enough time it looks like smooth progress, but it's really not.
zb 15y ago
You haven't addressed his actual point, which is that progress is not inexorable—it may not even be monotonic—and it certainly does not occur through the pure application of reason and logic. Your view is of course a very popular one. In fact, that's what he's saying is the problem. But it's far from the only philosophy of science that's out there. And it's a particularly naïve one in my opinion. It's a shame that as soon as you encounter someone with a different philosophy you stop taking them seriously; otherwise you might learn something. Personally, I no longer have much time for the "inexorable progress through reason and logic" theory, which essentially boils down to the idea that if you just make sure you follow the One True Scientific™ Method to the letter then the right outcome is guaranteed. I've seen people claim that if you just make sure you follow the Waterfall Method to the letter then good software is guaranteed to come out of it. I don't have much time for that either. Before you complain about the comparison, note that both are essentially projections of the same philosophy (logical positivism) into different spheres. I attempted to summarise some of the history and why it matters here: http://www.zerobanana.com/essays/politics-of-reason/ http://www.zerobanana.com/essays/politics-of-reason/ but in short, I disagree that the problem is just with journalists (or just with scientists, for that matter). It's a problem for all of us as a society in how we think about science.
tybris 15y ago
Debates among scientists sometimes look almost indistinguishable from public debates on science. The difference is in the premise: in the former case the merit of the methods is questioned, and in the latter case the merit of science itself is questioned. My feeling was this critique was of the former kind, particularly with regards to scientists' communication. His view is fairly similar to that of most academics I know, though less nuanced. In that light, I think you may have misinterpreted this particular comment. The word "truth" is a diabolical invention that has a fairly subjective interpretation that changes when you start looking into what it means. However, once you dig deep enough, you find the inevitable: There is no spoon. Empirical science is not about truths. It's about models. It's about modelling our world 'as well as we can'. The theory of relativity does not explain how the universe is architected, it's just a model that makes predictions. Any conclusions about the nature of the universe drawn from the structure of the model or any valuations of the model are entirely your own. What does "as well as we can" mean? Here it comes down to merit. Accuracy is a virtue, but accuracy often implies complexity and limited applicability (e.g., simulations are relatively accurate, but only concern a single set of situations). Practicality is a virtue, because few people use relativity to calculate gravity. Correctness is a virtue, but probability can make things much simpler. Simplicity is a virtue, but not for any fundamental reasons. Generality is a virtue, but often comes at the cost of accuracy. Completeness is a virtue, but we do not know how to achieve it. Communicability is a virtue, because many good models are forgotten for lack of sex appeal. Usefulness is perhaps the greatest virtue, but it's always too early to judge that. As scientists, we are constrained by the same reality that all systems face: There is no right solution. Why make models if they don't reveal any truths? Two reasons. One is that they (sometimes) allow us to calculate things, which is the most powerful concept in human civilization. It allows us to build bridges, launch satellites into orbit, produce the materials that we need, etc. without relying solely on trial-and-error. The second reason is that while the model does not reveal the truth, it does reveal a piece of the mathematics or processes that play a role in shaping the system being studied. Usually the model only reveals one aspect of the system, while in reality all things are related and influence each other and no calculable formula could describe it. However, it gives us a sense of direction, like a compass, rather than a map. Once you grasp these subtleties of science, you become much more careful about your claims. Not so much because you think they might be flawed, that option should already be off the table, but because you know your claims do not (intend to) fairly represent the complexity of the truth. Part of the author's frustration, which many in the sciences department would share, seems to be that some scientists don't see or willfully ignore the subtlety when making claims in public. This leads people to misrepresent science as a magical truth producing machine, and make preposterous claims that distract attention from what science actually does: create models, for whatever purpose they have.

ChuckMcM 15y ago

I found that part annoying as well, he goes on with one of his main points: "What I'm concerned about is that the average scientific layman reader -- the person who assumes they are just as up-to-date on scientific matters as possible -- has no freaking idea where the real science leaves off and where the bullshit begins." Which I completely agree with. There is the scientific method which strives to discover truth though rigor and their is the use of 'science' in rhetoric which attempts to lend truthiness to speculation or wishful thinking. The blog post would have benefited greatly from taking this version of it, pulling out all of the actual things the author wanted to say, and then laying those out in a more cohesive fashion. For those interested in the abuse of numbers in rhetoric I can reccomend the book 'Proofiness' [1] which talks about ways people abuse mathematics as a rhetorical tool. Science is one of those things that also helps lay people feel better about believing in something. I agree with the original author's disappointment as to how it is being abused. But I also note that the author gets confused between how journalists report science vs what the science actually said. It is always a good idea to track down the original paper or study and read it to see what the journalist left out or simply missed. [1] http://www.amazon.com/dp/0670022160/ http://www.amazon.com/dp/0670022160/

lutorm 15y ago

"slowly and inexorably moves from ignorance to truth." I don't think that's what science is. It moves in fits and starts, has fads that come and go. Sure, if you average over long enough time it looks like smooth progress, but it's really not.

zb 15y ago

You haven't addressed his actual point, which is that progress is not inexorable—it may not even be monotonic—and it certainly does not occur through the pure application of reason and logic. Your view is of course a very popular one. In fact, that's what he's saying is the problem. But it's far from the only philosophy of science that's out there. And it's a particularly naïve one in my opinion. It's a shame that as soon as you encounter someone with a different philosophy you stop taking them seriously; otherwise you might learn something. Personally, I no longer have much time for the "inexorable progress through reason and logic" theory, which essentially boils down to the idea that if you just make sure you follow the One True Scientific™ Method to the letter then the right outcome is guaranteed. I've seen people claim that if you just make sure you follow the Waterfall Method to the letter then good software is guaranteed to come out of it. I don't have much time for that either. Before you complain about the comparison, note that both are essentially projections of the same philosophy (logical positivism) into different spheres. I attempted to summarise some of the history and why it matters here: http://www.zerobanana.com/essays/politics-of-reason/ http://www.zerobanana.com/essays/politics-of-reason/ but in short, I disagree that the problem is just with journalists (or just with scientists, for that matter). It's a problem for all of us as a society in how we think about science.

tybris 15y ago

Debates among scientists sometimes look almost indistinguishable from public debates on science. The difference is in the premise: in the former case the merit of the methods is questioned, and in the latter case the merit of science itself is questioned. My feeling was this critique was of the former kind, particularly with regards to scientists' communication. His view is fairly similar to that of most academics I know, though less nuanced. In that light, I think you may have misinterpreted this particular comment. The word "truth" is a diabolical invention that has a fairly subjective interpretation that changes when you start looking into what it means. However, once you dig deep enough, you find the inevitable: There is no spoon. Empirical science is not about truths. It's about models. It's about modelling our world 'as well as we can'. The theory of relativity does not explain how the universe is architected, it's just a model that makes predictions. Any conclusions about the nature of the universe drawn from the structure of the model or any valuations of the model are entirely your own. What does "as well as we can" mean? Here it comes down to merit. Accuracy is a virtue, but accuracy often implies complexity and limited applicability (e.g., simulations are relatively accurate, but only concern a single set of situations). Practicality is a virtue, because few people use relativity to calculate gravity. Correctness is a virtue, but probability can make things much simpler. Simplicity is a virtue, but not for any fundamental reasons. Generality is a virtue, but often comes at the cost of accuracy. Completeness is a virtue, but we do not know how to achieve it. Communicability is a virtue, because many good models are forgotten for lack of sex appeal. Usefulness is perhaps the greatest virtue, but it's always too early to judge that. As scientists, we are constrained by the same reality that all systems face: There is no right solution. Why make models if they don't reveal any truths? Two reasons. One is that they (sometimes) allow us to calculate things, which is the most powerful concept in human civilization. It allows us to build bridges, launch satellites into orbit, produce the materials that we need, etc. without relying solely on trial-and-error. The second reason is that while the model does not reveal the truth, it does reveal a piece of the mathematics or processes that play a role in shaping the system being studied. Usually the model only reveals one aspect of the system, while in reality all things are related and influence each other and no calculable formula could describe it. However, it gives us a sense of direction, like a compass, rather than a map. Once you grasp these subtleties of science, you become much more careful about your claims. Not so much because you think they might be flawed, that option should already be off the table, but because you know your claims do not (intend to) fairly represent the complexity of the truth. Part of the author's frustration, which many in the sciences department would share, seems to be that some scientists don't see or willfully ignore the subtlety when making claims in public. This leads people to misrepresent science as a magical truth producing machine, and make preposterous claims that distract attention from what science actually does: create models, for whatever purpose they have.