2 ms·

If it works, it's science. If it doesn't work, it's not science. That's not the part I'm concerned about -- it seems much less important whether a given practic

If it works, it's science. If it doesn't work, it's not science. That's not the part I'm concerned about -- it seems much less important whether a given practice will net you money, than whether said practice is actually a good thing to do. The business types have difficulty distinguishing "good advice" and "advice that makes you rich right now" as it is.

btilly 5y ago
If it works, it's science. If it doesn't work, it's not science. That's the worst criteria that I've ever seen for science. Placebos work, but aren't science. And even if you do science perfectly, you aren't guaranteed of success. And most advice that you encounter will work for some people but not others. Does that make whether or not it is science depend on the audience? No, science is a particular process and methodology supported by a set of norms that enable us to continue building a fact based picture of reality. Doing science gets good results. But science is not defined by the quality of its results.
- ironmagma 5y ago
  This is obviously a matter of deep and extensive philosophical debate, and I'll admit my definition isn't perfect, but to address your comment: > And most advice that you encounter will work for some people but not others. Does that make whether or not it is science depend on the audience? The question is whether or not it works in aggregate, i.e. for most people to whom the advice could apply. If it doesn't, then we would say it's not scientifically sound advice. > science is a particular process and methodology supported by a set of norms that enable us to continue building a fact based picture of reality. Science is not one process or methodology; there is the scientific method, but not all science uses it. For example, paleontologists cannot form an experiment to test a hypothesis of what killed the dinosaurs. But science can still give us a fairly accurate picture of what probably killed them.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I think there is a spectrum of how “science-y” a claim is, based on how much or how rigorous use of the scientific method is used to come to the conclusion. Sort of like this comic: https://xkcd.com/435 https://xkcd.com/435
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 5y ago
  Please edit out swipes from your posts here. Your comment would be just fine without the first sentence. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
sealeck 5y ago
> If it works, it's science. If it doesn't work, it's not science. I would suggest that "science" is loosely based around the idea that objective truth can be derived through collection of empirical evidence by attempting to reject null hypotheses. Of course it is incredibly limited and we ascribe credit to "science" for a lot of things which are not "science".

btilly 5y ago

If it works, it's science. If it doesn't work, it's not science. That's the worst criteria that I've ever seen for science. Placebos work, but aren't science. And even if you do science perfectly, you aren't guaranteed of success. And most advice that you encounter will work for some people but not others. Does that make whether or not it is science depend on the audience? No, science is a particular process and methodology supported by a set of norms that enable us to continue building a fact based picture of reality. Doing science gets good results. But science is not defined by the quality of its results.

ironmagma 5y ago
This is obviously a matter of deep and extensive philosophical debate, and I'll admit my definition isn't perfect, but to address your comment: > And most advice that you encounter will work for some people but not others. Does that make whether or not it is science depend on the audience? The question is whether or not it works in aggregate, i.e. for most people to whom the advice could apply. If it doesn't, then we would say it's not scientifically sound advice. > science is a particular process and methodology supported by a set of norms that enable us to continue building a fact based picture of reality. Science is not one process or methodology; there is the scientific method, but not all science uses it. For example, paleontologists cannot form an experiment to test a hypothesis of what killed the dinosaurs. But science can still give us a fairly accurate picture of what probably killed them.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I think there is a spectrum of how “science-y” a claim is, based on how much or how rigorous use of the scientific method is used to come to the conclusion. Sort of like this comic: https://xkcd.com/435 https://xkcd.com/435
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dang 5y ago
Please edit out swipes from your posts here. Your comment would be just fine without the first sentence. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

sealeck 5y ago

> If it works, it's science. If it doesn't work, it's not science. I would suggest that "science" is loosely based around the idea that objective truth can be derived through collection of empirical evidence by attempting to reject null hypotheses. Of course it is incredibly limited and we ascribe credit to "science" for a lot of things which are not "science".