5 ms·

> science has evolved a lot since then. Given that there is no way to measure absolute scientific progress, this is a meaningless and baseless claim. At the t

> science has evolved a lot since then. Given that there is no way to measure absolute scientific progress, this is a meaningless and baseless claim. At the time of Galileo, scientists had, after many centuries, perfected their means of calculating geocentric orbits. Thee equations worked extremely well. Experts at the time would have told you that science had progressed significantly since the time of Aristotle. Yet it had progressed in a completely wrong direction. There is no reason to believe science is somehow progressed perfectly today in every arena.

atleta 5y ago
There are, of course ways we can measure progress. E.g. by measuring the results of applying science and scientific results to practical problems. Since we talk about medical sciences here, life expectancy is a good measure. So is being able to cure specific classes of diseases. And these are off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure someone into the philosophy of science could come up with much better and more general metrics. > At the time of Galileo, scientists had, after many centuries, perfected their means of calculating geocentric orbits. Again, Galileo had a clash with the catholic church not really fellow scientists. > Thee equations worked extremely well. I'm not so sure. Galileo came up with his theory based on what geo-centric view couldn't explain. > Experts at the time would have told you that science had progressed significantly since the time of Aristotle. > Yet it had progressed in a completely wrong direction. Which was true. They indeed got ahead, because they also had to perfect the math and measurements, etc. Not just the descriptions of the orbits. Also, BTW, Galileo was wrong. He thought the Sun was the center of the freaking universe, which it isn't at all. Also what are you then arguing for? If you can't say that science evolves and improves over time then what's wrong with censorship? Those ideas that you think would be censored (I didn't exactly say that, but let's go with it for now) would not improve science. Or, at least we wouldn't be able to measure it, according to you. The way I like to think about it is that science is a machinery that constantly builds and improves itself. It not only gets 'bigger' but it constantly gets better and building itself by improving the scientific method itself. E.g. if you think about medical sciences again, 150 years ago doctors would experiment on themselves (n=1) and use their "experience" (i.e. a small amount of inaccurate measurements aggregated in their head). These days we do double blinded, randomized controlled trials and funky statistic checks to filter out errors, then other people look over the results multiple times (think peer reviews and meta-analysises). It's an iterative process that keeps correcting and perfecting itself. And we do know when we go in the wrong directions because results will be off from the reality.
- DrJones1098 5y ago
  It sounds like we agree with each other. Science is imperfect and iterative. Yet with that knowledge you have come to the conclusion that the mRNA vaccine is perfectly safe after being developed in 6 months and tested in humans for only a year-ish? I follow your thesis but not your conclusion.
  - atleta 5y ago
    Oh, great. Yes, imperfect but improves iteratively. But I never said that the mRNA vaccine (or any vaccine, for that matter - we also have vector vaccines and even inactivated ones) is perfectly safe. Indeed, what I was saying is that it's illogical to expect it to be perfectly safe. That would only make sense if contracting COVID was (proven to be) perfectly harmless. But the thing is that you are forced to make a decision and you don't have complete knowledge about the consequences of neither of your (two) choices. However, the (imperfect) experts say that the vaccines are way safer than contracting covid unvaccinated. And if anything, we both know that they have a lot better chance to be right than us. > after being developed in 6 months This doesn't really matter given the above (that you should listen to those who know a lot better), but the 6 months is far from being true. They started experimenting with the coronavirus vaccines back in 2003 and there was ongoing research ever since then. I've just seen a video from 5 years ago where a virologist guy talks about their bat coronavirus research at the local (Hungarian) science meetup. The mRNA platform itself has been under development for over 3 decades, too. But again, you can go for adenovirus vector vaccines, which are a more tested technology. In some part of the world you can get inactivated vaccines (e.g. here, in Hungary we had one from Shinopharm), but they don't do that well against SARS-CoV2. However, the actual candidate for Pfizer's (well, BioNTech's) vaccine was done in something like 2 weeks, IIRC. But that was only possible because of the decades of earlier research. In part the mRNA technology itself, in part because they could skip the animal testing thanks to the SARS-CoV1 vaccines developed around 2003. (But the animal testing only protects the phase1 maybe phase2 participants, anyway. It's not that a vaccine sometimes takes years because they experiment on animals for years with a vaccine candidate that otherwise seems perfectly viable.)
    - 5y ago

atleta 5y ago

There are, of course ways we can measure progress. E.g. by measuring the results of applying science and scientific results to practical problems. Since we talk about medical sciences here, life expectancy is a good measure. So is being able to cure specific classes of diseases. And these are off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure someone into the philosophy of science could come up with much better and more general metrics. > At the time of Galileo, scientists had, after many centuries, perfected their means of calculating geocentric orbits. Again, Galileo had a clash with the catholic church not really fellow scientists. > Thee equations worked extremely well. I'm not so sure. Galileo came up with his theory based on what geo-centric view couldn't explain. > Experts at the time would have told you that science had progressed significantly since the time of Aristotle. > Yet it had progressed in a completely wrong direction. Which was true. They indeed got ahead, because they also had to perfect the math and measurements, etc. Not just the descriptions of the orbits. Also, BTW, Galileo was wrong. He thought the Sun was the center of the freaking universe, which it isn't at all. Also what are you then arguing for? If you can't say that science evolves and improves over time then what's wrong with censorship? Those ideas that you think would be censored (I didn't exactly say that, but let's go with it for now) would not improve science. Or, at least we wouldn't be able to measure it, according to you. The way I like to think about it is that science is a machinery that constantly builds and improves itself. It not only gets 'bigger' but it constantly gets better and building itself by improving the scientific method itself. E.g. if you think about medical sciences again, 150 years ago doctors would experiment on themselves (n=1) and use their "experience" (i.e. a small amount of inaccurate measurements aggregated in their head). These days we do double blinded, randomized controlled trials and funky statistic checks to filter out errors, then other people look over the results multiple times (think peer reviews and meta-analysises). It's an iterative process that keeps correcting and perfecting itself. And we do know when we go in the wrong directions because results will be off from the reality.

DrJones1098 5y ago
It sounds like we agree with each other. Science is imperfect and iterative. Yet with that knowledge you have come to the conclusion that the mRNA vaccine is perfectly safe after being developed in 6 months and tested in humans for only a year-ish? I follow your thesis but not your conclusion.
- atleta 5y ago
  Oh, great. Yes, imperfect but improves iteratively. But I never said that the mRNA vaccine (or any vaccine, for that matter - we also have vector vaccines and even inactivated ones) is perfectly safe. Indeed, what I was saying is that it's illogical to expect it to be perfectly safe. That would only make sense if contracting COVID was (proven to be) perfectly harmless. But the thing is that you are forced to make a decision and you don't have complete knowledge about the consequences of neither of your (two) choices. However, the (imperfect) experts say that the vaccines are way safer than contracting covid unvaccinated. And if anything, we both know that they have a lot better chance to be right than us. > after being developed in 6 months This doesn't really matter given the above (that you should listen to those who know a lot better), but the 6 months is far from being true. They started experimenting with the coronavirus vaccines back in 2003 and there was ongoing research ever since then. I've just seen a video from 5 years ago where a virologist guy talks about their bat coronavirus research at the local (Hungarian) science meetup. The mRNA platform itself has been under development for over 3 decades, too. But again, you can go for adenovirus vector vaccines, which are a more tested technology. In some part of the world you can get inactivated vaccines (e.g. here, in Hungary we had one from Shinopharm), but they don't do that well against SARS-CoV2. However, the actual candidate for Pfizer's (well, BioNTech's) vaccine was done in something like 2 weeks, IIRC. But that was only possible because of the decades of earlier research. In part the mRNA technology itself, in part because they could skip the animal testing thanks to the SARS-CoV1 vaccines developed around 2003. (But the animal testing only protects the phase1 maybe phase2 participants, anyway. It's not that a vaccine sometimes takes years because they experiment on animals for years with a vaccine candidate that otherwise seems perfectly viable.)
  - 5y ago