5 ms·

They're collecting observational data, not science. I wouldn't normally be bitter about it, but the Trust The Science™ religion already has a terrible struggle

They're collecting observational data, not science. I wouldn't normally be bitter about it, but the Trust The Science™ religion already has a terrible struggle with the basics so we shouldn't make it any harder for them. My back yard rain gauge is not sciencing either.

Eelongate 5y ago
Making 'science' a fungible unit allows scientists in one domain to leach off the reputation earned by scientists in another domain. Accomplishments in physics lend credibility to accomplishments in social science, due to the commonality of both using the scientific method, even though the scientific method is not uniformly effective across all domains of inquiry.
fghorow 5y ago
"They're collecting observational data, not science." I suspect that pretty much everybody who does experimental physics, a whole lot of astronomers, and a multitude of other observational scientists might like to have a word with you regarding the scientific method. But that could just be me.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Do you have any other words for me beyond what you just wrote, or was that it?
  - sennight 5y ago
    Whoa there quickdraw, when somebody suspects "pretty much" - they can't be challenged. Everybody who matters knows that. Also, it was obviously Neil deGrasse Tyson being alluded to, the scientist that would want to dress you down... so have some respect.
  - fghorow 5y ago
    Just one: troll.
jacquesm 5y ago
What on earth are you doing on HackerNews?
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Rhetorical questions are almost always a terrible way to make a point. What is the point you are trying to make?
DrBazza 5y ago
But Mark Watney did 'science the shit out of this'.
Hekioi 5y ago
Science is not like a religion. Independent people have and can discover the same truth while in religion everyone who invented one, believe in something different. Science is universal. Religion is stupid.
- _0w8t 5y ago
  Science by definition cannot discover the truth. The essential property of a scientific theory is falsifiability. I.e. it should be possible to carry out experiment that can disprove the theory or it is not a scientific theory. Religion on the other hand can have true statements because they are deduced from a priory axioms that a matter of beliefs. For example, given some axioms about God, one can deduce that the world is such because God is made it so. This will be similar to Banach–Tarski theorem [1] which is true as long as one believes in the Axiom of Choice. But such statements are not a scientific theories precisely because it is not possible to design an experiment that will disproof them. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox
  - Hekioi 5y ago
    I said the same truth. That should be doable right? Or what would be a better description on what science make unique and better than religion?
    - _0w8t 5y ago
      The science is about making inferences and checking how good such predictions match reality. Religion, on the other hand, can at best explain, not predict in any verifiable way. That is, it is about deducting consequences from one’s beliefs.
      - Hekioi 5y ago
        Religion explains in context of an arbitrary belief system which is independent to reality. It can only explain things inside it's belief system.
aragilar 5y ago
It's a "term of art" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_art) specifying that the data collected is passed through the scientific pipelines and being served out to researchers, rather than being used for testing/calibrations/commissioning. Similar phrasing include "science operations" and "science frames". There are lots of odd jargon in astronomy, but no weirder than say "firewall" (as given in the wikipedia article).
BoxOfRain 5y ago
It is amazing the blatant nonsense people will believe if you dress a pig in a lab coat and call it science. There's been instances of politicians unironically calling to ban the dangerous drug 'dihydrogen monoxide' for example, the general public's understanding of the scientific method is probably far worse than most on HN think it is. There really needs to be a term for this widespread inability to differentiate between 'the science' as in the correct application of the scientific method to arrive at empirical conclusions about the world around us and 'The Science' as in the socio-political institution of various experts and technocrats. One is a powerful tool in humanity's toolbox for getting shit done, the other is subject to all the fallibility of human social institutions - perhaps even moreso because people will blindly trust it meaning there's fewer checks on it than other social institutions. Usually people going up against 'The Science' are cranks which means there's a tendency for people to believe anyone who goes up against the status quo is a crank. You see this in commentary about climate change, people blindly trust 'The Science' to fix everything in a glorious deus ex machina without the tiniest scrap of evidence 'The Science' even has the power do to such a thing in one fell swoop. That's not saying we shouldn't pursue efforts like geo-engineering etc but we should at least keep things in the realm of what the current scientific evidence is saying which is we need to heavily cut our emissions no matter what rather than relying entirely on speculative mega-projects. Ultimately you should never trust anyone who claims to have a monopoly on truth or that $group or $profession has a monopoly on truth.
- hguant 5y ago
  >There really needs to be a term for this widespread inability to differentiate between 'the science' as in the correct application of the scientific method to arrive at empirical conclusions about the world around us and 'The Science' as in the socio-political institution of various experts and technocrats. The issue is that, at least in the US, it has become politically advantageous to claim that the socio-political institution of 'The Science' has given its imprimatur to the policies they wish to enact. It's advantageous to combine the institution with the process, so why would anyone stop? Couple that with a media environment that seems fundamentally incapable of reading beyond the headline of any scientific publication, and the proliferation of p-hacking and less then replicable studies being churned out by academics who need N articles to have a chance at tenure this decade and...you get a situation where 'The Science' is whatever a bureaucrat in a lab coat says it is.

Eelongate 5y ago

Making 'science' a fungible unit allows scientists in one domain to leach off the reputation earned by scientists in another domain. Accomplishments in physics lend credibility to accomplishments in social science, due to the commonality of both using the scientific method, even though the scientific method is not uniformly effective across all domains of inquiry.

fghorow 5y ago

"They're collecting observational data, not science." I suspect that pretty much everybody who does experimental physics, a whole lot of astronomers, and a multitude of other observational scientists might like to have a word with you regarding the scientific method. But that could just be me.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
Do you have any other words for me beyond what you just wrote, or was that it?
- sennight 5y ago
  Whoa there quickdraw, when somebody suspects "pretty much" - they can't be challenged. Everybody who matters knows that. Also, it was obviously Neil deGrasse Tyson being alluded to, the scientist that would want to dress you down... so have some respect.
- fghorow 5y ago
  Just one: troll.

jacquesm 5y ago

What on earth are you doing on HackerNews?

throwawaylinux 5y ago
Rhetorical questions are almost always a terrible way to make a point. What is the point you are trying to make?

DrBazza 5y ago

But Mark Watney did 'science the shit out of this'.

Hekioi 5y ago

Science is not like a religion. Independent people have and can discover the same truth while in religion everyone who invented one, believe in something different. Science is universal. Religion is stupid.

_0w8t 5y ago
Science by definition cannot discover the truth. The essential property of a scientific theory is falsifiability. I.e. it should be possible to carry out experiment that can disprove the theory or it is not a scientific theory. Religion on the other hand can have true statements because they are deduced from a priory axioms that a matter of beliefs. For example, given some axioms about God, one can deduce that the world is such because God is made it so. This will be similar to Banach–Tarski theorem [1] which is true as long as one believes in the Axiom of Choice. But such statements are not a scientific theories precisely because it is not possible to design an experiment that will disproof them. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox
- Hekioi 5y ago
  I said the same truth. That should be doable right? Or what would be a better description on what science make unique and better than religion?
  - _0w8t 5y ago
    The science is about making inferences and checking how good such predictions match reality. Religion, on the other hand, can at best explain, not predict in any verifiable way. That is, it is about deducting consequences from one’s beliefs.
    - Hekioi 5y ago
      Religion explains in context of an arbitrary belief system which is independent to reality. It can only explain things inside it's belief system.

aragilar 5y ago

It's a "term of art" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_art) specifying that the data collected is passed through the scientific pipelines and being served out to researchers, rather than being used for testing/calibrations/commissioning. Similar phrasing include "science operations" and "science frames". There are lots of odd jargon in astronomy, but no weirder than say "firewall" (as given in the wikipedia article).

BoxOfRain 5y ago

It is amazing the blatant nonsense people will believe if you dress a pig in a lab coat and call it science. There's been instances of politicians unironically calling to ban the dangerous drug 'dihydrogen monoxide' for example, the general public's understanding of the scientific method is probably far worse than most on HN think it is. There really needs to be a term for this widespread inability to differentiate between 'the science' as in the correct application of the scientific method to arrive at empirical conclusions about the world around us and 'The Science' as in the socio-political institution of various experts and technocrats. One is a powerful tool in humanity's toolbox for getting shit done, the other is subject to all the fallibility of human social institutions - perhaps even moreso because people will blindly trust it meaning there's fewer checks on it than other social institutions. Usually people going up against 'The Science' are cranks which means there's a tendency for people to believe anyone who goes up against the status quo is a crank. You see this in commentary about climate change, people blindly trust 'The Science' to fix everything in a glorious deus ex machina without the tiniest scrap of evidence 'The Science' even has the power do to such a thing in one fell swoop. That's not saying we shouldn't pursue efforts like geo-engineering etc but we should at least keep things in the realm of what the current scientific evidence is saying which is we need to heavily cut our emissions no matter what rather than relying entirely on speculative mega-projects. Ultimately you should never trust anyone who claims to have a monopoly on truth or that $group or $profession has a monopoly on truth.

hguant 5y ago
>There really needs to be a term for this widespread inability to differentiate between 'the science' as in the correct application of the scientific method to arrive at empirical conclusions about the world around us and 'The Science' as in the socio-political institution of various experts and technocrats. The issue is that, at least in the US, it has become politically advantageous to claim that the socio-political institution of 'The Science' has given its imprimatur to the policies they wish to enact. It's advantageous to combine the institution with the process, so why would anyone stop? Couple that with a media environment that seems fundamentally incapable of reading beyond the headline of any scientific publication, and the proliferation of p-hacking and less then replicable studies being churned out by academics who need N articles to have a chance at tenure this decade and...you get a situation where 'The Science' is whatever a bureaucrat in a lab coat says it is.