5 ms·

Dear HNers, I hope that you will remember this article (or all the previous one) the next time you will invoke science like a religious dogma in a discussion.

Dear HNers, I hope that you will remember this article (or all the previous one) the next time you will invoke science like a religious dogma in a discussion. If you can't reproduce it, it's not science. I believe in science, but I also know scientists are humans and thus fallible. We live in a post-truth world, I have no certainty about anything anymore except what I can check by myself, which is not much.

jiggawatts 5y ago
Worse, scientific organisations are institutions. I trust individual scientists to be reasonably honest, but I trust the bureaucratic organisations they belong to as far as I can throw them...
- the_only_law 5y ago
  I really would like to do research in a specific field, but I’m just so worried about the bureaucracy and horror stories of academia. I mean I’ve had to operate in bureaucratic environments, but it just seems so antithetical to what my actual goals would be. Just the amount of bureaucracy I’ve encountered trying to get into universities has rubbed me wrong. Sadly I couldn’t remotely afford the equipment to do things on my own (nor do I think I could handle the initial learning workload these days without some structure).
  - tsbischof 5y ago
    The equipment can be affordable depending on how you structure things. For example, there are opportunities like the Molecular Foundry user program [1] which provide grants for the costs of running experiments on expensive machinery. The main trick is having a specific enough question to answer that you can define how the grant would help you do so. There are also community initiatives like BosLab [2] which are more similar to maker spaces in structure. [1] https://foundry.lbl.gov/user-program/get-started-here/ https://foundry.lbl.gov/user-program/get-started-here/ [2] https://www.boslab.org/ https://www.boslab.org/
Pyramus 5y ago
> If you can't reproduce it, it's not science. Let me throw a tiny wrench into your logical reasoning: I can't reproduce most results, does it mean most results are not science? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You should not expect scientific experiments to be replicated every time.
- inkblotuniverse 5y ago
  Yes, they're not science to you. You're not doing science/being scientific when you believe those results- you're just believing.
  - Pyramus 5y ago
    Let me re-iterate my point, because I see a number of commentators here making this logical mistake. When scientist A shows a result, and scientist B can't reproduce it, it does not mean the result is wrong. Of course the result could be wrong, and, assuming scientist B knows what they are doing, it's an indication that the result is indeed wrong. But it could also be true. This is not a comment on the state of science and whether incentives are set correctly at the moment (they aren't).
    - kcplate 5y ago
      > When scientist A shows a result, and scientist B can't reproduce it, it does not mean the result is wrong Correct, but until scientist A’s result can be reproduced by someone, anyone, relying on scientist A’s result is really more akin to a religious leap of faith, then science. When any belief based on faith alone is presented as an unquestionable truth, it deserves skepticism.
- jmnicolas 5y ago
  Of course I'm not speaking about being unable to reproduce an experiment because you don't have the lab or tools available. But if you can't reproduce with the exact same conditions than the original experiment then it's not science.
LinuxBender 5y ago
Speaking of reproducible science, I am really curious what cancer experts take is on this video [1] and their thoughts on cancer not being a somatic genetic disorder but rather that being a downstream effect of a mitochondrial metabolic disorder. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06e-PwhmSq8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06e-PwhmSq8
whytaka 5y ago
> If you can't reproduce it, it's not science. Just a point that not all science can have empirical and reproducible study.
- hohloma 5y ago
  Thats... debatable. A core principle of science is to be able to test and verify your theory. Which means it must be empirical and reproducible (if you can test then so can I, and if we have different results - then theory is wrong and needs to change, or the tests were wrong, etc). If its not - it borders belief, which is not science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Verifiability ).

jiggawatts 5y ago

Worse, scientific organisations are institutions. I trust individual scientists to be reasonably honest, but I trust the bureaucratic organisations they belong to as far as I can throw them...

the_only_law 5y ago
I really would like to do research in a specific field, but I’m just so worried about the bureaucracy and horror stories of academia. I mean I’ve had to operate in bureaucratic environments, but it just seems so antithetical to what my actual goals would be. Just the amount of bureaucracy I’ve encountered trying to get into universities has rubbed me wrong. Sadly I couldn’t remotely afford the equipment to do things on my own (nor do I think I could handle the initial learning workload these days without some structure).
- tsbischof 5y ago
  The equipment can be affordable depending on how you structure things. For example, there are opportunities like the Molecular Foundry user program [1] which provide grants for the costs of running experiments on expensive machinery. The main trick is having a specific enough question to answer that you can define how the grant would help you do so. There are also community initiatives like BosLab [2] which are more similar to maker spaces in structure. [1] https://foundry.lbl.gov/user-program/get-started-here/ https://foundry.lbl.gov/user-program/get-started-here/ [2] https://www.boslab.org/ https://www.boslab.org/

Pyramus 5y ago

> If you can't reproduce it, it's not science. Let me throw a tiny wrench into your logical reasoning: I can't reproduce most results, does it mean most results are not science? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You should not expect scientific experiments to be replicated every time.

inkblotuniverse 5y ago
Yes, they're not science to you. You're not doing science/being scientific when you believe those results- you're just believing.
- Pyramus 5y ago
  Let me re-iterate my point, because I see a number of commentators here making this logical mistake. When scientist A shows a result, and scientist B can't reproduce it, it does not mean the result is wrong. Of course the result could be wrong, and, assuming scientist B knows what they are doing, it's an indication that the result is indeed wrong. But it could also be true. This is not a comment on the state of science and whether incentives are set correctly at the moment (they aren't).
  - kcplate 5y ago
    > When scientist A shows a result, and scientist B can't reproduce it, it does not mean the result is wrong Correct, but until scientist A’s result can be reproduced by someone, anyone, relying on scientist A’s result is really more akin to a religious leap of faith, then science. When any belief based on faith alone is presented as an unquestionable truth, it deserves skepticism.
jmnicolas 5y ago
Of course I'm not speaking about being unable to reproduce an experiment because you don't have the lab or tools available. But if you can't reproduce with the exact same conditions than the original experiment then it's not science.

LinuxBender 5y ago

Speaking of reproducible science, I am really curious what cancer experts take is on this video [1] and their thoughts on cancer not being a somatic genetic disorder but rather that being a downstream effect of a mitochondrial metabolic disorder. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06e-PwhmSq8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06e-PwhmSq8

whytaka 5y ago

> If you can't reproduce it, it's not science. Just a point that not all science can have empirical and reproducible study.

hohloma 5y ago
Thats... debatable. A core principle of science is to be able to test and verify your theory. Which means it must be empirical and reproducible (if you can test then so can I, and if we have different results - then theory is wrong and needs to change, or the tests were wrong, etc). If its not - it borders belief, which is not science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Verifiability ).