4 ms·

I read the whole thing and although there was a lot of interesting information there, I don't get what the author was trying to say (other than, "Hey look at al

I read the whole thing and although there was a lot of interesting information there, I don't get what the author was trying to say (other than, "Hey look at all this information.") To me it seems clear that the word "science" and the outer trappings and forms of using the Scientific Method have become co-opted, largely in the last century or so, to cover a lot of things that just can't be considered "true science". This is not a "No True Scotsman" instance, because there is a clear and incontrovertible guideline for what (I think) counts as "true" science: the ability to make accurate predictions. That, and that alone, is what truly distinguishes science (as I am using the term here, in a restricted sense) from all the other what-could-be-called "predictive arts": e.g. astrology, tarot & divination, numerology, etc. Obviously, physics counts as "true" science. The standard model makes predictions accurate to within a mind-bending tolerance, the width of a human hair over the distance from New York to Los Angeles. Chemistry is science, biochemistry and molecular biology are still science. Biology and ecology are pretty scientific. From there, things get much worse pretty quickly. By the standard of "ability to make accurate predictions" there are a lot of things we call "science" today that I just don't think deserve the title, most importantly: economics, sociology, and psychology. They can't make predictions, and in many cases they can't even replicate their "findings" from previous "research"! I think those "sciences" serve a social function, the same one that the court astrologers et. al. used to serve, they give a glamour of legitimacy to the king and a way to deflect responsibility onto councilors of the imaginary, who supply ready-made scapegoats. I'm not saying "the humanities are not useful" or anything like that, what I'm saying is that people mix up the orders of knowledge (deliberately or otherwise) as part of politics, and that some things that we call "science" today, aren't. I mean, E=mc2 doesn't have to "defend itself" politically. Anyone anywhere can test it for themselves (that's the whole point, innit!?)

JPLeRouzic 5y ago
> Obviously, physics counts as "true" science. I am not a scientist, but I worked as a R&D engineer and it's my understanding that in a lot of physic fields there is a need for empiric corrections. It may be the case of semiconductors design if I recall correctly, but it happens also in other fields. Maybe GPS anomalies is a good example: https://web.stanford.edu/~gracegao/publications/conference/HengL_IONGNSS2010_GPS_SIS_Anomalies_paper_C6_v4.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~gracegao/publications/conference/H... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepa...
morelisp 5y ago
A better definition of science, particularly in trying to separate proto-science or difficult science from non-science or pseudo-science, is in terms of open vs. closed systems. Sociology and psychology do make predictions, but do not have good accuracy and experiments are often prohibitively expensive or difficult to run[0]. Nonetheless, they seek to refine them based on new findings and new methods, and I think it's uncontroversial that psychology today has a body of knowledge it can make predictions about better than 50 years ago, at which point it had a body larger and more clearly defined than 100 years ago, etc.. This is not true of numerology, tarot, etc., as well as less controversial non-sciences like painting or rhetoric. It also helps tease out the scientific vs. non-scientific (without value judgement) parts of e.g. economics, and the scientific vs. non-scientific parts of physics. Focusing the definition on outcomes rather than methods repeats the same original sin of scientism you're criticizing. (Plus it means a particularly lucky coin could safely be 'science'.) [0] Also true of large areas of modern physics.
- carapace 5y ago
  > A better definition of science, particularly in trying to separate proto-science or difficult science from non-science or pseudo-science, is in terms of open vs. closed systems. Do you mean the "open-world" vs. "closed-world" assumptions? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world_assumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world_assumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-world_assumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-world_assumption > Sociology and psychology do make predictions... Like what? I don't mean to sound rude or combative, I really want to know what you're thinking of here. FWIW if economics, sociology and psychology were classified as "non-sciences like painting or rhetoric" I would retire my objections. I don't think the problem is that these are pre-scientific fields that will become more predictive, I think it is that they have been derailed from the (natural?) progression of scientific knowledge from descriptive to ordering to predictive (e.g. like alchemy becoming chemistry.)
  - morelisp 5y ago
    > Do you mean the "open-world" vs. "closed-world" assumptions? No, I don't mean anything so formal. We're humans talking about human activity, not proof systems. I'm not discussing further since you seem to believe psychology has never made a correct prediction. There's entire areas of the brain named after psychologists who correctly identified their function. Pavlov's dogs are a western cultural touchstone. > derailed from the (natural?) progression of scientific knowledge How can you make any claim to define science with such utter teleological nonsense?

JPLeRouzic 5y ago

> Obviously, physics counts as "true" science. I am not a scientist, but I worked as a R&D engineer and it's my understanding that in a lot of physic fields there is a need for empiric corrections. It may be the case of semiconductors design if I recall correctly, but it happens also in other fields. Maybe GPS anomalies is a good example: https://web.stanford.edu/~gracegao/publications/conference/HengL_IONGNSS2010_GPS_SIS_Anomalies_paper_C6_v4.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~gracegao/publications/conference/H... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepa...

morelisp 5y ago

A better definition of science, particularly in trying to separate proto-science or difficult science from non-science or pseudo-science, is in terms of open vs. closed systems. Sociology and psychology do make predictions, but do not have good accuracy and experiments are often prohibitively expensive or difficult to run[0]. Nonetheless, they seek to refine them based on new findings and new methods, and I think it's uncontroversial that psychology today has a body of knowledge it can make predictions about better than 50 years ago, at which point it had a body larger and more clearly defined than 100 years ago, etc.. This is not true of numerology, tarot, etc., as well as less controversial non-sciences like painting or rhetoric. It also helps tease out the scientific vs. non-scientific (without value judgement) parts of e.g. economics, and the scientific vs. non-scientific parts of physics. Focusing the definition on outcomes rather than methods repeats the same original sin of scientism you're criticizing. (Plus it means a particularly lucky coin could safely be 'science'.) [0] Also true of large areas of modern physics.

carapace 5y ago
> A better definition of science, particularly in trying to separate proto-science or difficult science from non-science or pseudo-science, is in terms of open vs. closed systems. Do you mean the "open-world" vs. "closed-world" assumptions? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world_assumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world_assumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-world_assumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-world_assumption > Sociology and psychology do make predictions... Like what? I don't mean to sound rude or combative, I really want to know what you're thinking of here. FWIW if economics, sociology and psychology were classified as "non-sciences like painting or rhetoric" I would retire my objections. I don't think the problem is that these are pre-scientific fields that will become more predictive, I think it is that they have been derailed from the (natural?) progression of scientific knowledge from descriptive to ordering to predictive (e.g. like alchemy becoming chemistry.)
- morelisp 5y ago
  > Do you mean the "open-world" vs. "closed-world" assumptions? No, I don't mean anything so formal. We're humans talking about human activity, not proof systems. I'm not discussing further since you seem to believe psychology has never made a correct prediction. There's entire areas of the brain named after psychologists who correctly identified their function. Pavlov's dogs are a western cultural touchstone. > derailed from the (natural?) progression of scientific knowledge How can you make any claim to define science with such utter teleological nonsense?