6 ms·

Science beyond individual understanding

SapphireSun 18y ago
Interesting idea, but I don't think the problem he posits is new. Everything is done along a chain of trust. Even current researchers don't reproduce every experiment that led up to their current body of knowledge. No one has ever understood the entire chain of reasoning. More to the point, mistaken ideas have always infected lots of people, this was the impetus for science in the first place. This will resolve itself in the usual way- people rely on the results, the results turn out to be wrong, and we search for more answers.
- yters 18y ago
  I wonder how long until the trust chain is automated? As long as the results proceed along the lines of logical deduction and statistics, it can be machine understandable.
  - a-priori 18y ago
    "As long as the results proceed along the lines of logical deduction and statistics, it can be machine understandable." Gödel might have a few things to say about that.
    - yters 18y ago
      He's fine with logical deduction from a given set of axioms.
te_platt 18y ago
Overall a very interesting article. Still this line made me chuckle: "And it would disastrous if erroneous results were to have a major impact on public policy." This is probably one of the most routine occurrences in creating public policy. Maybe only superseded by misunderstanding scientific results (erroneous or not).
- michael_nielsen 18y ago
  I was thinking of things like the Y2K debacle (not really scientists who made the call there, of course). Or imagine the global cooling scare in the 1970s had had a major impact on public policy.
  - hugh 18y ago
    In what way was y2k a public policy issue? And was the "debacle" the bug itself or the over-reaction to it?
    - michael_nielsen 18y ago
      A very incomplete summary of the public policy aspect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y2K#Government_responses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y2K#Government_responses You can find far more by Googling around. A large number of countries seemed to have mobilized resources, in many cases quite significant. As to your second question, I was thinking about the over-reaction.

Interesting idea, but I don't think the problem he posits is new. Everything is done along a chain of trust. Even current researchers don't reproduce every experiment that led up to their current body of knowledge. No one has ever understood the entire chain of reasoning. More to the point, mistaken ideas have always infected lots of people, this was the impetus for science in the first place. This will resolve itself in the usual way- people rely on the results, the results turn out to be wrong, and we search for more answers.

yters 18y ago
I wonder how long until the trust chain is automated? As long as the results proceed along the lines of logical deduction and statistics, it can be machine understandable.
- a-priori 18y ago
  "As long as the results proceed along the lines of logical deduction and statistics, it can be machine understandable." Gödel might have a few things to say about that.
  - yters 18y ago
    He's fine with logical deduction from a given set of axioms.

te_platt 18y ago

Overall a very interesting article. Still this line made me chuckle: "And it would disastrous if erroneous results were to have a major impact on public policy." This is probably one of the most routine occurrences in creating public policy. Maybe only superseded by misunderstanding scientific results (erroneous or not).

michael_nielsen 18y ago
I was thinking of things like the Y2K debacle (not really scientists who made the call there, of course). Or imagine the global cooling scare in the 1970s had had a major impact on public policy.
- hugh 18y ago
  In what way was y2k a public policy issue? And was the "debacle" the bug itself or the over-reaction to it?
  - michael_nielsen 18y ago
    A very incomplete summary of the public policy aspect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y2K#Government_responses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y2K#Government_responses You can find far more by Googling around. A large number of countries seemed to have mobilized resources, in many cases quite significant. As to your second question, I was thinking about the over-reaction.