6 ms·

>The story is a long one, but for now let’s skip to the end: future-proof, established scientific facts can be identified via a solid (>95%) international scien

>The story is a long one, but for now let’s skip to the end: future-proof, established scientific facts can be identified via a solid (>95%) international scientific consensus, born of scientific labour, in a community that is large and diverse. In the entire history of science, no claim meeting these criteria has ever been overturned, despite enormous opportunity for that to happen (if it were ever going to happen). Newtonian physics stood for hundreds of years, and we now understand it to be an approximation of quantum mechanics. It's still useful, but merely useful. Do not mistake "useful" for "true."

yamrzou 4y ago
Newtonian Physics is not a fact, but a whole theory. I think that the author is talking about facts within a theory.
jvanderbot 4y ago
Your distinction is not useful for someone who needs help understanding what qualifies as "fact as we know it". It could easily be misconstrued as a counter example to the quote in the article, which it is only in the strictest, most pedantic sense. In any reasonable interpretation, Newtonian Physics is still true.
version_five 4y ago
Your example isn't great because newtonian physics is still correct and used everywhere. I agree with your point, reality is certainly not statistical, and e.g. there would have been circles in which heliocentricity or a flat earth or some pre-germ theory of disease would have been agreed upon fact. Arguing that those aren't science is hindsight, at the time they would have been learned consensus.
sandworm101 4y ago
If you can prove such a link between newtonian/relativity and quantum mechanics there are many many prizes in your future. The core problem is that both do not meet up. There is no link. They are both descriptions of observed phenomena, neither being any more or less an approximation the other.
timr 4y ago
> In the entire history of science, no claim meeting these criteria has ever been overturned, despite enormous opportunity for that to happen (if it were ever going to happen). Yeah, that's just not true. It's an absurd claim. Medical science is loaded with examples of things that had wide consensus (but...95%? Probably? Feels like this is a loophole in the argument...) which were subsequently found to be false. Consider just a few examples: * hormone replacement therapy * aspirin for heart attacks * mammograms for younger women (< 50) Just this year, a huge RCT called into doubt the usefulness of mass colonoscopy [1], which was absolutely "scientific consensus" until now (you can see this, because the study was met with rather vicious backlash). For a more basic science example, consider "The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology" [2] which, of course, was so "consensus" that they named it "The Central Dogma": genetic information goes from DNA to RNA to proteins. This was fact...until they discovered retroviruses. Then prions. Oops. This stuff happens all the time. The authors are either not scientists, or they're so blinkered by ideology that they're unreliable. [1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2208375 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2208375 [2] https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Central-Dogma https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Central-Dogma
- pdonis 4y ago
  > Just this year, a huge RCT called into doubt the usefulness of mass colonoscopy [1] This reference seems to be saying that mass colonoscopy reduces the 10 year risk of colorectal cancer by a statistically significant amount. How is this calling into doubt its usefulness?
  - BlackFly 4y ago
    An ongoing theme in cancer research with regards to diagnostics is that a lot of the cancers caught by the diagnostic techniques would not be fatal. Hence, there is not a statistically significant reduction in mortality but rather a reduction in cancer. It is basically just saying: not all cancers kill you, maybe you are better off not knowing about the non-fatal ones. Part of the backlash points out that cancer can affect quality of life in other ways and no one measured that. But either way, it throws the consensus into doubt.
  - 4y ago
TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
International scientific consensus, in the past, had a man murdered for proving the earth orbiting the sun.
- krapp 4y ago
  No it didn't. The Church was not a scientific body. The basis for their beliefs was not the scientific method, but faith in a literal interpretation of Scripture. Actual international scientific consensus (meaning, the consensus of actual scientists) has never had anyone murdered, if for no other reason than "science" has no body equivalent to the Church empowered or capable to do so, but certainly not for proving a hypothesis.
  - wizzwizz4 4y ago
    > Actual international scientific consensus (meaning, the consensus of actual scientists) has never had anyone murdered, Scientific racism and the various eugenics movements say hello.
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  Huh? Copernicus died in his home when he was in his 70s. Galileo died of old age as well. Tycho Brahe died from politeness. Bruno was burned because he was a hermetic mystic and didn't really prove anything significant about the planets.
  - TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
    Well I'm glad Bruno died. Those hermetic mystics had it coming, and not proving anything significant is basically high treason to science, fully deserving immediate immolation!
    - marginalia_nu 4y ago
      My point is that although a lot of people want him to be because it fits the narrative, he is a remarkably poorly martyr for science.
stochastimus 4y ago
If you replaced QM with general relativity, you would be correct. So, your broader point is valid.
jll29 4y ago
> Do not mistake "useful" for "true." As far as theories are concerned, "useful" means "makes valid predictions", so true, but within a limited scope (Newtonian physics: macroscopic events, from a human perspective).
- Jack_Hacker 4y ago
  If we take QM seriously, there's nothing stopping it from affecting macroscopic events from a human perspective. A cannonball whose trajectory was planned in accordance with Newtonian physics could suddenly and unexpectedly move three feet to the left, it's just ridiculously unlikely.[0] This isn't a piecewise function where Newtonian physics is true within some constraints of speed and scale, Newtonian physics is simply wrong and useful. [0]: Under the Everett interpretation, which is no more or less scientific than the Copenhagen interpretation, this happens all the time and is witnessed by many humans.
dumpsterdiver 4y ago
Yeah, "future proof, established scientific facts" are pretty much the opposite of what scientific progress brings. I find it repulsive to even entertain the idea of "future proof facts". To me that is hubris to the extreme, especially when it is based upon a consensus of those whose knowledge and instrumentation are grounded in the present. Finally, as others have noted, science revolves around theories and observations, and what we can currently ascertain from said observations - not facts. Often times "facts" are nothing more than bullshit that has yet to be called out. Imo, if someone is more interested in carving "facts" into stone than continually engaging with what we think we know - they aren't the right person for the job.

yamrzou 4y ago

Newtonian Physics is not a fact, but a whole theory. I think that the author is talking about facts within a theory.

jvanderbot 4y ago

Your distinction is not useful for someone who needs help understanding what qualifies as "fact as we know it". It could easily be misconstrued as a counter example to the quote in the article, which it is only in the strictest, most pedantic sense. In any reasonable interpretation, Newtonian Physics is still true.

version_five 4y ago

Your example isn't great because newtonian physics is still correct and used everywhere. I agree with your point, reality is certainly not statistical, and e.g. there would have been circles in which heliocentricity or a flat earth or some pre-germ theory of disease would have been agreed upon fact. Arguing that those aren't science is hindsight, at the time they would have been learned consensus.

sandworm101 4y ago

If you can prove such a link between newtonian/relativity and quantum mechanics there are many many prizes in your future. The core problem is that both do not meet up. There is no link. They are both descriptions of observed phenomena, neither being any more or less an approximation the other.

timr 4y ago

> In the entire history of science, no claim meeting these criteria has ever been overturned, despite enormous opportunity for that to happen (if it were ever going to happen). Yeah, that's just not true. It's an absurd claim. Medical science is loaded with examples of things that had wide consensus (but...95%? Probably? Feels like this is a loophole in the argument...) which were subsequently found to be false. Consider just a few examples: * hormone replacement therapy * aspirin for heart attacks * mammograms for younger women (< 50) Just this year, a huge RCT called into doubt the usefulness of mass colonoscopy [1], which was absolutely "scientific consensus" until now (you can see this, because the study was met with rather vicious backlash). For a more basic science example, consider "The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology" [2] which, of course, was so "consensus" that they named it "The Central Dogma": genetic information goes from DNA to RNA to proteins. This was fact...until they discovered retroviruses. Then prions. Oops. This stuff happens all the time. The authors are either not scientists, or they're so blinkered by ideology that they're unreliable. [1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2208375 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2208375 [2] https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Central-Dogma https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Central-Dogma

pdonis 4y ago
> Just this year, a huge RCT called into doubt the usefulness of mass colonoscopy [1] This reference seems to be saying that mass colonoscopy reduces the 10 year risk of colorectal cancer by a statistically significant amount. How is this calling into doubt its usefulness?
- BlackFly 4y ago
  An ongoing theme in cancer research with regards to diagnostics is that a lot of the cancers caught by the diagnostic techniques would not be fatal. Hence, there is not a statistically significant reduction in mortality but rather a reduction in cancer. It is basically just saying: not all cancers kill you, maybe you are better off not knowing about the non-fatal ones. Part of the backlash points out that cancer can affect quality of life in other ways and no one measured that. But either way, it throws the consensus into doubt.
- 4y ago

TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago

International scientific consensus, in the past, had a man murdered for proving the earth orbiting the sun.

krapp 4y ago
No it didn't. The Church was not a scientific body. The basis for their beliefs was not the scientific method, but faith in a literal interpretation of Scripture. Actual international scientific consensus (meaning, the consensus of actual scientists) has never had anyone murdered, if for no other reason than "science" has no body equivalent to the Church empowered or capable to do so, but certainly not for proving a hypothesis.
- wizzwizz4 4y ago
  > Actual international scientific consensus (meaning, the consensus of actual scientists) has never had anyone murdered, Scientific racism and the various eugenics movements say hello.
marginalia_nu 4y ago
Huh? Copernicus died in his home when he was in his 70s. Galileo died of old age as well. Tycho Brahe died from politeness. Bruno was burned because he was a hermetic mystic and didn't really prove anything significant about the planets.
- TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
  Well I'm glad Bruno died. Those hermetic mystics had it coming, and not proving anything significant is basically high treason to science, fully deserving immediate immolation!
  - marginalia_nu 4y ago
    My point is that although a lot of people want him to be because it fits the narrative, he is a remarkably poorly martyr for science.

stochastimus 4y ago

If you replaced QM with general relativity, you would be correct. So, your broader point is valid.

jll29 4y ago

> Do not mistake "useful" for "true." As far as theories are concerned, "useful" means "makes valid predictions", so true, but within a limited scope (Newtonian physics: macroscopic events, from a human perspective).

Jack_Hacker 4y ago
If we take QM seriously, there's nothing stopping it from affecting macroscopic events from a human perspective. A cannonball whose trajectory was planned in accordance with Newtonian physics could suddenly and unexpectedly move three feet to the left, it's just ridiculously unlikely.[0] This isn't a piecewise function where Newtonian physics is true within some constraints of speed and scale, Newtonian physics is simply wrong and useful. [0]: Under the Everett interpretation, which is no more or less scientific than the Copenhagen interpretation, this happens all the time and is witnessed by many humans.

dumpsterdiver 4y ago

Yeah, "future proof, established scientific facts" are pretty much the opposite of what scientific progress brings. I find it repulsive to even entertain the idea of "future proof facts". To me that is hubris to the extreme, especially when it is based upon a consensus of those whose knowledge and instrumentation are grounded in the present. Finally, as others have noted, science revolves around theories and observations, and what we can currently ascertain from said observations - not facts. Often times "facts" are nothing more than bullshit that has yet to be called out. Imo, if someone is more interested in carving "facts" into stone than continually engaging with what we think we know - they aren't the right person for the job.