3 ms·

I think there is a large distinction between an un-replicated statistical meta-analysis and 1st,2nd and 3rd laws thermodynamics for example. I'm not sure it mak

I think there is a large distinction between an un-replicated statistical meta-analysis and 1st,2nd and 3rd laws thermodynamics for example. I'm not sure it makes sense to call the first one "science". I think, given how much we have benefited from actual science, we should hold the term in higher esteem. Let's not not allow it to become a magic word intended to convince others to believe everything one says.

Alupis 4y ago
I agree with everything you said - with the minor nitpick that even well established scientific laws can be challenged, lose consensus, and be replaced or amended (Newtonian understandings of Gravity, for instance). That is pure science - accept something until better data comes along and changes the way we think about the topic. We lose people there though, unfortunately. People like to "know" something absolute, and the media does a horrible job of communicating disagreements or opposing data.
- mfuzzey 4y ago
  In "real" science, ie stuff that has been proven by experiment, when new understanding is obtained the old stuff remains valid at laeast as a special case (otherwise it would never have been confirmed by experiment in the first place). So, while we now know that Newtonian physics breaks down in some circumstances, where relativity and quantum mechanics are needed Newtonian is still good enough for most everyday and a lot of not so everyday applications (like sending probes to Mars). It doesn't flip / flop like the "eating eggs was good yesterday and is now bad".
  - version_five 4y ago
    I think maybe the appropriate distinction (restating way you said) is "science" that models the physical world, like physics or chemistry, vs "science" that explores statistical relationships between stuff, like many medical or social studies. In general an element of both is present, but on one end tou have, say Newton, and on the other you have some study that says electromagnetic waves are bad for you because of some statistical health outcome but proposes no causal mechanism. The problem seems to be that the further towards the latter part of the spectrum someone's research is, the more likely they are to be adamant that they're "doing science" and promote all the BS about consensus and peer review that gives a pretend version of how science happens. Presumably due to insecurity. When your work rests on a foundation of p-hacking, you're more likely to be pounding "the science" as justification, vs if you're a physistics that's traced a result back to basic axioms of your field, your work speaks for itself and you don't need to yell how the science is settled
vxNsr 4y ago
My mother has been a doctor for some 35+ years at this point, she’s said many times that consensus on what is healthy or not has flipped many times in her career. While medicine isn’t the first three laws of thermodynamics there is usually a lot of agreement before doctors go out and begin offering a treatment or recommendation, and then suddenly it becomes obsolete and actually bad practice.
- osigurdson 4y ago
  One way to think about this is to first determine what type of study would be actually be needed to prove conclusively, for example, that one egg per day is a net negative or net positive and go from there. I'm assuming that cost / complexity / time associated with conducting such a study would be prohibitive. If so, we can simply conclude that we will never be able to tell one way or the other (with current technology at least) and stop worrying about it. This way, we ensure that our meta-analysis firepower (whatever/whoever that actually is), can be directed at studies that actually have a potential to uncover some real knowledge.

Alupis 4y ago

I agree with everything you said - with the minor nitpick that even well established scientific laws can be challenged, lose consensus, and be replaced or amended (Newtonian understandings of Gravity, for instance). That is pure science - accept something until better data comes along and changes the way we think about the topic. We lose people there though, unfortunately. People like to "know" something absolute, and the media does a horrible job of communicating disagreements or opposing data.

mfuzzey 4y ago
In "real" science, ie stuff that has been proven by experiment, when new understanding is obtained the old stuff remains valid at laeast as a special case (otherwise it would never have been confirmed by experiment in the first place). So, while we now know that Newtonian physics breaks down in some circumstances, where relativity and quantum mechanics are needed Newtonian is still good enough for most everyday and a lot of not so everyday applications (like sending probes to Mars). It doesn't flip / flop like the "eating eggs was good yesterday and is now bad".
- version_five 4y ago
  I think maybe the appropriate distinction (restating way you said) is "science" that models the physical world, like physics or chemistry, vs "science" that explores statistical relationships between stuff, like many medical or social studies. In general an element of both is present, but on one end tou have, say Newton, and on the other you have some study that says electromagnetic waves are bad for you because of some statistical health outcome but proposes no causal mechanism. The problem seems to be that the further towards the latter part of the spectrum someone's research is, the more likely they are to be adamant that they're "doing science" and promote all the BS about consensus and peer review that gives a pretend version of how science happens. Presumably due to insecurity. When your work rests on a foundation of p-hacking, you're more likely to be pounding "the science" as justification, vs if you're a physistics that's traced a result back to basic axioms of your field, your work speaks for itself and you don't need to yell how the science is settled

vxNsr 4y ago

My mother has been a doctor for some 35+ years at this point, she’s said many times that consensus on what is healthy or not has flipped many times in her career. While medicine isn’t the first three laws of thermodynamics there is usually a lot of agreement before doctors go out and begin offering a treatment or recommendation, and then suddenly it becomes obsolete and actually bad practice.

osigurdson 4y ago
One way to think about this is to first determine what type of study would be actually be needed to prove conclusively, for example, that one egg per day is a net negative or net positive and go from there. I'm assuming that cost / complexity / time associated with conducting such a study would be prohibitive. If so, we can simply conclude that we will never be able to tell one way or the other (with current technology at least) and stop worrying about it. This way, we ensure that our meta-analysis firepower (whatever/whoever that actually is), can be directed at studies that actually have a potential to uncover some real knowledge.