7 ms·

I'm tired of science as a religion. People treat it as some gospel, like if you check out some criterions you're suddenly "scientific" and instantly get a sense

I'm tired of science as a religion. People treat it as some gospel, like if you check out some criterions you're suddenly "scientific" and instantly get a sense of validity and authority that you shouldn't logically get. I judge things as "what you can do", not "what can you predict". The only demonstration of knowledge and understanding is being able to do something. Not predict. Not "scientific method" and ridiculous "peer review" (actually peer pressure), not blind trials and not rigorous statistical analysis. In the end of the day, you either manage to do something or you don't. So much of so called science had lost all contact with reality because our judgement of success isn't successfully doing something, it is successfully jumping through "scientific" hoops. Look at string theory and social sciences. The scientific process, instead of being a tool, became the purpose. It became a stamp of validity to seek. A stamp of validity with gatekeepers in the academia, in the peer review process, in the media coverage afterwards all the way to social media censorship and "fact checkers". What used to be the frontier of creative people became a stagnant beurocratic machine worshipped like a new religion. The side of the heretics burned at the stake became the ones crying out heresy. Enjoy your new brand of science. I'll stick to the older brand of heretics and mad men which did whatever it was the prevailing orthodoxy told them to avoid doing and thinking, and I'll remind you that the only real reason those are remembered is because they did something useful, not because of the social traditions they adhered to or the rigorous scientific standards they followed.

dcow 3y ago
You would love Thomas Kuhn.
JKCalhoun 3y ago
Science as a rear-view mirror.
lorepieri 3y ago
This is the reason why I left academia for startups... Seems like a better way (not perfect by any means) to innovate, actually doing things. PS: I would be happy to connect, you can find my socials in my bio.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hyperthesis 3y ago
Just add epicycles.
- sdenton4 3y ago
  Add enough epicycles and you've got a Fourier transform... Epicycles were a great idea but applied for the wrong reason.
  - hyperthesis 3y ago
    Oh, they worked really well; they were still used for numerical calculation even after Galileo. But they weren't a "demonstration of knowledge and understanding" of planetary motion.
    - sdenton4 3y ago
      Understanding is a moving target, though. Newtonian mechanics was incorrect for modeling the solar system as well - as it was eventually superseded - but that doesn't mean it wasn't a scientific understanding of planetary motion. Epicycles gave a better description of the movement of the planets, based on the observations available, which was entirely falsifiable. They were eventually superseded, and that's science at work.
      - hyperthesis 3y ago
        Interesting to say it's scientific because falsifiable. The objection is that it wasn't a theory, just fitting a function to data. It did "work" in that it captured some pattern: it was extremely good at generalizing/extrapolating/predicting. And was a "model" of something in the data. But there was no operational model behind it, of what was actually happening. Newtonian mechanics has a model, beyond curve fitting. BTW: I made this analogy between LLM and epicycles as a joke, but it's looking strangely isomorphic... It's funny, because epicycles used to be the poster-child for ad hoc, overcomplex models with no conceptual basis... which is an exact match for LLM... but I don't recall the analogy being made. Not even in https://norvig.com/chomsky.html https://norvig.com/chomsky.html
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
Science is not academia. You say you prefer to judge things as "what you can do". Well, how do you judge "what you can do"? Astrologists, homeopaths, podiatrists, Christian scientists (!!!) and other such "heretics and mad men" rejected by the scientific establishment, will all tell you that they "can do" stuff, and so will all their many paying customers. How do we know they can't do what they say? Because science gives you the tools to know that you're wrong. If you're a good scientist, you will be wrong _all the time_. That's how science advances: one mistake at a time. But you can't make mistakes if all you ever do is doing stuff with computers, like beating all the benchmarks, because that is a meaningless result judged by its own, self-chosen, measure of success that can never fail; and so can never inform. Peer review is also not science, but it has been great to catch errors in my papers. Not in conferences, mind. I try to stay away from conferences. Everybody flocks to conferences because of quick turnaround, instant gratification. Journals have the good reviewers who can take their time understanding your work and helping you find where you've gone wrong. "Reject with encouragement to resubmit" is the best review result I ever got. >> I judge things as "what you can do", not "what can you predict". The goal of science is not to make predictions, but to understand how the world works, and why. Put that into instrumentalism's pipe and smoke it.
- mistercheph 3y ago
  And whence the tools to judge that > science gives you the tools to know that you're wrong.
- machina_ex_deus 3y ago
  Placebos are known to work. I neither overestimate nor underestimate them. I understand them for what they are: placebos. And some people actually need them. Moreover, in social contexts, religion also "works" in many senses. A person asked me what me what can he do about depression and feeling of meaninglessness. Science would prescribe anti-depressants, medicate him and he would both have side-effects and the problem would never be cured. I suggested that if he were religious, the meaninglessness would immediately go away and he would need no medication, no external interventions. So again, judging religion by "what can it do", it can successfully give people meanings. Which is quite non-trivial thing that science fails to do to many people. So religion can be presumed to be acting on some truths regarding what drives and gives people meanings. Religion successfully demonstrated an understanding of that, you don't need statistical analysis or peer review to see that, it's plainly obvious. That knowledge just doesn't carry on to other stuff like how celestial bodies move, and there's no reason to think it does. I love how you're the spokesperson for "science". Ironically, when you look at how you describe the merits of peer review, you sound quite like an instrumentalist yourself. Also quite ironically, the new science religion keep on pushing this funny narrative that science is about "being wrong all the time" which is like the complete opposite of scientific history. All of the established science is just the successes. Look at the great physicists. There is no mistake in Newton's laws. Or in Einstein's. They are just as valid today as they have been back then, in the areas where they were demonstrated and studied. How did we reach this apologetic science? "good scientist will be wrong all the time"? That sounds like gaslighting scientists in a failed system rather than accurate historical statement. Science advances because someone eventually succeeds. In the grand scheme of things, there are no mistakes. There are corrections, there are expanding the domain of applicability. But the mistakes are sent to the trashbin of history, and if a failed system decided to gaslight you into rationalizing failure, stop listening to it and start seeking success.
TheRealPomax 3y ago
> In the end of the day, you either manage to do something or you don't. The hard sciences would like a word.
- maigret 3y ago
  Taleb wrote well about that, changed my view on science. Not that science should be discounted, but it’s not the single source of truth. https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1419843561286160397 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1419843561286160397

dcow 3y ago

You would love Thomas Kuhn.

JKCalhoun 3y ago

Science as a rear-view mirror.

lorepieri 3y ago

This is the reason why I left academia for startups... Seems like a better way (not perfect by any means) to innovate, actually doing things. PS: I would be happy to connect, you can find my socials in my bio.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

hyperthesis 3y ago

Just add epicycles.

sdenton4 3y ago
Add enough epicycles and you've got a Fourier transform... Epicycles were a great idea but applied for the wrong reason.
- hyperthesis 3y ago
  Oh, they worked really well; they were still used for numerical calculation even after Galileo. But they weren't a "demonstration of knowledge and understanding" of planetary motion.
  - sdenton4 3y ago
    Understanding is a moving target, though. Newtonian mechanics was incorrect for modeling the solar system as well - as it was eventually superseded - but that doesn't mean it wasn't a scientific understanding of planetary motion. Epicycles gave a better description of the movement of the planets, based on the observations available, which was entirely falsifiable. They were eventually superseded, and that's science at work.
    - hyperthesis 3y ago
      Interesting to say it's scientific because falsifiable. The objection is that it wasn't a theory, just fitting a function to data. It did "work" in that it captured some pattern: it was extremely good at generalizing/extrapolating/predicting. And was a "model" of something in the data. But there was no operational model behind it, of what was actually happening. Newtonian mechanics has a model, beyond curve fitting. BTW: I made this analogy between LLM and epicycles as a joke, but it's looking strangely isomorphic... It's funny, because epicycles used to be the poster-child for ad hoc, overcomplex models with no conceptual basis... which is an exact match for LLM... but I don't recall the analogy being made. Not even in https://norvig.com/chomsky.html https://norvig.com/chomsky.html

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago

Science is not academia. You say you prefer to judge things as "what you can do". Well, how do you judge "what you can do"? Astrologists, homeopaths, podiatrists, Christian scientists (!!!) and other such "heretics and mad men" rejected by the scientific establishment, will all tell you that they "can do" stuff, and so will all their many paying customers. How do we know they can't do what they say? Because science gives you the tools to know that you're wrong. If you're a good scientist, you will be wrong _all the time_. That's how science advances: one mistake at a time. But you can't make mistakes if all you ever do is doing stuff with computers, like beating all the benchmarks, because that is a meaningless result judged by its own, self-chosen, measure of success that can never fail; and so can never inform. Peer review is also not science, but it has been great to catch errors in my papers. Not in conferences, mind. I try to stay away from conferences. Everybody flocks to conferences because of quick turnaround, instant gratification. Journals have the good reviewers who can take their time understanding your work and helping you find where you've gone wrong. "Reject with encouragement to resubmit" is the best review result I ever got. >> I judge things as "what you can do", not "what can you predict". The goal of science is not to make predictions, but to understand how the world works, and why. Put that into instrumentalism's pipe and smoke it.

mistercheph 3y ago
And whence the tools to judge that > science gives you the tools to know that you're wrong.
machina_ex_deus 3y ago
Placebos are known to work. I neither overestimate nor underestimate them. I understand them for what they are: placebos. And some people actually need them. Moreover, in social contexts, religion also "works" in many senses. A person asked me what me what can he do about depression and feeling of meaninglessness. Science would prescribe anti-depressants, medicate him and he would both have side-effects and the problem would never be cured. I suggested that if he were religious, the meaninglessness would immediately go away and he would need no medication, no external interventions. So again, judging religion by "what can it do", it can successfully give people meanings. Which is quite non-trivial thing that science fails to do to many people. So religion can be presumed to be acting on some truths regarding what drives and gives people meanings. Religion successfully demonstrated an understanding of that, you don't need statistical analysis or peer review to see that, it's plainly obvious. That knowledge just doesn't carry on to other stuff like how celestial bodies move, and there's no reason to think it does. I love how you're the spokesperson for "science". Ironically, when you look at how you describe the merits of peer review, you sound quite like an instrumentalist yourself. Also quite ironically, the new science religion keep on pushing this funny narrative that science is about "being wrong all the time" which is like the complete opposite of scientific history. All of the established science is just the successes. Look at the great physicists. There is no mistake in Newton's laws. Or in Einstein's. They are just as valid today as they have been back then, in the areas where they were demonstrated and studied. How did we reach this apologetic science? "good scientist will be wrong all the time"? That sounds like gaslighting scientists in a failed system rather than accurate historical statement. Science advances because someone eventually succeeds. In the grand scheme of things, there are no mistakes. There are corrections, there are expanding the domain of applicability. But the mistakes are sent to the trashbin of history, and if a failed system decided to gaslight you into rationalizing failure, stop listening to it and start seeking success.

TheRealPomax 3y ago

> In the end of the day, you either manage to do something or you don't. The hard sciences would like a word.

maigret 3y ago
Taleb wrote well about that, changed my view on science. Not that science should be discounted, but it’s not the single source of truth. https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1419843561286160397 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1419843561286160397