4 ms·

This is a very hyperbolic statement, and makes the common mistake of framing science as built around a central corpus of knowledge, defended by personalities. W

This is a very hyperbolic statement, and makes the common mistake of framing science as built around a central corpus of knowledge, defended by personalities. Whilst science is a human endeavour, and individual scientists suffer all the same shortcomings that human beings exhibit, this is not how it is practised. Scientific consensus is a thing - you can literally gather N scientists in a room, and have them agree on principles and results. There will always be differences of opinion; for example, there are a huge number of interpretations of what a measurement means in quantum mechanics. But, good science is practised with an eye towards the limits of our understanding. For example, the standard model of physics explains nearly everything that we can observe, whilst we also know that there are some things that it can't. We also know that physical theories often seem to be simple, whereas the SM is complex - it likely is an effective theory. Knowing both of these things does not break the concept of consensus. Much of physics research is currently dedicated to figuring out how to break the standard model theories, despite the fact that it works so well. When you hear "consensus", no one is saying that each scientist would write down an identical essay on the subject. Rather it means broad-scale agreement, and a common understanding.

madsbuch 3y ago
Just like you, I think the above commenter points out that scientific consensus is not a scientific construct, but a political one. > politics: social relations involving intrigue to gain authority or power You need politics when working multiple people together. But in particular in scientific communities, you need to be able to superseede political, or institutional, ideas. This is what the original post talks about. The core scientific constructs is stuff like falsification, occam's razor, etc. The "mistake" seems to be a juxtaposition of science and the scientific community.
- jltsiren 3y ago
  Science is fundamentally about convincing other scientists that you are doing good science. The scientific method is just a garbage in, garbage out process. If you don't get other people to challenge you, you can't tell the difference between doing science and fooling yourself. No matter how much you try to question your judgment, you are always the easiest person in the world to fool.
  - madsbuch 3y ago
    convincing other people that you are right is fundamentally politics. Not science. good science has objective criteria and does not require political justification.
    - jltsiren 3y ago
      I didn't say anything about being right. You have to convince others that you are doing good science. The alternative is convincing yourself, which would mean that anyone who believes they are doing science is doing science. I've never heard of those so-called objective criteria. There are some procedures that could be described objectively, but they are garbage in, garbage out. The tricky part is in the details, in the assumptions and interpretations you make. Get them subtly wrong, and the sacred rituals of cargo cult science will simply lead you astray.
      - madsbuch 3y ago
        science is not just the analysis. it is also about carrying out experimentation, designing and a. plethora of other thing. i dont entirely know where the garbage in, garbage out comes from? it sounds like a data scientist who thinks there is no more to science than analysing the data they are provided. if garbage goes in, then you designed your experiment poorly. which is not good science. convincing is not science, but politics.
        jltsiren 3y ago
        Experiment design is largely about those assumptions and interpretations I was talking about. What do you consider to be the established truth? Which aspects you should take into account and which you can safely ignore? What do you expect to happen when you perform the experiment? What is the connection between the observations you make and the outcome of the experiment? Many of those answers will likely be based on your interpretation of the scientific consensus.
        3y ago
peteradio 3y ago
Often we aren't worried about the consensus surrounding specific results but the prescriptions they are motivating from a totally different group of policy makers. Science comprehension is poor by politicians and words and meaning are often twisted to suit a need tangential to the original scientific finding. So when we see people fighting against a scientific result it is often because it is myopic and will be used to motivate poor policy.
OrvalWintermute 3y ago
> For example, the standard model of physics explains nearly everything that we can observe, whilst we also know that there are some things that it can't. The elephant in the room, Gravity, would like to have a discussion with you :)
- agoose77 3y ago
  We can argue about what "nearly" and "some" mean in this context ;)
jkepler 3y ago
Probem is, at least in terms of the climate debate, climate alarmism and mainstream media says that there's scientific consensus, but at least when I read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 5th report in 2015, they didn't even predict how much doubling atmospheric CO2 would warm the planet (as they had in their previous reports)---and that with no clear explanation. However, following their footnote to the scientific detail report, they noted a lack of consensus between the computer-based models ("catastrophe immenent!") and the latest observation based models. When I combine that with prominent climatologists like Judith Curry changing her position when presented with observation-based evidence that countered her climate predictions[1], it leaves me deeply skeptical of any and all alarmists. I haven't taken time yet to read the IPCC's latest report, but I've heard that it has the same lack of consensus between the computer models (full of alarmist assumptions in how they were programmed) and observation-based studies. I firmly believed we must follow observational data above computer simulations... Its just better science. [1] https://reason.com/2023/08/09/this-scientist-used-to-spread-climate-change-alarmism-now-shes-trying-to-debunk-it/ https://reason.com/2023/08/09/this-scientist-used-to-spread-...
- happytiger 3y ago
  Creating and following the data is science. When we arrange the science to fit the narrative we deny science in whole and corrupt the scientific method. And unfortunately, when funding is tied to donors or programs this is exactly what we incentivize. Science is only as good as the freedom of the scientists to ask unencumbered questions.
- agoose77 3y ago
  Judith Curry is interesting case-in-point; most science should not be conducted in such a manner as to associate it with a particular science; the cult of personality should by virtue of a preference for rationale treatment of evidence be avoided in favour of the facts. This includes a systematic treatment and discussion around uncertainty, something that she is criticised for abusing. It should be noted that she is a > prominent climatologist precisely because she is a contrarian, i.e. it is not the case that she represents dissent from a prominent researcher. It is to be expected that she is prominent given that it is hard to find many scientists who agree with her thinking. Politically, she is one of the few people available to provide credibility to climate-denialism (even if "credible" does not apply within her own field). I really want to engage with you on this, because there is an alarming trend in the alt-media to try and depict scientific communities as a cabal of politically minded sell-outs. But the reality is pretty far from this. It's not perfect; peer review needs to be more accessible, journals should be open-accessm, etc., but to depict it as a cult is deeply misrepresentative. The source you referred to (https://reason.com/2023/08/09/this-scientist-used-to-spread-climate-change-alarmism-now-shes-trying-to-debunk-it https://reason.com/2023/08/09/this-scientist-used-to-spread-...) has all the hallmarks of this. It writes as though "establishment science" (which I would be interested in having the authors define) is a person you can speak to, and receive a single opinion. I've seen a number of these kind of "free speech" publications pop up recently, but from what I can see, they are really just contrarian outlets; they seem more interested in being "other" than actually pursuing a particular theme with any kind of rigour. Part of the problem is of course science communication. The media is problematic in the UK (at least) because of its poor treatment of complex issues like Brexit, climate change, economics, etc). In general, the media tend to fail in communicating how science is conducted, what risk looks like, and how uncertainty is described. You can see this in cinema; science is portrayed as esoteric experts who defy the establishment in some good-wins-out triumph (see Oppenheimer). But, that's really, that's just good entertainment. We know that computer models aren't perfect. No-one would take you seriously if you gave a modelling result without a description of the uncertainty and how it was derived. But they're also the best thing that we have besides "wait and see", where we walk without agency into whatever future awaits us. Observational data can disagree with models without invalidating their conclusions; it depends upon the questions that you ask. A specific example; the nucleus is often modelled as a bunch of protons and neutrons moving around independently. We can answer some really interesting questions about why some atoms have very long half-lives using this model. But, if you want to know why a particular nucleus shows vibrational behaviour, the shell model can't help you. Despite this, the shell model is considered one of the most successful theories in physics.

madsbuch 3y ago

Just like you, I think the above commenter points out that scientific consensus is not a scientific construct, but a political one. > politics: social relations involving intrigue to gain authority or power You need politics when working multiple people together. But in particular in scientific communities, you need to be able to superseede political, or institutional, ideas. This is what the original post talks about. The core scientific constructs is stuff like falsification, occam's razor, etc. The "mistake" seems to be a juxtaposition of science and the scientific community.

jltsiren 3y ago
Science is fundamentally about convincing other scientists that you are doing good science. The scientific method is just a garbage in, garbage out process. If you don't get other people to challenge you, you can't tell the difference between doing science and fooling yourself. No matter how much you try to question your judgment, you are always the easiest person in the world to fool.
- madsbuch 3y ago
  convincing other people that you are right is fundamentally politics. Not science. good science has objective criteria and does not require political justification.
  - jltsiren 3y ago
    I didn't say anything about being right. You have to convince others that you are doing good science. The alternative is convincing yourself, which would mean that anyone who believes they are doing science is doing science. I've never heard of those so-called objective criteria. There are some procedures that could be described objectively, but they are garbage in, garbage out. The tricky part is in the details, in the assumptions and interpretations you make. Get them subtly wrong, and the sacred rituals of cargo cult science will simply lead you astray.
    - madsbuch 3y ago
      science is not just the analysis. it is also about carrying out experimentation, designing and a. plethora of other thing. i dont entirely know where the garbage in, garbage out comes from? it sounds like a data scientist who thinks there is no more to science than analysing the data they are provided. if garbage goes in, then you designed your experiment poorly. which is not good science. convincing is not science, but politics.
      - jltsiren 3y ago
        Experiment design is largely about those assumptions and interpretations I was talking about. What do you consider to be the established truth? Which aspects you should take into account and which you can safely ignore? What do you expect to happen when you perform the experiment? What is the connection between the observations you make and the outcome of the experiment? Many of those answers will likely be based on your interpretation of the scientific consensus.
        3y ago

peteradio 3y ago

Often we aren't worried about the consensus surrounding specific results but the prescriptions they are motivating from a totally different group of policy makers. Science comprehension is poor by politicians and words and meaning are often twisted to suit a need tangential to the original scientific finding. So when we see people fighting against a scientific result it is often because it is myopic and will be used to motivate poor policy.

OrvalWintermute 3y ago

> For example, the standard model of physics explains nearly everything that we can observe, whilst we also know that there are some things that it can't. The elephant in the room, Gravity, would like to have a discussion with you :)

agoose77 3y ago
We can argue about what "nearly" and "some" mean in this context ;)

jkepler 3y ago

Probem is, at least in terms of the climate debate, climate alarmism and mainstream media says that there's scientific consensus, but at least when I read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 5th report in 2015, they didn't even predict how much doubling atmospheric CO2 would warm the planet (as they had in their previous reports)---and that with no clear explanation. However, following their footnote to the scientific detail report, they noted a lack of consensus between the computer-based models ("catastrophe immenent!") and the latest observation based models. When I combine that with prominent climatologists like Judith Curry changing her position when presented with observation-based evidence that countered her climate predictions[1], it leaves me deeply skeptical of any and all alarmists. I haven't taken time yet to read the IPCC's latest report, but I've heard that it has the same lack of consensus between the computer models (full of alarmist assumptions in how they were programmed) and observation-based studies. I firmly believed we must follow observational data above computer simulations... Its just better science. [1] https://reason.com/2023/08/09/this-scientist-used-to-spread-climate-change-alarmism-now-shes-trying-to-debunk-it/ https://reason.com/2023/08/09/this-scientist-used-to-spread-...

happytiger 3y ago
Creating and following the data is science. When we arrange the science to fit the narrative we deny science in whole and corrupt the scientific method. And unfortunately, when funding is tied to donors or programs this is exactly what we incentivize. Science is only as good as the freedom of the scientists to ask unencumbered questions.
agoose77 3y ago
Judith Curry is interesting case-in-point; most science should not be conducted in such a manner as to associate it with a particular science; the cult of personality should by virtue of a preference for rationale treatment of evidence be avoided in favour of the facts. This includes a systematic treatment and discussion around uncertainty, something that she is criticised for abusing. It should be noted that she is a > prominent climatologist precisely because she is a contrarian, i.e. it is not the case that she represents dissent from a prominent researcher. It is to be expected that she is prominent given that it is hard to find many scientists who agree with her thinking. Politically, she is one of the few people available to provide credibility to climate-denialism (even if "credible" does not apply within her own field). I really want to engage with you on this, because there is an alarming trend in the alt-media to try and depict scientific communities as a cabal of politically minded sell-outs. But the reality is pretty far from this. It's not perfect; peer review needs to be more accessible, journals should be open-accessm, etc., but to depict it as a cult is deeply misrepresentative. The source you referred to (https://reason.com/2023/08/09/this-scientist-used-to-spread-climate-change-alarmism-now-shes-trying-to-debunk-it https://reason.com/2023/08/09/this-scientist-used-to-spread-...) has all the hallmarks of this. It writes as though "establishment science" (which I would be interested in having the authors define) is a person you can speak to, and receive a single opinion. I've seen a number of these kind of "free speech" publications pop up recently, but from what I can see, they are really just contrarian outlets; they seem more interested in being "other" than actually pursuing a particular theme with any kind of rigour. Part of the problem is of course science communication. The media is problematic in the UK (at least) because of its poor treatment of complex issues like Brexit, climate change, economics, etc). In general, the media tend to fail in communicating how science is conducted, what risk looks like, and how uncertainty is described. You can see this in cinema; science is portrayed as esoteric experts who defy the establishment in some good-wins-out triumph (see Oppenheimer). But, that's really, that's just good entertainment. We know that computer models aren't perfect. No-one would take you seriously if you gave a modelling result without a description of the uncertainty and how it was derived. But they're also the best thing that we have besides "wait and see", where we walk without agency into whatever future awaits us. Observational data can disagree with models without invalidating their conclusions; it depends upon the questions that you ask. A specific example; the nucleus is often modelled as a bunch of protons and neutrons moving around independently. We can answer some really interesting questions about why some atoms have very long half-lives using this model. But, if you want to know why a particular nucleus shows vibrational behaviour, the shell model can't help you. Despite this, the shell model is considered one of the most successful theories in physics.