4 ms·

Exactly. In the words of Mike Stonebraker, "stake out a controversial claim and prove it true" is pretty standard career advice for junior faculty who are tryin

Exactly. In the words of Mike Stonebraker, "stake out a controversial claim and prove it true" is pretty standard career advice for junior faculty who are trying to get tenure. (At least in Computer Science.)

izzydata 3y ago
Isn't the whole idea of the scientific method is that you don't prove things true? You just test things enough until you are not able to prove it false?
- bee_rider 3y ago
  The specific example (computer science) coincidentally does allow for proofs, because it is mostly math, but I think they actually are just using the word prove informally here.
- fwungy 3y ago
  The incentives of science are often orthogonal to making a career in science.
leereeves 3y ago
> At least in Computer Science Computer Science rarely intersects with politics. If a scientist's novel claim (however well proven) offends a powerful group, their career is over.
- dmbche 3y ago
  Not if it's got strong evidence - there is still no strongevidence for the lab leak so it's a moot point. Do you have something with strong evidence that ruined someones career in the last 50 years?
  - leereeves 3y ago
    Larry Summers was forced out of Harvard in part for mentioning the greater male variability hypothesis. James Damore was forced out of Google for similar reasons. This despite fairly strong evidence for that hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis#Modern_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis#Modern_... Both made the mistake of citing research that contradicts diversity initiatives.
    - dmbche 3y ago
      "Following the end of Clinton's term, Summers served as the 27th president of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006. Summers resigned as Harvard's president in the wake of a no-confidence vote by Harvard faculty, which resulted in large part from Summers's conflict with Cornel West, financial conflict of interest questions regarding his relationship with Andrei Shleifer, and a 2005 speech in which he offered three reasons for the under-representation of women in science and engineering, including the possibility that there exists a "different availability of aptitude at the high end", in addition to patterns of discrimination and socialization.[8]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers I think we're quite far from "strong evidence" anyway if you want to argue that there's "less aptitude at the high end" of either gender. I'm more thinking of something falsifiable maybe? You know, strong evidence? Ps: He's still employed by Harvard, I'm not seeing a ruined career here. Edit: "The company fired Damore for violation of the company's code of conduct.[2] Damore filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, but later withdrew this complaint. A lawyer with the NLRB wrote that his firing was proper.[3][4][5][6] After withdrawing this complaint, Damore filed a class action lawsuit, retaining the services of attorney Harmeet Dhillon,[7][8] alleging that Google was discriminating against conservatives, whites, Asians, and men.[9][10] Damore withdrew his claims in the lawsuit to pursue arbitration against Google.[11]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_... This guy is not a scientist and was fired by a private company for his conduct - has nothing to do with the subject.
      - leereeves 3y ago
        > A 2021 review investigating different hypotheses behind the discrepancy of sexes in STEM jobs summarizes the greater variability research with respect to this question. Given that research finds greater variability in males with in quantitative and nonverbal reasoning,[32] they hold that this can explain some, but not all of the difference seen in STEM occupations.[33] With regard to the question of whether these results are due to societal influences or of biological origins, they hold that the results showing greater variance at a very young age (for instance IQ differences in variability between the sexes is visible from a young age on [34]) lend credence to the theory that biological factors might explain a large part of the observed data. It's certainly falsifiable. Research could have shown no evidence of the variability. That didn't happen. What are you looking for? Evidence as strong as the evidence in physics? No one gets that in the social sciences.
- toomim 3y ago
  Good point. Although this is changing now with AI and whatnot.
chmod600 3y ago
There's some nuance here. Research dollars get allocated in interesting ways that often reinforce the most mainstream approaches. And once some start down an approach (and become invested in it) there can be various kinds of resistance to going a different path. In fields that have social or political implications there are also strong forces pushing, as well. I'm not saying these effects are always overriding the desire for novelty in all cases, but it certainly happens.

izzydata 3y ago

Isn't the whole idea of the scientific method is that you don't prove things true? You just test things enough until you are not able to prove it false?

bee_rider 3y ago
The specific example (computer science) coincidentally does allow for proofs, because it is mostly math, but I think they actually are just using the word prove informally here.
fwungy 3y ago
The incentives of science are often orthogonal to making a career in science.

leereeves 3y ago

> At least in Computer Science Computer Science rarely intersects with politics. If a scientist's novel claim (however well proven) offends a powerful group, their career is over.

dmbche 3y ago
Not if it's got strong evidence - there is still no strongevidence for the lab leak so it's a moot point. Do you have something with strong evidence that ruined someones career in the last 50 years?
- leereeves 3y ago
  Larry Summers was forced out of Harvard in part for mentioning the greater male variability hypothesis. James Damore was forced out of Google for similar reasons. This despite fairly strong evidence for that hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis#Modern_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis#Modern_... Both made the mistake of citing research that contradicts diversity initiatives.
  - dmbche 3y ago
    "Following the end of Clinton's term, Summers served as the 27th president of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006. Summers resigned as Harvard's president in the wake of a no-confidence vote by Harvard faculty, which resulted in large part from Summers's conflict with Cornel West, financial conflict of interest questions regarding his relationship with Andrei Shleifer, and a 2005 speech in which he offered three reasons for the under-representation of women in science and engineering, including the possibility that there exists a "different availability of aptitude at the high end", in addition to patterns of discrimination and socialization.[8]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers I think we're quite far from "strong evidence" anyway if you want to argue that there's "less aptitude at the high end" of either gender. I'm more thinking of something falsifiable maybe? You know, strong evidence? Ps: He's still employed by Harvard, I'm not seeing a ruined career here. Edit: "The company fired Damore for violation of the company's code of conduct.[2] Damore filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, but later withdrew this complaint. A lawyer with the NLRB wrote that his firing was proper.[3][4][5][6] After withdrawing this complaint, Damore filed a class action lawsuit, retaining the services of attorney Harmeet Dhillon,[7][8] alleging that Google was discriminating against conservatives, whites, Asians, and men.[9][10] Damore withdrew his claims in the lawsuit to pursue arbitration against Google.[11]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_... This guy is not a scientist and was fired by a private company for his conduct - has nothing to do with the subject.
    - leereeves 3y ago
      > A 2021 review investigating different hypotheses behind the discrepancy of sexes in STEM jobs summarizes the greater variability research with respect to this question. Given that research finds greater variability in males with in quantitative and nonverbal reasoning,[32] they hold that this can explain some, but not all of the difference seen in STEM occupations.[33] With regard to the question of whether these results are due to societal influences or of biological origins, they hold that the results showing greater variance at a very young age (for instance IQ differences in variability between the sexes is visible from a young age on [34]) lend credence to the theory that biological factors might explain a large part of the observed data. It's certainly falsifiable. Research could have shown no evidence of the variability. That didn't happen. What are you looking for? Evidence as strong as the evidence in physics? No one gets that in the social sciences.
toomim 3y ago
Good point. Although this is changing now with AI and whatnot.

chmod600 3y ago

There's some nuance here. Research dollars get allocated in interesting ways that often reinforce the most mainstream approaches. And once some start down an approach (and become invested in it) there can be various kinds of resistance to going a different path. In fields that have social or political implications there are also strong forces pushing, as well. I'm not saying these effects are always overriding the desire for novelty in all cases, but it certainly happens.