5 ms·

convincing other people that you are right is fundamentally politics. Not science. good science has objective criteria and does not require political justifica

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.
    - madsbuch 3y ago
      so, you use the scientific community and consensus to lead your experimentation efforts? sure, why not. luckily, not everybody does that,otherwise we would not have superseded the Newtonian era. which is what the main post is about: we need to break out of the community and consent. Anyways, this reenforces the idea that we should distinguish between science and scientific communities.

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.
  - madsbuch 3y ago
    so, you use the scientific community and consensus to lead your experimentation efforts? sure, why not. luckily, not everybody does that,otherwise we would not have superseded the Newtonian era. which is what the main post is about: we need to break out of the community and consent. Anyways, this reenforces the idea that we should distinguish between science and scientific communities.