4 ms·

I don’t accept that I owe anyone any kind of additional data on any of this. Just like I don’t have to have a proven solution to the problem of finding a theory

by nilkn 2y ago

I don’t accept that I owe anyone any kind of additional data on any of this. Just like I don’t have to have a proven solution to the problem of finding a theory of everything to suggest that string theory may not be the truth of the universe while still acknowledging that it can be a worthwhile thread of inquiry and study. Suggesting that we avoid possible dogma has intrinsic value. Let us step back and consider the fact that the combination of general relativity and the Standard Model already cannot explain our most basic cosmological observations. We cannot explain the stability of even our own galaxy based on current models. This situation clearly calls for some basic caution before we enshrine possible unproven explanations into humanity’s view of the universe. There’s a lot of evidence, both long established and newly growing, which shows that our models can’t consistently explain many of the basic things we see around us when we look up at the sky.

bumby 2y ago
If you are trying to make a scientific argument, you should bring data since that's the cornerstone of science. You seem to be implying that people treat these models as gospel. I suspect most of those who are deep enough in the field understand they are models and respect the limitations. To that end, it's not dogma. Saying "this is the best model we currently have" is not the same as dogma. The article is specifically about using data to either support or reject a model so I don't know where you get the idea that anything is being "enshrined" and above reproach. Ironically, saying you don't need to bring data to support your point pushes your position closer to dogma. Your original point says very little. Yes, science acknowledges that you can never 100% say "X causes Y". Science is about getting closer and closer to that 100% with better models and better data while acknowledging it's impossible to get there completely. That's why people are saying your point is a nothing-burger. It's stating the obvious based on a strawman position.
- nilkn 2y ago
  Strong reactions like yours to what should be a very mild and uncontroversal statement that you evidently don’t even disagree with are exactly why these things are increasingly viewed by many as having elements of dogma. What I wrote needed to be said, despite evidently containing very little interesting content, precisely because of how severely it provokes certain people who claim not to even disagree with it. The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement.
  - bumby 2y ago
    What makes you think I have a strong reaction? >What I wrote needed to be said There are apparently plenty of people who disagree (myself included) based on the comments. I think the reaction you're getting is because it's not a particularly fruitful comment because it adds nothing to the conversation, while being veiled as a profound statement. >The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement. Except the response isn't a response to the claim, it's in response to the absence of one. If a researcher publishes some incomprehensible word-salad and lots of people write to the editor saying it's a worthless article, it doesn't somehow translate value to the original work. I think what you're experiencing is people being protective of HN in terms of having meaningful debate and what you said isn't particularly meaningful despite the wordsmithing.
    - nilkn 2y ago
      > I think what you're experiencing is people being protective of HN in terms of having meaningful debate and what you said isn't particularly meaningful despite the wordsmithing. As of the writing of this comment, every single comment I wrote here was upvoted. So, no. I can’t control the future, but what you wrote here was absolutely false when you wrote it. > There are apparently plenty of people who disagree (myself included) based on the comments. And that’s great — that means it’s thought provoking enough to generate debate with complex views on both sides. In other words, yet again proving the value of the statement.
      - bumby 2y ago
        If internet points are how you’re measuring the validity of a point, there’s all kinds of things going wrong. Again, people pushing back doesn’t mean you’re fostering fruitful debate anymore than flat-earthers are generating debate “with complex views.”
        nilkn 2y ago
        You are the one who brought up reception here, not me. I merely responded. So if you don’t like it, don’t choose it yourself first. All that happened is you selected a metric that you thought was favorable to yourself, but you miscalculated and are now claiming the metric was never even valid.
- mistermann 2y ago
  > If you are trying to make a scientific argument, you should bring data since that's the cornerstone of science. He is making an epistemic argument, and epistemology is a part of proper science, though not of scientism, which is what you are bringing. Binary is not the only form of logic available, but it is the most popular in discussions of the unknown. > Your original point says very little. You are literally mixing up subjective and objective. > Yes, science acknowledges that you can never 100% say "X causes Y". Careful though: science also does the opposite. Do you know why? Because science is composed of scientists, and scientists are Humans, and Humans are famously unable to distinguish between facts and their opinion of what is a fact. In fact, doing so is almost always inappropriate, and socially punished. > Science is about... It may intend to aspire to that, but what it is, is what it is. And what that is, comprehensively, is unknown, because it is unknowable. But we do know portions of what it is: there's the part you said, but there is also deceit, hyperbole, delusion, etc...again, because it is composed of Humans, and this is how Humans are. In my experience, all Humans oppose extreme correctness, I have never met a single one who does not.
  - bumby 2y ago
    I don't think anyone is claiming that science isn't biased because it's conducted by humans. Just like I don't think anyone is really claiming that the OP is incorrect in their statement. The comments I've read are merely pointing out "X causes Y does not mean that Y implies X" is a given in the context of a scientific discussion. It reads as if you and the OP are getting wrapped around the axle by treating science as an outcome rather than a process and, in doing so, fighting a claim that was never made, and one where the counterclaim is generally well understood in the scientific community. So well understood that it doesn't really need to be said.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      You are practicing Rhetoric & Scientism, under the guise of practicing Science. I do not expect you can be persuaded you are not 100% in the right so I will not try.
      - 2y ago

by nilkn 2y ago

bumby 2y ago

If you are trying to make a scientific argument, you should bring data since that's the cornerstone of science. You seem to be implying that people treat these models as gospel. I suspect most of those who are deep enough in the field understand they are models and respect the limitations. To that end, it's not dogma. Saying "this is the best model we currently have" is not the same as dogma. The article is specifically about using data to either support or reject a model so I don't know where you get the idea that anything is being "enshrined" and above reproach. Ironically, saying you don't need to bring data to support your point pushes your position closer to dogma. Your original point says very little. Yes, science acknowledges that you can never 100% say "X causes Y". Science is about getting closer and closer to that 100% with better models and better data while acknowledging it's impossible to get there completely. That's why people are saying your point is a nothing-burger. It's stating the obvious based on a strawman position.

nilkn 2y ago
Strong reactions like yours to what should be a very mild and uncontroversal statement that you evidently don’t even disagree with are exactly why these things are increasingly viewed by many as having elements of dogma. What I wrote needed to be said, despite evidently containing very little interesting content, precisely because of how severely it provokes certain people who claim not to even disagree with it. The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement.
- bumby 2y ago
  What makes you think I have a strong reaction? >What I wrote needed to be said There are apparently plenty of people who disagree (myself included) based on the comments. I think the reaction you're getting is because it's not a particularly fruitful comment because it adds nothing to the conversation, while being veiled as a profound statement. >The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement. Except the response isn't a response to the claim, it's in response to the absence of one. If a researcher publishes some incomprehensible word-salad and lots of people write to the editor saying it's a worthless article, it doesn't somehow translate value to the original work. I think what you're experiencing is people being protective of HN in terms of having meaningful debate and what you said isn't particularly meaningful despite the wordsmithing.
  - nilkn 2y ago
    > I think what you're experiencing is people being protective of HN in terms of having meaningful debate and what you said isn't particularly meaningful despite the wordsmithing. As of the writing of this comment, every single comment I wrote here was upvoted. So, no. I can’t control the future, but what you wrote here was absolutely false when you wrote it. > There are apparently plenty of people who disagree (myself included) based on the comments. And that’s great — that means it’s thought provoking enough to generate debate with complex views on both sides. In other words, yet again proving the value of the statement.
    - bumby 2y ago
      If internet points are how you’re measuring the validity of a point, there’s all kinds of things going wrong. Again, people pushing back doesn’t mean you’re fostering fruitful debate anymore than flat-earthers are generating debate “with complex views.”
      - nilkn 2y ago
        You are the one who brought up reception here, not me. I merely responded. So if you don’t like it, don’t choose it yourself first. All that happened is you selected a metric that you thought was favorable to yourself, but you miscalculated and are now claiming the metric was never even valid.
mistermann 2y ago
> If you are trying to make a scientific argument, you should bring data since that's the cornerstone of science. He is making an epistemic argument, and epistemology is a part of proper science, though not of scientism, which is what you are bringing. Binary is not the only form of logic available, but it is the most popular in discussions of the unknown. > Your original point says very little. You are literally mixing up subjective and objective. > Yes, science acknowledges that you can never 100% say "X causes Y". Careful though: science also does the opposite. Do you know why? Because science is composed of scientists, and scientists are Humans, and Humans are famously unable to distinguish between facts and their opinion of what is a fact. In fact, doing so is almost always inappropriate, and socially punished. > Science is about... It may intend to aspire to that, but what it is, is what it is. And what that is, comprehensively, is unknown, because it is unknowable. But we do know portions of what it is: there's the part you said, but there is also deceit, hyperbole, delusion, etc...again, because it is composed of Humans, and this is how Humans are. In my experience, all Humans oppose extreme correctness, I have never met a single one who does not.
- bumby 2y ago
  I don't think anyone is claiming that science isn't biased because it's conducted by humans. Just like I don't think anyone is really claiming that the OP is incorrect in their statement. The comments I've read are merely pointing out "X causes Y does not mean that Y implies X" is a given in the context of a scientific discussion. It reads as if you and the OP are getting wrapped around the axle by treating science as an outcome rather than a process and, in doing so, fighting a claim that was never made, and one where the counterclaim is generally well understood in the scientific community. So well understood that it doesn't really need to be said.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    You are practicing Rhetoric & Scientism, under the guise of practicing Science. I do not expect you can be persuaded you are not 100% in the right so I will not try.
    - 2y ago