6 ms·

Or that there is plenty of science in a form that most people don't (or won't) understand and so a declaration can make it digestible.

ars 14y ago
That deceleration has cleared up nothing. They used some big words and declared "I win". It doesn't matter that I understand what they are saying. If you have to use technical language to explain something then you don't really understand it, rather what you know is how to work with it, or manipulate it.
lutusp 14y ago
> Or that there is plenty of science in a form that most people don't (or won't) understand and so a declaration can make it digestible. But there isn't. This sort of thing isn't scientific because empirical, falsifiable tests aren't available. So instead of scientific evidence, we have a panel of "experts" declaring something so. It's philosophy, not science, and, all else aside, science is to be preferred.
- vacri 14y ago
  That is not what science is. Science is 'robust observation and reporting'. This includes, but is not exclusive to, empirical, falsifiable tests. From what you're saying, exploratory experiments are not scientific, and neither are entire fields like Taxonomy.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > Science is 'robust observation and reporting'. No, that is stamp collecting. Science is not merely observing, and it is not merely theory-creation. It is both. Observations (descriptions) lead to theories (proposed explanations). The explanations must be testable and falsifiable. > This includes, but is not exclusive to, empirical, falsifiable tests. No, that's not optional. Without falsifiable tests, astronomy and astrology are indistinguishable. Therefore empirical testability and falsifiability are essential to any definition of science. > From what you're saying, exploratory experiments are not scientific, and neither are entire fields like Taxonomy. That's correct. Let's say I claim that stars are actually tiny dots pained on a huge glass bowl in the night sky. Shall we stop there, or shall we test my claim? Let's say I claim that life was created by a supreme being, and natural origins are a myth. Shall we stop there, or shall we test my claim? Let's say I claim that women are inferior to men on the ground that they have fewer teeth than men do (Aristotle actually made this claim, and it stood unchallenged for centuries). Shall we stop there, or shall we test my claim? Ideas must be compared to reality, and if reality disagrees, they must be discarded. When reality-testing proves a theory false, a scientist abandons the theory, but a pseudoscientist abandons reality. Take your pick.
    - vacri 14y ago
      Shall we stop there, or shall we test my claim? You're missing my point. It's not about 'stopping there'. It's about robust observation. The best observations we can make are treated as correct until we can come up with something better. We used the known wrong model of the atom for a long time, but it was the best we had, and we learned a lot in doing so. Your "shall we stop there" argument is utter strawman nonsense, and not what I am arguing. Robust observation allows someone coming along later with better info, because it makes the observation more robust. I have no idea where you pulled this "stop as soon as a claim is made" crap from. So you're saying that classification like taxonomy, the periodic table, and even SI units are 'not science', because these things are not due to a tested claim? If they're pseudoscience (as you are implying they must be, since they're all just 'claims') then isn't all science that uses them inherently suspect as a result? Ideas must be compared to reality, and if reality disagrees, they must be discarded. Which doesn't contradict what I said. Robust observation agrees with this sentiment exactly. You're trying to paint me as a crazy pseudoscientist, but you're working from a faulty perception of what science is. Here's another example: in medicine, there's a lot of work done on case studies for diseases with a low number of victims. It's just not viable to run double-blind studies with such low n, and repeat those studies until you find an answer. Case studies are a way of doing robust observation: "In previously similar situations, this was done, and this happened". It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. It's following scientific principles of do something, observe, report faithfully. Similarly, the Mars exploration robots are out there looking at stuff for the first time. They are exploratory science. What would you have them do to make them fit your narrow vision of science - launch a robot into empty space to provide a control group representing the 'null hypothesis'?
      - ars 14y ago
        Correct, taxonomy and SI units are not science, but they are not psudo-science either. The periodic table is though - it has an actual testable criteria: That this is the full list of elements, and there are no "in between" ones. Observations are part of science, but they are not science in and of themself. Just because you used one doesn't make your science "tainted" as you seem to think. But to declare that the observation is the complete package is wrong. Those case studies are called "case studies" for a very good reason: They are not science. If they were science then the exact cause of the disease would be known, instead only correlations can be found - this can lead to science, so it's part of science, but it's not the end result, it's a lower level category. (I hate using the word science this way, but I guess it makes my distinction clear.) There is no such thing as "exploratory science" unless you mean the science of how to design an exploration. What the rover is doing is called cataloging. From a catalog you can gain scientific conclusions, but not directly. For example you can see that this type of rock is found in this situation - then you find another location and predict the type of rock. We want to know "what is on mars". Just because that's not a science in and of itself doesn't make it bad. If it were science you could develop rules and laws from it. And maybe we will - like ideas on planetary formation. But right now the rover is doing history - we want to know "what happened" not "what fundamental rule can we learn". Again, this isn't a bad thing. But it's not at the same level as hard science.

ars 14y ago

That deceleration has cleared up nothing. They used some big words and declared "I win". It doesn't matter that I understand what they are saying. If you have to use technical language to explain something then you don't really understand it, rather what you know is how to work with it, or manipulate it.

lutusp 14y ago

> Or that there is plenty of science in a form that most people don't (or won't) understand and so a declaration can make it digestible. But there isn't. This sort of thing isn't scientific because empirical, falsifiable tests aren't available. So instead of scientific evidence, we have a panel of "experts" declaring something so. It's philosophy, not science, and, all else aside, science is to be preferred.

vacri 14y ago
That is not what science is. Science is 'robust observation and reporting'. This includes, but is not exclusive to, empirical, falsifiable tests. From what you're saying, exploratory experiments are not scientific, and neither are entire fields like Taxonomy.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Science is 'robust observation and reporting'. No, that is stamp collecting. Science is not merely observing, and it is not merely theory-creation. It is both. Observations (descriptions) lead to theories (proposed explanations). The explanations must be testable and falsifiable. > This includes, but is not exclusive to, empirical, falsifiable tests. No, that's not optional. Without falsifiable tests, astronomy and astrology are indistinguishable. Therefore empirical testability and falsifiability are essential to any definition of science. > From what you're saying, exploratory experiments are not scientific, and neither are entire fields like Taxonomy. That's correct. Let's say I claim that stars are actually tiny dots pained on a huge glass bowl in the night sky. Shall we stop there, or shall we test my claim? Let's say I claim that life was created by a supreme being, and natural origins are a myth. Shall we stop there, or shall we test my claim? Let's say I claim that women are inferior to men on the ground that they have fewer teeth than men do (Aristotle actually made this claim, and it stood unchallenged for centuries). Shall we stop there, or shall we test my claim? Ideas must be compared to reality, and if reality disagrees, they must be discarded. When reality-testing proves a theory false, a scientist abandons the theory, but a pseudoscientist abandons reality. Take your pick.
  - vacri 14y ago
    Shall we stop there, or shall we test my claim? You're missing my point. It's not about 'stopping there'. It's about robust observation. The best observations we can make are treated as correct until we can come up with something better. We used the known wrong model of the atom for a long time, but it was the best we had, and we learned a lot in doing so. Your "shall we stop there" argument is utter strawman nonsense, and not what I am arguing. Robust observation allows someone coming along later with better info, because it makes the observation more robust. I have no idea where you pulled this "stop as soon as a claim is made" crap from. So you're saying that classification like taxonomy, the periodic table, and even SI units are 'not science', because these things are not due to a tested claim? If they're pseudoscience (as you are implying they must be, since they're all just 'claims') then isn't all science that uses them inherently suspect as a result? Ideas must be compared to reality, and if reality disagrees, they must be discarded. Which doesn't contradict what I said. Robust observation agrees with this sentiment exactly. You're trying to paint me as a crazy pseudoscientist, but you're working from a faulty perception of what science is. Here's another example: in medicine, there's a lot of work done on case studies for diseases with a low number of victims. It's just not viable to run double-blind studies with such low n, and repeat those studies until you find an answer. Case studies are a way of doing robust observation: "In previously similar situations, this was done, and this happened". It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. It's following scientific principles of do something, observe, report faithfully. Similarly, the Mars exploration robots are out there looking at stuff for the first time. They are exploratory science. What would you have them do to make them fit your narrow vision of science - launch a robot into empty space to provide a control group representing the 'null hypothesis'?
    - ars 14y ago
      Correct, taxonomy and SI units are not science, but they are not psudo-science either. The periodic table is though - it has an actual testable criteria: That this is the full list of elements, and there are no "in between" ones. Observations are part of science, but they are not science in and of themself. Just because you used one doesn't make your science "tainted" as you seem to think. But to declare that the observation is the complete package is wrong. Those case studies are called "case studies" for a very good reason: They are not science. If they were science then the exact cause of the disease would be known, instead only correlations can be found - this can lead to science, so it's part of science, but it's not the end result, it's a lower level category. (I hate using the word science this way, but I guess it makes my distinction clear.) There is no such thing as "exploratory science" unless you mean the science of how to design an exploration. What the rover is doing is called cataloging. From a catalog you can gain scientific conclusions, but not directly. For example you can see that this type of rock is found in this situation - then you find another location and predict the type of rock. We want to know "what is on mars". Just because that's not a science in and of itself doesn't make it bad. If it were science you could develop rules and laws from it. And maybe we will - like ideas on planetary formation. But right now the rover is doing history - we want to know "what happened" not "what fundamental rule can we learn". Again, this isn't a bad thing. But it's not at the same level as hard science.