3 ms·

I think one of the most important 'social values' for science to thrive is a culture with a freedom to disagree on essentially anything. In most of every era wh

I think one of the most important 'social values' for science to thrive is a culture with a freedom to disagree on essentially anything. In most of every era where there was rapid scientific progress from the Greeks to the Islamic Golden Age to the Renaissance and beyond, there was also rich, and often times rather virulent, disagreements over even the most sacred of things. Some of those disagreements were well founded, some were... not. It's only in the eras where disagreement becomes taboo that science starts to slow to a crawl and in many cases essentially die. Disagreeing with some consensus is not "anti-science". The term doesn't even make any sense, which is because it's a political and not a scientific term. I mean imagine if we claimed everybody who happens to believe MOND is more likely than WIMPs as an explanation for dark matter, to be "anti-science". It's just absolutely stupid. Yet we do exactly that on other topics where suddenly you must agree with the consensus or you're just "anti-science"? I mean again, it makes no sense at all.

catlifeonmars 1y ago
I don’t think that’s quite right. Disagreement for the sake of disagreement is not particularly meaningful. The basis for science is iteration on the scientific method. Which is to say: observe -> hypothesize -> falsify. Anti science means to make claims that have no basis in that process or to categorically reject the body of work that was based on that process.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- somenameforme 1y ago
  People disagree because they hold a different opinion. In many eras publicly expressing differing opinions, let alone publicly challenging established ones, becomes difficult for various reasons - cultural, political, social, even economic. And I think this is, in general, the natural state of society. When people think something is right, changing their mind is often not realistically possible. And this includes even the greatest of scientists. For instance none other than Einstein rejected a probabilistic interpretation of quantum physics, the Copenhagen Interpretation, all the way to his death. Many of his most famous quotes like 'God does not play dice with the universe.' or 'Spooky action at a distance.' were essentially sardonic mocking of such an interpretation, the exact one that we hold as the standard today. It was none other than Max Planck that remarked, 'Science advances one funeral at a time' [1], precisely because of this issue. And so freedom to express, debate, and have 'wrong ideas' in the public mindshare is quite critical, because it may very well be that those wrong ideas are simply the standard of truth tomorrow. But most societies naturally turn against this, because they believe they already know the truth, and fear the possibility of society being misled away from that truth. And so it's quite natural to try to clamp down, implicitly or explicitly, on public dissenting views, especially if they start to gain traction. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_principle
  - godelski 1y ago
    > none other than Einstein rejected a probabilistic interpretation of quantum physics That has been communicated to you wrong and a subtle distinction makes a world of difference. Plenty of physicists then and now still work hard on trying to figure out how to remove uncertainty in quantum mechanics. It's important to remember that randomness is a measurement of uncertainty. We can't move forward if the current paradigm isn't challenged. But the way it is challenged is important. Einstein wasn't going around telling everyone they were wrong, but he was trying to get help in the ways he was trying to solve it. You still have to explain the rest of physics to propose something new. Challenging ideas is fine, it's even necessary, but at the end of the day you have to pony up. The public isn't forming opinions about things like Einstein. They just parrot authority. Most HN users don't even understand Schrödinger's cat and think there's a multiverse.
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      A core component of the Copenhagen interpretation is that quantum mechanics is fundamentally indeterministic meaning you are inherently and inescapably left with probabilistic/statistical systems. And yes, Einstein was saying people were wrong while offering no viable alternative. His motivation was purely ideological - he believed in a rational deterministic universe, and the Copenhagen Interpretation didn't fit his worldview. For instance this is the complete context of his spooky action at a distance quote: "I cannot seriously believe in [the Copenhagen Interpretation] because the theory cannot be reconciled with the idea that physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky action at a distance." Framing things like entanglement as "spooky action at a distance" was obviously being intentionally antagonistic on top of it all as well. --- And yes, if it wasn't clear by my tone - I believe the West in has gradually entered onto the exact sort of death of science phase I am speaking about. A century ago you had uneducated (formally at least) brothers working as bicycle repairmen pushing forward aerodynamics and building planes in their spare time. Today, as you observe, even people with excessive formal education, access to [relatively] endless resources, endless information, and more - seem to have little ambition in exploiting that, rather than passively consuming it. It goes some way to explaining why some think LLMs might lead to AGI.
godelski 1y ago
> Disagreeing with some consensus is not "anti-science". Be careful of gymnastics. Yes, science requires the ability to disagree. You can even see in my history me saying a scientist needs to be a bit anti authoritarian! But HOW one goes about disagreeing is critical. Sometimes I only have a hunch that what others believe is wrong. They have every right to call me stupid for that. Occasionally I'll be able to gather the evidence and prove my hunch. Then they are stupid for not believing like I do, but only after evidenced. Most of the time I'm wrong though. Trying to gather evidence I fail and just support the status quo. So I change my mind. Most importantly, I just don't have strong opinions about most things. Opinions are unavoidable, strong ones aren't. If I care about my opinion, I must care at least as much about the evidence surrounding my opinion. That's required for science. Look at it this way. When arguing with someone are you willing to tell them how to change your mind? I will! If you're right, I want to know! But frankly, I find most people are arguing to defend their ego. As if being wrong is something to be embarrassed about. But guess what, we're all wrong. It's all about a matter of degree though. It's less wrong to think the earth is a sphere than flat because a sphere is much closer to an oblate spheroid. If you can't support your beliefs and if you can't change your mind, I don't care who you listen to, you're not listening to science

catlifeonmars 1y ago

I don’t think that’s quite right. Disagreement for the sake of disagreement is not particularly meaningful. The basis for science is iteration on the scientific method. Which is to say: observe -> hypothesize -> falsify. Anti science means to make claims that have no basis in that process or to categorically reject the body of work that was based on that process.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
somenameforme 1y ago
People disagree because they hold a different opinion. In many eras publicly expressing differing opinions, let alone publicly challenging established ones, becomes difficult for various reasons - cultural, political, social, even economic. And I think this is, in general, the natural state of society. When people think something is right, changing their mind is often not realistically possible. And this includes even the greatest of scientists. For instance none other than Einstein rejected a probabilistic interpretation of quantum physics, the Copenhagen Interpretation, all the way to his death. Many of his most famous quotes like 'God does not play dice with the universe.' or 'Spooky action at a distance.' were essentially sardonic mocking of such an interpretation, the exact one that we hold as the standard today. It was none other than Max Planck that remarked, 'Science advances one funeral at a time' [1], precisely because of this issue. And so freedom to express, debate, and have 'wrong ideas' in the public mindshare is quite critical, because it may very well be that those wrong ideas are simply the standard of truth tomorrow. But most societies naturally turn against this, because they believe they already know the truth, and fear the possibility of society being misled away from that truth. And so it's quite natural to try to clamp down, implicitly or explicitly, on public dissenting views, especially if they start to gain traction. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_principle
- godelski 1y ago
  > none other than Einstein rejected a probabilistic interpretation of quantum physics That has been communicated to you wrong and a subtle distinction makes a world of difference. Plenty of physicists then and now still work hard on trying to figure out how to remove uncertainty in quantum mechanics. It's important to remember that randomness is a measurement of uncertainty. We can't move forward if the current paradigm isn't challenged. But the way it is challenged is important. Einstein wasn't going around telling everyone they were wrong, but he was trying to get help in the ways he was trying to solve it. You still have to explain the rest of physics to propose something new. Challenging ideas is fine, it's even necessary, but at the end of the day you have to pony up. The public isn't forming opinions about things like Einstein. They just parrot authority. Most HN users don't even understand Schrödinger's cat and think there's a multiverse.
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    A core component of the Copenhagen interpretation is that quantum mechanics is fundamentally indeterministic meaning you are inherently and inescapably left with probabilistic/statistical systems. And yes, Einstein was saying people were wrong while offering no viable alternative. His motivation was purely ideological - he believed in a rational deterministic universe, and the Copenhagen Interpretation didn't fit his worldview. For instance this is the complete context of his spooky action at a distance quote: "I cannot seriously believe in [the Copenhagen Interpretation] because the theory cannot be reconciled with the idea that physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky action at a distance." Framing things like entanglement as "spooky action at a distance" was obviously being intentionally antagonistic on top of it all as well. --- And yes, if it wasn't clear by my tone - I believe the West in has gradually entered onto the exact sort of death of science phase I am speaking about. A century ago you had uneducated (formally at least) brothers working as bicycle repairmen pushing forward aerodynamics and building planes in their spare time. Today, as you observe, even people with excessive formal education, access to [relatively] endless resources, endless information, and more - seem to have little ambition in exploiting that, rather than passively consuming it. It goes some way to explaining why some think LLMs might lead to AGI.

godelski 1y ago

> Disagreeing with some consensus is not "anti-science". Be careful of gymnastics. Yes, science requires the ability to disagree. You can even see in my history me saying a scientist needs to be a bit anti authoritarian! But HOW one goes about disagreeing is critical. Sometimes I only have a hunch that what others believe is wrong. They have every right to call me stupid for that. Occasionally I'll be able to gather the evidence and prove my hunch. Then they are stupid for not believing like I do, but only after evidenced. Most of the time I'm wrong though. Trying to gather evidence I fail and just support the status quo. So I change my mind. Most importantly, I just don't have strong opinions about most things. Opinions are unavoidable, strong ones aren't. If I care about my opinion, I must care at least as much about the evidence surrounding my opinion. That's required for science. Look at it this way. When arguing with someone are you willing to tell them how to change your mind? I will! If you're right, I want to know! But frankly, I find most people are arguing to defend their ego. As if being wrong is something to be embarrassed about. But guess what, we're all wrong. It's all about a matter of degree though. It's less wrong to think the earth is a sphere than flat because a sphere is much closer to an oblate spheroid. If you can't support your beliefs and if you can't change your mind, I don't care who you listen to, you're not listening to science