3 ms·

> Yes, but you're making the same argument. Science is flawed, but it is the least flawed methodology. I believe you are missing that science is not just a met

by ordu 6mo ago

> Yes, but you're making the same argument. Science is flawed, but it is the least flawed methodology. I believe you are missing that science is not just a methodology, it is a social institution also. It can have the least flawed methodology (though comparing with what? science still relies on p-values, isn't it a flawed methodology? one can do better than that, there are widely known methods), but it can be very flawed as a social institution, just because it is social institution. p-hacking, paper mills -- they are all fruits of a social institution. Science can have the best possible methodology, but still get flawed papers. You can do better sometimes just because you are not social institution. > Only by chance and only with low probability. Well... I'm not sure that I can agree. I'm confused by your use of a probability here. If I try to come with a replacement to quantum mechanics I have zero chances to come with something better than a scientific consensus. But if I watched public debates about possible causal link between smoking and cancer at 1950s, maybe even in 1940s. I could do better with pretty high probability. Science couldn't figure it out because it lacked methods, it couldn't stage an experiment, it couldn't find physiological mechanism leading from smoking to cancer, it could rely on growing heap of correlational data. And a troll of a statistician (R.A.Fisher) kept dismantling all the arguments, noting that there are other possible explanations for correlations. Tobacco companies kept buying "research" proving that smoking is fine. You can be much better than science in such a situation. You can end up with: "tobacco causes cancer" has 50% of probability to be true. (Maybe not 50%, but 80% or 30%, idk). Then you could weight pros and cons of smoking with probabilities and come to a conclusion that risk doesn't worth it. And you could come to this conclusion 10 years before science stated it with confidence close to 100% and politicians started to ban smoking ads. How to measure the probability of such success? Or how about predictions for Iran war outcomes? What science is saying? Can I learn its predictions now to write them down along with my predictions, so I could compare them later to see who was right? How about economics? I read different experts in economics, and they miss the mark all the time, and sometimes it just... You see, when Putin started the war, economists were all like "it will take half a year for Russian economics to collapse". After six months they were predicting a collapse in a year. Now their predictions are very weighted. Like "a tipping point", "trends are..." and so on. _I_ could do better than that. And why? Because I know limitations of economists, they are too much into their models tuned for normal states, so I know to rely on a bigger picture, not on economics data alone. Economists predict that China will face consequences of its stupid investment strategies for decade at least (maybe for longer, I just got a habit of reading economists' predictions ~10 years ago). And? It is the same issue: models have their limits, people forget about it often, even if they have PhD in economics. > Good, but at some point it's better to raise the bar. I'm working on it as well. For example, right now I'm into systems analysis. I missed the whole discipline somehow, I should have read the basics at least a decade ago or even earlier. It is obvious stuff mostly, but still it helps to organize knowledge, make it explicit. > Alexander and other Rationalisticists write like members of a top US high-school debate team. They're among the best - at the high school level. I don't know what my phrasing lack, so it is so hard to understand. But you see, Scott Alexander is not the worst I'm reading regularly. I like debates, I believe 2 things about them: 1. If you want to keep your thinking sharp, you need to become a guru of debates 2. You cannot be guru of debates if you hadn't mastered debates at all levels[1] (I can elaborate on (1) if you want, but I'm not going to explain (2): it becomes obvious when you practice it, but too long to explain for non-enlightened people.) I read debates in 4chan style, where trolls are trolling trolls. I kinda lost enthusiasm to take part in this, even when I could spend some time on it, but I keep reading it. [1] https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

pron 6mo ago
> science still relies on p-values, isn't it a flawed methodology? one can do better than that, there are widely known methods Not generally, no. When there are better methods, of course they are used. > You can do better sometimes just because you are not social institution. I'm not sure what that means. Again, if something is probabilistically the best, by definition it's possbile to do better sometimes, but only by chance. > But if I watched public debates about possible causal link between smoking and cancer at 1950s, maybe even in 1940s. I could do better with pretty high probability. But you're selecting your experiment after the fact. If you're complaining about p-hacking, this is probably the crudest form of it. > I read different experts in economics, and they miss the mark all the time Yes, nonlinear systems are pretty much impossible to predict. Of course they miss the mark a lot. The question is, can you come up with a system that misses the mark less? If you could, that would be the new economics. > I'm working on it as well. For example, right now I'm into systems analysis. I would suggest studying some mathematics, because your point above about p values tells me you're unfamiliar with some basics. You might have heard some stuff, but you can't really understand it until you actually study the subject. > If you want to keep your thinking sharp, you need to become a guru of debates I just hope you understand the difference between debates that can move a field of knowledge forward - those are typically conducted in writing and over a long time, and all parties have already spent years becoming experts in the field - and the sort of debates we have at the Oxford Union, which are a sport. It's a fine hobby, and you can become better at it, but it's not really "the way" to sharpen your mind. It's a skill you can develop like in any sport. There are no shortcuts. You have to put it in the years to really know a subject, and then you can learn from others who've studied other subjects.

by ordu 6mo ago

pron 6mo ago

> science still relies on p-values, isn't it a flawed methodology? one can do better than that, there are widely known methods Not generally, no. When there are better methods, of course they are used. > You can do better sometimes just because you are not social institution. I'm not sure what that means. Again, if something is probabilistically the best, by definition it's possbile to do better sometimes, but only by chance. > But if I watched public debates about possible causal link between smoking and cancer at 1950s, maybe even in 1940s. I could do better with pretty high probability. But you're selecting your experiment after the fact. If you're complaining about p-hacking, this is probably the crudest form of it. > I read different experts in economics, and they miss the mark all the time Yes, nonlinear systems are pretty much impossible to predict. Of course they miss the mark a lot. The question is, can you come up with a system that misses the mark less? If you could, that would be the new economics. > I'm working on it as well. For example, right now I'm into systems analysis. I would suggest studying some mathematics, because your point above about p values tells me you're unfamiliar with some basics. You might have heard some stuff, but you can't really understand it until you actually study the subject. > If you want to keep your thinking sharp, you need to become a guru of debates I just hope you understand the difference between debates that can move a field of knowledge forward - those are typically conducted in writing and over a long time, and all parties have already spent years becoming experts in the field - and the sort of debates we have at the Oxford Union, which are a sport. It's a fine hobby, and you can become better at it, but it's not really "the way" to sharpen your mind. It's a skill you can develop like in any sport. There are no shortcuts. You have to put it in the years to really know a subject, and then you can learn from others who've studied other subjects.