3 ms·

> 1. It has lots of meaning before replication ... Nothing in science has meaning before replication. Look at cold fusion for a classic example where this rule

by lutusp 14y ago

> 1. It has lots of meaning before replication ... Nothing in science has meaning before replication. Look at cold fusion for a classic example where this rule was ignored. Of course, you may be speaking of the prevailing standards in psychology, in which case you're right -- but then psychology isn't a science. > 2. Apparently the first study isn't science. That's correct -- it isn't. > I didn't realize that science was a catch-22 situation. Only if you can't replicate any studies. That's psychology's problem, but not science's problem. In science, studies are replicated regularly, and no one takes a study seriously if it hasn't been replicated, especially where human health is concerned. > They have a testable hypothesis: that acetaminophen/paracetamol has a side effect of X. That is not an explanation, it's a description. Science requires testable explanations. The paper doesn't presume to explain its results. If I say "the night sky is full of little points of light", that's certainly testable -- someone else can go outside the tent and confirm it, but it's just a description -- not a basis for science, which requires that someone have the nerve to suggest an explanation for what has been described. But if I say "those points of light are actually thermonuclear furnaces like our sun, at greater distances", I have offered a testable, falsifiable explanation. That's science. If someone correlated a specific biochemical action in individual neurons with later very specific behavior, that might count as science, but that would be neuroscience, not psychology. Psychology doesn't try to analytically connect specific physical causes to effects -- it's satisfied to describe outcomes without pretending to know why they are so. > See https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ The fallacy is yours, not mine. You appear to think one study making ten claims constitutes science. In fact, science is ten studies making one claim.

redcircle 14y ago
Perhaps you really believe this definition of science. I've never encountered it before, nor do I know anyone that would use this definition. When people operating on a different definition of science encounter your definition, you can hopefully understand that they will be insulted to have what they think is science to be called not science. Whether you meant it or not, it appears as an attempt to elevate yourself (the person passing judgement, by calling it not science) over the study authors. Thus it comes across as contemptuous, and so one starts wondering: why is this person trying to belittle the study? Is there a hidden agenda? Is this person trying to make it look like the scientists performing the study aren't scientists, so that everyone dismisses the results? These are the things that one will naturally wonder about in the context of contempt, even if the contempt is accidental. > In fact, science is ten studies making one claim. If it is a fact, can you provide a source for this definition? I've never heard it before, and it contradicts everything that I've encountered to date.
- _delirium 14y ago
  From previous experience discussing on HN, I would say 'lutusp has a very specific view of the philosophy of science, and doesn't consider it open to debate.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > I would say 'lutusp has a very specific view of the philosophy of science, and doesn't consider it open to debate. And your evidence is that we're having this debate?
- freshhawk 14y ago
  A "source for this definition"? It follows logically from the fact that science is about replication and specificity. You're asking for an authority to tell you something when it would have made more sense to ask "why do you say that" or "why would that be true". And I do know people who would use this definition: every single person I know who is a scientist. I think it's a rather pithy distillation of the process of gaining scientific consensus. The source would be: "learn what the process of science is about, how it works and about the philosophy of science and this quote becomes a rather obvious truism" A single study is to science what a single TDD test case is to software engineering. Despite what crappy news outlets tell you. All that said, lutusp is being pretty negative about this study for no obvious reason. Someone needs to do the exploratory work at the beginning and this is interesting work, whether you call it science or the start of science. The rest seems like complaining about the press being the press.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Perhaps you really believe this definition of science. I've never encountered it before, nor do I know anyone that would use this definition. Do you mean the idea that science must craft and then test theories? That's not at all controversial, and every legitimate science is defined by its theories. Without the Standard Model, physics isn't science. Without the theories of evolution, genetics and cell biology, biology is not science. Without theories about geological processes and plate tectonics, geology is not science. How could we determine whether a field is or is not a science unless the determination was based on its tested, defining theories? We know astrology is not a science because its theories fail when tested. Are you saying that astrology would become a science by not having testable theories? > When people operating on a different definition of science encounter your definition ... Not only is this not my definition, it has been expressed in a number of legal decisions that, for example, keep Creationism out of public school classrooms. The reason? Creationism's theories fail when tested. >> In fact, science is ten studies making one claim. > If it is a fact, can you provide a source for this definition? My source is the practice of science. Einstein's relativity theory, as pretty as it was on paper, was not accepted until the corpus of evidence for it was overwhelming, in dozens of confirmations (this required experimental work until the mid-1960s). Plate tectonics was not accepted until the field evidence became overwhelming. Examples abound. All on need do is read some science history to discover that one publication means nothing. > These are the things that one will naturally wonder about in the context of contempt, even if the contempt is accidental. Science doesn't care about contempt, it cares about evidence. Contempt is completely irrelevant to the process, and every scientist knows this.
simonster 14y ago
> Nothing in science has meaning before replication. Look at cold fusion for a classic example where this rule was ignored. Actually, two labs reported achieving cold fusion before the results were published, and another also claimed to replicate the findings. See http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html for a comprehensive, well-written examination of this. The Bayesian approach to assessing the validity of scientific claims, which is quite popular these days, implies that every scientific study has some meaning before replication. However, it requires reasonable priors. Most people who are not in the field won't have reasonable priors, and most people who aren't scientists won't be used to thinking this way at all. In this case, my prior for this study being true is probably higher than yours because I remember its predecessor (which you can read too at http://dept.wofford.edu/neuroscience/NeuroSeminar/psfSpring2013/DeWall.pdf http://dept.wofford.edu/neuroscience/NeuroSeminar/psfSpring2...). It's apparently neuroscience and not psychology by your definition because it has neuroimaging data that links the effects to the behavior of specific neurons, even though it was published in the same journal. Generally, I suggest you devote more time to studying the history and philosophy of science before making pronouncements about it :).
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Actually, two labs reported achieving cold fusion before the results were published, and another also claimed to replicate the findings. Yes, but they were all false and later proven false. A replication doesn't mean two or more labs making the same mistakes. There's a bit more to it than that. > Generally, I suggest you devote more time to studying the history and philosophy of science before making pronouncements about it ... I have. Science requires testable, falsifiable theories. Psychology doesn't have any of those. This is not remotely controversial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Quote: "Simply, to be scientific, a theory must predict at least some observation potentially refutable by observation." > It's apparently neuroscience and not psychology by your definition because it has neuroimaging data that links the effects to the behavior of specific neurons, even though it was published in the same journal. The measurements were apparently neuroscience, but the claims that followed certainly weren't. It's not uncommon to see an apparently scientific measurement, followed by conjectures that aren't in any way supported by the measurements. Science proceeds by theories either supported or refuted by empirical evidence. Psychology proceeds by votes.
gilgoomesh 14y ago
> Science requires testable explanations. No it doesn't. Science aims to characterise phenomena. Normally, this just means describing the outcomes of a repeatable scenario – pretty much what redcircle stated. It may seem like science can explain some phenomena but that's really only because multiple observable levels below the surface phenomena have been fully characterised. But for any phenomena, if you dwell down through all of the characterised layers, there's always a point at which science can only probabilistically describe what happens, it can't explain why.
- lutusp 14y ago
  >> Science requires testable explanations. > No it doesn't. Name a legitimate science that is not defined by its testable explanations. Physics has the Standard Model. Biology has evolution, genetics and cell biology, all well-tested theories. We know astrology is not a science because its theories fail when tested. Is your argument that astrology would become a science by not having testable theories? Without testing, without evidence, a scientific idea has no standing. It's not science until there is empirical evidence in support of an idea (or that falsifies the idea). Without empirical confirmation or falsification, it's philosophy, not science. > Normally, this just means describing the outcomes of a repeatable scenario Every time I go outside at night, there are these little points of light in the sky. I don't know what they are, but they're the same every time I look. So ... I just became a scientist. Yes? Contrast that description with a proposed, testable explanation -- that those points of light are thermonuclear furnaces like our sun but at a greater distance. We can test this idea, possibly falsify it. Falsifiability is a requirement for science, but one cannot falsify a description -- for that, we need a proposed explanation. > ... there's always a point at which science can only probabilistically describe what happens, it can't explain why. That's not science, it's philosophy. Science requires a collision between falsifiable explanations and empirical evidence.

by lutusp 14y ago

redcircle 14y ago

Perhaps you really believe this definition of science. I've never encountered it before, nor do I know anyone that would use this definition. When people operating on a different definition of science encounter your definition, you can hopefully understand that they will be insulted to have what they think is science to be called not science. Whether you meant it or not, it appears as an attempt to elevate yourself (the person passing judgement, by calling it not science) over the study authors. Thus it comes across as contemptuous, and so one starts wondering: why is this person trying to belittle the study? Is there a hidden agenda? Is this person trying to make it look like the scientists performing the study aren't scientists, so that everyone dismisses the results? These are the things that one will naturally wonder about in the context of contempt, even if the contempt is accidental. > In fact, science is ten studies making one claim. If it is a fact, can you provide a source for this definition? I've never heard it before, and it contradicts everything that I've encountered to date.

_delirium 14y ago
From previous experience discussing on HN, I would say 'lutusp has a very specific view of the philosophy of science, and doesn't consider it open to debate.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > I would say 'lutusp has a very specific view of the philosophy of science, and doesn't consider it open to debate. And your evidence is that we're having this debate?
freshhawk 14y ago
A "source for this definition"? It follows logically from the fact that science is about replication and specificity. You're asking for an authority to tell you something when it would have made more sense to ask "why do you say that" or "why would that be true". And I do know people who would use this definition: every single person I know who is a scientist. I think it's a rather pithy distillation of the process of gaining scientific consensus. The source would be: "learn what the process of science is about, how it works and about the philosophy of science and this quote becomes a rather obvious truism" A single study is to science what a single TDD test case is to software engineering. Despite what crappy news outlets tell you. All that said, lutusp is being pretty negative about this study for no obvious reason. Someone needs to do the exploratory work at the beginning and this is interesting work, whether you call it science or the start of science. The rest seems like complaining about the press being the press.
lutusp 14y ago
> Perhaps you really believe this definition of science. I've never encountered it before, nor do I know anyone that would use this definition. Do you mean the idea that science must craft and then test theories? That's not at all controversial, and every legitimate science is defined by its theories. Without the Standard Model, physics isn't science. Without the theories of evolution, genetics and cell biology, biology is not science. Without theories about geological processes and plate tectonics, geology is not science. How could we determine whether a field is or is not a science unless the determination was based on its tested, defining theories? We know astrology is not a science because its theories fail when tested. Are you saying that astrology would become a science by not having testable theories? > When people operating on a different definition of science encounter your definition ... Not only is this not my definition, it has been expressed in a number of legal decisions that, for example, keep Creationism out of public school classrooms. The reason? Creationism's theories fail when tested. >> In fact, science is ten studies making one claim. > If it is a fact, can you provide a source for this definition? My source is the practice of science. Einstein's relativity theory, as pretty as it was on paper, was not accepted until the corpus of evidence for it was overwhelming, in dozens of confirmations (this required experimental work until the mid-1960s). Plate tectonics was not accepted until the field evidence became overwhelming. Examples abound. All on need do is read some science history to discover that one publication means nothing. > These are the things that one will naturally wonder about in the context of contempt, even if the contempt is accidental. Science doesn't care about contempt, it cares about evidence. Contempt is completely irrelevant to the process, and every scientist knows this.

simonster 14y ago

> Nothing in science has meaning before replication. Look at cold fusion for a classic example where this rule was ignored. Actually, two labs reported achieving cold fusion before the results were published, and another also claimed to replicate the findings. See http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/fusion_art.html for a comprehensive, well-written examination of this. The Bayesian approach to assessing the validity of scientific claims, which is quite popular these days, implies that every scientific study has some meaning before replication. However, it requires reasonable priors. Most people who are not in the field won't have reasonable priors, and most people who aren't scientists won't be used to thinking this way at all. In this case, my prior for this study being true is probably higher than yours because I remember its predecessor (which you can read too at http://dept.wofford.edu/neuroscience/NeuroSeminar/psfSpring2013/DeWall.pdf http://dept.wofford.edu/neuroscience/NeuroSeminar/psfSpring2...). It's apparently neuroscience and not psychology by your definition because it has neuroimaging data that links the effects to the behavior of specific neurons, even though it was published in the same journal. Generally, I suggest you devote more time to studying the history and philosophy of science before making pronouncements about it :).

lutusp 14y ago
> Actually, two labs reported achieving cold fusion before the results were published, and another also claimed to replicate the findings. Yes, but they were all false and later proven false. A replication doesn't mean two or more labs making the same mistakes. There's a bit more to it than that. > Generally, I suggest you devote more time to studying the history and philosophy of science before making pronouncements about it ... I have. Science requires testable, falsifiable theories. Psychology doesn't have any of those. This is not remotely controversial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Quote: "Simply, to be scientific, a theory must predict at least some observation potentially refutable by observation." > It's apparently neuroscience and not psychology by your definition because it has neuroimaging data that links the effects to the behavior of specific neurons, even though it was published in the same journal. The measurements were apparently neuroscience, but the claims that followed certainly weren't. It's not uncommon to see an apparently scientific measurement, followed by conjectures that aren't in any way supported by the measurements. Science proceeds by theories either supported or refuted by empirical evidence. Psychology proceeds by votes.

gilgoomesh 14y ago

> Science requires testable explanations. No it doesn't. Science aims to characterise phenomena. Normally, this just means describing the outcomes of a repeatable scenario – pretty much what redcircle stated. It may seem like science can explain some phenomena but that's really only because multiple observable levels below the surface phenomena have been fully characterised. But for any phenomena, if you dwell down through all of the characterised layers, there's always a point at which science can only probabilistically describe what happens, it can't explain why.

lutusp 14y ago
>> Science requires testable explanations. > No it doesn't. Name a legitimate science that is not defined by its testable explanations. Physics has the Standard Model. Biology has evolution, genetics and cell biology, all well-tested theories. We know astrology is not a science because its theories fail when tested. Is your argument that astrology would become a science by not having testable theories? Without testing, without evidence, a scientific idea has no standing. It's not science until there is empirical evidence in support of an idea (or that falsifies the idea). Without empirical confirmation or falsification, it's philosophy, not science. > Normally, this just means describing the outcomes of a repeatable scenario Every time I go outside at night, there are these little points of light in the sky. I don't know what they are, but they're the same every time I look. So ... I just became a scientist. Yes? Contrast that description with a proposed, testable explanation -- that those points of light are thermonuclear furnaces like our sun but at a greater distance. We can test this idea, possibly falsify it. Falsifiability is a requirement for science, but one cannot falsify a description -- for that, we need a proposed explanation. > ... there's always a point at which science can only probabilistically describe what happens, it can't explain why. That's not science, it's philosophy. Science requires a collision between falsifiable explanations and empirical evidence.