3 ms·

I think it's really important to talk about what Science is. It gets bandied about like it's this abstract idea when, in fact, it is a real process that is taki

by hacknat 13y ago

I think it's really important to talk about what Science is. It gets bandied about like it's this abstract idea when, in fact, it is a real process that is taking place. A good definition of Science is humanity's current working knowledge of reality based on the process of lots of people utilizing the Scientific method to test hypotheses. I think that's fair definition. On examination of this definition you will notice it has a large human component. Science is like the stock market. It's lots of people spit-balling about what's happening in the market (in Science's case, the market is "ideas about reality"). In the short term Science can look really ugly, just like the stock market can, in the long term, however, we'd like to think of it as an accurate weighing machine. I generally think this is a fair assessment, but as I get older and start to see how few people there are who aren't willing to cut corners to get ahead. This worries me, because, like the stock market, Science affects real peoples lives. It's all well and good that over the course of 100 years the Dow Jones will outperform cash or, really, any other investments, but that's of little use to the real people who get left behind in periods of great economic stagnation. Science can go through similar periods of stagnation, and currently, it seems like we might have hit upon one. It is possible to criticize the current way we have set up the Scientific endeavor without criticizing the abstract notion that human beings will generally discover new things over the long term. I think it is hardly controversial to say that our current way of doing things is not the best, but it may even be bad. Money and time are corrupting factors. Postings that used to require a PhD require a post-doc, positions that required a post-doc, now require two. The immense pressure of publish-or-perish is becoming greater and greater and room for failure, which is an essential part of the Scientific method, is being squeezed out. This is not a good thing and, I think, is a larger reason, among others, why Science is becoming noisier and noisier. When the stock market becomes noisy it benefits insiders, but hardly anybody else. I think Science is, currently, in a similar place, it's efficacy is being diminished by crap.

lutusp 13y ago
> I think it's really important to talk about what Science is. It gets bandied about like it's this abstract idea when, in fact, it is a real process that is taking place. But science isn't defined by its process, it's defined by its philosophical axioms, its foundational rules. The first and most important rule is that a scientific theory must be potentially falsifiable in practical tests -- if there's no empirical testability, there's no basis for falsification, therefore there is no science. The second rule is that scientific ideas cannot ever be proven true, only false. The third rule is that an idea without supporting evidence is assumed to be false, not true (this is known as the "null hypothesis"). The remaining rules are comparatively unimportant -- these are the big three, without which any discussion of science is pointless. Science's process can change, and from field to field, it certainly does. But the rules stay the same. > Science is like the stock market. It's lots of people spit-balling about what's happening in the market ... That is not science. To call that science is like confusing a spacecraft with a conversation in a bar about a spacecraft. > It is possible to criticize the current way we have set up the Scientific endeavor without criticizing the abstract notion that human beings will generally discover new things over the long term. Again, that is not science. Science's goal is not discoveries, its goal is to reliably refute ideas that are false, primarily by comparing them to reality. This is why science journalism articles that trumpet breakthroughs, with rare exception do a disservice to both science and journalism.
- calibraxis 13y ago
  Science doesn't have such axiomatic rules; did Galileo lay out these these axioms and proclaim the scientific revolution? As I understand it, science is a human enterprise with the goal of understanding principles... with limitations and strengths. Falsifiability in particular has serious criticisms, in terms of people taking it as a defining part of science. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Criticisms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Criticisms) I suspect (and it's just pure suspicion for now which I'm mentioning for no particular reason) it tends to be emphasized in cultures interested in debunking people's claims in a competitive debating way, rather than constructive conversation where both parties aim at coming to new understandings. I don't mean in science, but cultures influenced by science's success.
- hyperpape 13y ago
  You realize that what you call "axioms" of science are actually just one philosopher's take on the matter? That's kind of an important detail.
pcrh 13y ago
>Science can go through similar periods of stagnation, and currently, it seems like we might have hit upon one. Most of the recent criticism of science is related to the biological and medical sciences. I would disagree that these fields have hit on a period of stagnation. On the contrary, I believe that the biomedical sciences are in a period where there is a massive amount of recently generated data and innumerable ways to find correlations among these data. The data themselves are also recorded in a wide number of different formats and data from one paper might be difficult to compare to that from another (giving possibly unwarranted suspicions of non-reproducibility). In the midst of this maelstrom of data, individual scientists are trying their best to make sure they maintain their publication rate and grant funding. As a consequence, findings are sometimes published "too early". While one might criticize this trend to early publication, the reality is that it is sometimes impossible to know exactly in which direction the "final answer" (if there is one) lies. Retaining data until one had found the complete and final answer to something is also a disservice to other researchers. I appreciate the public debate on this matter and hope it ends up working both ways, i.e. the public and science journalists get to understand better the constraints in basic research, and the scientists are given a little more support to undertake more thorough studies. With regards to the latter point, I would refer you to a review on studies involving mouse models of Alzheimer's disease [0]. In that review, the argument is made that almost all studies on this topic are under-powered (in a statistical sense), and most labs should be using 5 to 10 times more mice per experimental condition. This would more than double the cost of each experiment. For constant funding, this would mean halving the number of labs studying Alzheimer's disease, which might not be such a bad idea if the data coming out was more reliable as a result. [0] ‘Too much good news’ – are Alzheimer mouse models trying to tell us how to prevent, not cure, Alzheimer's disease? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166223610000780 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166223610...

by hacknat 13y ago

lutusp 13y ago

> I think it's really important to talk about what Science is. It gets bandied about like it's this abstract idea when, in fact, it is a real process that is taking place. But science isn't defined by its process, it's defined by its philosophical axioms, its foundational rules. The first and most important rule is that a scientific theory must be potentially falsifiable in practical tests -- if there's no empirical testability, there's no basis for falsification, therefore there is no science. The second rule is that scientific ideas cannot ever be proven true, only false. The third rule is that an idea without supporting evidence is assumed to be false, not true (this is known as the "null hypothesis"). The remaining rules are comparatively unimportant -- these are the big three, without which any discussion of science is pointless. Science's process can change, and from field to field, it certainly does. But the rules stay the same. > Science is like the stock market. It's lots of people spit-balling about what's happening in the market ... That is not science. To call that science is like confusing a spacecraft with a conversation in a bar about a spacecraft. > It is possible to criticize the current way we have set up the Scientific endeavor without criticizing the abstract notion that human beings will generally discover new things over the long term. Again, that is not science. Science's goal is not discoveries, its goal is to reliably refute ideas that are false, primarily by comparing them to reality. This is why science journalism articles that trumpet breakthroughs, with rare exception do a disservice to both science and journalism.

calibraxis 13y ago
Science doesn't have such axiomatic rules; did Galileo lay out these these axioms and proclaim the scientific revolution? As I understand it, science is a human enterprise with the goal of understanding principles... with limitations and strengths. Falsifiability in particular has serious criticisms, in terms of people taking it as a defining part of science. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Criticisms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Criticisms) I suspect (and it's just pure suspicion for now which I'm mentioning for no particular reason) it tends to be emphasized in cultures interested in debunking people's claims in a competitive debating way, rather than constructive conversation where both parties aim at coming to new understandings. I don't mean in science, but cultures influenced by science's success.
hyperpape 13y ago
You realize that what you call "axioms" of science are actually just one philosopher's take on the matter? That's kind of an important detail.

pcrh 13y ago

>Science can go through similar periods of stagnation, and currently, it seems like we might have hit upon one. Most of the recent criticism of science is related to the biological and medical sciences. I would disagree that these fields have hit on a period of stagnation. On the contrary, I believe that the biomedical sciences are in a period where there is a massive amount of recently generated data and innumerable ways to find correlations among these data. The data themselves are also recorded in a wide number of different formats and data from one paper might be difficult to compare to that from another (giving possibly unwarranted suspicions of non-reproducibility). In the midst of this maelstrom of data, individual scientists are trying their best to make sure they maintain their publication rate and grant funding. As a consequence, findings are sometimes published "too early". While one might criticize this trend to early publication, the reality is that it is sometimes impossible to know exactly in which direction the "final answer" (if there is one) lies. Retaining data until one had found the complete and final answer to something is also a disservice to other researchers. I appreciate the public debate on this matter and hope it ends up working both ways, i.e. the public and science journalists get to understand better the constraints in basic research, and the scientists are given a little more support to undertake more thorough studies. With regards to the latter point, I would refer you to a review on studies involving mouse models of Alzheimer's disease [0]. In that review, the argument is made that almost all studies on this topic are under-powered (in a statistical sense), and most labs should be using 5 to 10 times more mice per experimental condition. This would more than double the cost of each experiment. For constant funding, this would mean halving the number of labs studying Alzheimer's disease, which might not be such a bad idea if the data coming out was more reliable as a result. [0] ‘Too much good news’ – are Alzheimer mouse models trying to tell us how to prevent, not cure, Alzheimer's disease? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166223610000780 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166223610...