Re: [silk] War on Science?

[Vani Murarka]

 Deeply appreciative of the discussion going on here at present, the muck
in science and in religion being called out. Haven't read Srini
RamaKrishnan's post "Building a better world" yet.

Maybe it isn't a very great time for me to open my mouth, because I am
feeling so deeply immersed in beauty and grace right now (not due to these
posts, but independent of it), that anything I read seems beautiful to me
-- and such kind of effusive expression does not have place in logical
deliberation, I am aware. But I just want to say I have been in love with
science since I was child, but pretty soon became aware of how it has
trapped itself in its very definition and demand of being objective.
However, however much an entity (a school of thought or any kind of entity
-- be it science, or any religion, or any individual, race, country
whatever) may bind itself in any kind of limitation, truth and beauty does
find a way to emerge. That limitation that the entity imposes on itself,
itself becomes its strength.

This, the present moment, on a global scale, is a very fertile time. All
that is erupting is only taking us towards that -- truth and beauty.



--

Vani Murarka

* vani expressions - blog writings 
* काव्यालय (Kaavyaalaya: House of Hindi Poetry) 
* गीत गतिरूप - कवि का अनोखा साथी 

Re: [silk] War on Science?

[Srini RamaKrishnan]

I am not saying science done well isn't worthwhile, just as politics
done well is beautiful, but the real world practice of both leaves
much to be desired - unless one accepts that that's just how things
are.

There is a virtue signalling with regards to science in some kinds of
political debate that I think is unmerited. All human endeavours can
be done well or badly depending on the humans doing it. Any large set
of humans will assume a normal curve of capability, morality, honesty,
which the scientific community is no exception to.

If we can question the methods and motives of politicians, then we
ought to also question the methods and motives of scientists.


On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:08 PM, Keith Adam  wrote:
[...]

> I think you misunderstand the scientific process.  Scientists may do research 
> and publish a paper detailing their hypothesis, method, results, study 
> numbers etc. and draw their conclusions.  But it is not 'established 
> scientific consensus' until it is reproduced by many different groups, many 
> times with outliers in the data accounted for.  One scientific paper does not 
> science make.  And moreover, the person you quote above makes it clear that 
> most scientists understand that that is how science works. It is the 
> mainstream media and press that latch on to a single research paper and claim 
> it is 'science' that do not understand how science works.

It occurred to me as I read that interviewee's argument that I'd never
climb into a taxi if there was no guarantee the driver knew the way,
on the mere chance that I might end up nearer to the destination than
I am currently. Yet I appreciate that scientific endeavours are more
complex, and therefore some error margin is inevitable. Politicians
then have it even harder, since humans are even more unpredictable
than scientific experiments. Their error margins should then be
enormous.

So, that was my point about politics - this is just how politics works
- there are a lot of compromises to be made and mad things get said
and done to obtain votes. No politician can guarantee that their
approach is going to be honest or even beneficial, and that they
aren't going to fall prey to their human weaknesses, just like
scientists.

Let's not take everything literally, because if we do, then my point
is, even science won't fare any better, which you confirm.

The scientific method alone does not guarantee good science, just as
an election alone does not make a democracy. We can't work around
human flaws with better systems - sometimes yes, not always.

Scientific consensus can be inexact, and bad policy outcomes are
certainly possible, which is what I think some politicians inexpertly
articulate when they criticise science.



>
> A single paper may draw an incomplete or incorrect conclusion due to; study 
> groups being too small, errors in statistical methods, errors in equipment or 
> apparatus, human bias or indeed by outright deceit.  But to claim that half 
> of science is false due to human failings is somewhat of a stretch.

What number would you put it at? Anyway, I never made the claim
anywhere that half of science is false.

I decided against a PhD when I was a grad student, some 17-18 years
ago because in a rather short period of time I had run into most of
the problems and perverse motivations that these gentlemen in high
places write about. I knew I wanted to pursue knowledge, and it was
clear I'd be better off doing it outside of academia. In academia I'd
spend much of my life in the pursuit of funding and peer approval, and
ultimately very likely producing derivative research in order to
secure funding and approval.

That the guardians of science are so slow to fix an existential crisis
is what should be ringing the alarm bells.

Science has a rather large and stinky problem that contaminates its
reputation, made worse by the social charade of superiority and
infallibility. Politicians often talk about cleaning up politics, a
sentiment I rarely hear scientists express.

I think it's irrelevant to the purposes of the thread exactly how much
it stinks, that it stinks to unacceptable levels has been established,
yes?


>
> Of the problem of the mainstream media reporting a single study as 'science' 
> reminds me of what Professor Spiegelhalter [1] said on More or Less this 
> week, that if something is being reported as it is usually contrary to the 
> established view and is therefore extraordinary.  And that extraordinary 
> claims require extraordinary proof. Which is never usually the case of a 
> single research paper.

This is so with anything. Though politicians say stupid things, and
engage in corruption and populism, the world by and large manages.
Consensus is how humans error correct for well, being human.


> 


> The utility of the result in the framework to which it applies matters.  An 
> accuracy of an atomic clock that is greater than the age of the universe is 
> probably fine for 

Re: [silk] War on Science?

[Keith Adam]

>
> On Feb 21, 2018 6:24 PM, "Biju Chacko"  wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Paying respect to science is good form, but doesn't always mean it's an
> > > indication of quality. Neither is questioning science inherently a bad
> > > idea.
> >
> > Erm, there's a hell of a difference between questioning specific
> > studies or hypotheses and dismissing established scientific consensus.
>
>
> Science is largely determined by the people doing the science and
> their human failings. There's no protection against human nature.
>
> A good rabbit hole is the Google search term, "half of all science is
> wrong", which is a paraphrase of the words of Richard Horton
> (www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext),
> editor of The Lancet, who admitted rather timidly or bravely
> (debateable) in his editorial that "much of the scientific literature,
> perhaps half, may simply be untrue." Also in his words, "science has
> taken a turn toward darkness."

 

> Most are silent, and the few defenders seem to come out with silly
> excuses that would make politicians blush.
>
> Here's one -
>
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915-most-scientific-papers-are-probably-
> wrong/
>
> << But Solomon Snyder, senior editor at the Proceedings of the
> National Academy of Sciences, and a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins
> Medical School in Baltimore, US, says most working scientists
> understand the limitations of published research.

I think you misunderstand the scientific process.  Scientists may do research 
and publish a paper detailing their hypothesis, method, results, study numbers 
etc. and draw their conclusions.  But it is not 'established scientific 
consensus' until it is reproduced by many different groups, many times with 
outliers in the data accounted for.  One scientific paper does not science 
make.  And moreover, the person you quote above makes it clear that most 
scientists understand that that is how science works. It is the mainstream 
media and press that latch on to a single research paper and claim it is 
'science' that do not understand how science works.

A single paper may draw an incomplete or incorrect conclusion due to; study 
groups being too small, errors in statistical methods, errors in equipment or 
apparatus, human bias or indeed by outright deceit.  But to claim that half of 
science is false due to human failings is somewhat of a stretch.

Of the problem of the mainstream media reporting a single study as 'science' 
reminds me of what Professor Spiegelhalter [1] said on More or Less this week, 
that if something is being reported as it is usually contrary to the 
established view and is therefore extraordinary.  And that extraordinary claims 
require extraordinary proof. Which is never usually the case of a single 
research paper.

So yes, half of all scientific papers in the last twenty years may not be 
repeatable but what we can then draw from that is that their conclusions and 
hypotheses are incorrect.  That is the scientific method is it not?  And it has 
worked remarkably well.



>
> > And in either case, any serious disputation demands support of
> > objective evidence. Unless, of course, you're saying the scientific
> > method itself is questionable -- in which case I'd humbly ask for your
> > alternative way of understanding reality.
>
>
> Heh, why do you go opening that can of worms? That wasn't something I
> said, still if one goes there it soon begs a metaphysical question on
> the nature of reality itself. I don't think Silk is a medium built for
> that kind of debate. However there are some jumping off points for
> those interested,
>
> 1. Quantum events are not deterministic, but probabilistic, which
> requires reworking Francis Bacon's assumptions that experiments are
> always repeatable. Such debates are currently only being held in
> philosophy departments, and not in physics departments.
>
> Yet makers of still more accurate atomic clocks, random number
> generators all run into this sooner or later.
>

What problems regarding atomic clock accuracy are you referring to?  An article 
in this week's New Scientist mentions an atomic clock that is accurate to one 
second in a billion billion, it  would be out by one second in 32 billion 
years.  [2]

The utility of the result in the framework to which it applies matters.  An 
accuracy of an atomic clock that is greater than the age of the universe is 
probably fine for the uses to which it would be put.

Also, consider the radioactive decay of phosphorous-32.  It has a half-life of 
14.29 days.  This is well established and repeatable.  We know what will happen 
to 10kg of the stuff in a period of time.  However, the decay of individual 
atoms is indeed a matter of statistical probability.  We are unable to 
determine which atoms will decay and which ones won't.  But in the objective 
framework