• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

On Peer Reviewed Science

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,523
Likes
37,054
To take on authority has always been frightening. So you’d better be prepared. Most challengers don’t have what it takes, I believe.

Complicatingly, certain areas in science have become politically correct. Which adds to the complexity of being a challenger.

Audio science is not a politically correct area, though audiophilia is certainly an area where being politically correct is expected, cfr. Waldrep case.
I think most people who follow thru taking on authority can't do otherwise. Something about their makeup and belief leaves them with what subjectively seems no choice. At least those who meet the challenge, and as well as many who don't, but can't avoid the issues.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
If science is about repeatability, what does it mean when the science comes in the form of nothing but a super-complex computer model and no way to test its accuracy? How do you meaningfully review such a computer model? How would another scientist test it for repeatability? Can the hypothesis being tested by the model be falsified?

(In case you think I'm being political - everyone's super-sensitive to politics these days - I really am just thinking of the general idea of modelling to predict any system that cannot be tested directly (e.g. global scale), such as for epidemiology, ocean currents, tectonic plate movements, insect population spread, bird migration, etc.)

In principle it's no different than predicting the motion of the planets using mathematics. But in practice, that field is maybe rendered scientific because it can call upon 'axioms' to judge the model against. It's also likely to be so simple that a person can hold the principle of the whole thing in their head.

If, instead, I want to predict the global bee population in the year 2050, can this ever really be 'scientific'? At the end of the day, it looks as though the most that can be said about such a model is "It looks reasonable". But if so, where does the progress - the standing on the shoulders of giants - come from? If a consensus forms around a "reasonable" prediction, and further models are therefore developed that also confirm the prediction, it looks to me from the outside as though an edifice is being constructed on a very flimsy foundation. And there is no incentive for anyone to break the consensus because there is no glory in saying "my model is even more reasonable than the consensus" and no reason for the scientific establishment to dismantle their previous edifice and build a new one on equally flimsy foundations.

Any views?
 
Last edited:

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,523
Likes
37,054
Regarding the article posted by @Wombat:


I have a science background (Chemistry) and I found the article to be basically accurate. All sources of knowledge should be received with a certain amount of skepticism. Peer review is just one more "filter" that tells the reader that the article has passed some standard of scrutiny; the standard depends on the publishing source.

Keep in mind that "science" is a really a verb. It is a collection of methods for compiling data so that it can be interpreted and examined. There can be errors, faulty assumptions, inaccurate interpretations, etc. The idea/results/theory can be accepted or rejected based on additional information. In a way, it is "Let the buyer beware." As more data is collected on the subject and the results are duplicated and published in responsible journals, the more "credible" the idea/results/theory becomes.

Remember all theories are subject to revision as more data is collected.

Yes, science is a verb.

To Explain the World: A discovery of Modern Science is a book by Steven Weinberg that illustrates this well. It is narrower in scope than the title suggest focusing mainly on physics and astronomy. But it is a good illustration of how to science or more specifically what it took to develop the ideas behind sciencing in the modern sense. And how pre-science ideas worked well enough for the time and even for long periods of time better than the scientific ideas that would ultimately succeed them. But one set of ideas and learning how to apply such ideas was science and others were not. In time methods were developed to do science, and not random natural philosophy.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,523
Likes
37,054
If science is about repeatability, what does it mean when the science comes in the form of nothing but a super-complex computer model and no way to test its accuracy? How do you meaningfully review such a computer model? How would another scientist test it for repeatability? Can the hypothesis being tested by the model be falsified?
snippage.................
Any views?

Can you provide one concrete example you have in mind? I'm having trouble thinking of science coming in a form of nothing but a super complex computer model???
 

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,383
Likes
24,749
Location
Alfred, NY
If science is about repeatability, what does it mean when the science comes in the form of nothing but a super-complex computer model and no way to test its accuracy? How do you meaningfully review such a computer model? How would another scientist test it for repeatability? Can the hypothesis being tested by the model be falsified?

If something can't be tested and potentially falsified, it's not science. Period.

If, instead, I want to predict the global bee population in the year 2050, can this ever really be 'scientific'?

Yes. When 2050 rolls around, your prediction will either be accurate or wrong.
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
If science is about repeatability, what does it mean when the science comes in the form of nothing but a super-complex computer model and no way to test its accuracy? How do you meaningfully review such a computer model? How would another scientist test it for repeatability? Can the hypothesis being tested by the model be falsified?

(In case you think I'm being political - everyone's super-sensitive to politics these days - I really am just thinking of the general idea of modelling to predict any system that cannot be tested directly (e.g. global scale), such as for epidemiology, ocean currents, tectonic plate movements, insect population spread, bird migration, etc.)

In principle it's no different than predicting the motion of the planets using mathematics. But in practice, that field is maybe rendered scientific because it can call upon 'axioms' to judge the model against. It's also likely to be so simple that a person can hold the principle of the whole thing in their head.

If, instead, I want to predict the global bee population in the year 2050, can this ever really be 'scientific'? At the end of the day, it looks as though the most that can be said about such a model is "It looks reasonable". But if so, where does the 'progress' - the standing on the shoulders of giants - come from? If a consensus forms around a "reasonable" prediction, and further models are therefore developed that also confirm the prediction, it looks to me from the outside as though an edifice is being constructed on a very flimsy foundation. And there is no incentive for anyone, anywhere to break the consensus because there is no glory in saying "my model is even more reasonable than the consensus" and no reason for the scientific establishment to dismantle their previous edifice and build a new one on equally flimsy foundations.

Any views?

The best way to tackle nonsense is being well versed in the history of science and in epistemology. Sadly, many paradigm-wanna-breakers don’t have what it takes to take this detour into the more philosophical realm. If you want to get your name inscribed in Valhalla, you’d better sit down and work on the «ph» in the PhD.

Of course, mastering the «ph» isn’t something 20 or most 30 years something will be able to do. And most don’t have a brain that tackles the two-sidedness of both history and philosophy in combination with data, numbers and calculus.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
The best way to tackle nonsense is being well versed in the history of science and in epistemology. Sadly, many paradigm-wanna-breakers don’t have what it takes to take this detour into the more philosophical realm. If you want to get your name inscribed in Valhalla, you’d better sit down and work on the «ph» in the PhD.

Of course, mastering the «ph» isn’t something 20 or most 30 years something will be able to do. And most don’t have a brain that tackles the two-sidedness of both history and philosophy in combination with data, numbers and calculus.
Now this is what I find when asking questions about science. I am not a scientist per se (I have a scientific degree qualification), but I do use science in my day-to-day living. I find that if I ask a question regarding science looked at from the outside, scientists are very hostile! (I am assuming that your somewhat cryptic answer above is directed at me, and implying that I am talking nonsense..?)

blumlein88 said:
Can you provide one concrete example you have in mind? I'm having trouble thinking of science coming in a form of nothing but a super complex computer model???
The first example of such a paper that comes up in google is this one:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187705091500719X

Abstract:
In this paper we have developed a transmission model for Ebola virus, which causes acute viral haemorrhagic fever syndrome. This model presents a better understanding and awareness of the disease that are transmitted from animals such as bats, monkeys and rottens to human beings. In our research paper the model used is SEIR model which has susceptible-SH, exposed-EH, infected-IH and recovered- RH classes. The mathematical model with respect to various parameters has been developed and was found that as the rate of immunity is increased the number of infected persons decreases. The chances of recovered humans to susceptible humans arise due to decrease in immunity is also considered. This model also suggest the best combination of control or eradication on virus epidemic. The prognosticated human population for susceptible, exposed, infectious and recovered over time and has been shown using an example.

This is a relatively simple one, but obviously there are no limits on how complex such a model could be.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
There actually is a bee population model:
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.13165
We present a model which can simulate the growth, behaviour and survival of six UK bumblebee species living in any mapped landscape. Bumble‐BEEHAVE simulates, in an agent‐based approach, the colony development of bumblebees in a realistic landscape to study how multiple stressors affect bee numbers and population dynamics.

And its official use in a regulatory context is considered by the EU Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues.
The Panel recommends that BEEHAVE should be adopted as the basis for modelling the impact on honeybee colonies of pesticides and other stressors...
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4125

...so it looks to me as though 'an edifice' might be beginning to be constructed on the basis of this plausible model. Don't get me wrong: I use computer modelling all the time and I know it's a great thing. But if there is nothing but a model and its predictions (and maybe some 'hindcasting'), should it be considered science...?
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
Now this is what I find when asking questions about science. I am not a scientist per se (I have a scientific degree qualification), but I do use science in my day-to-day living. I find that if I ask a question regarding science looked at from the outside, scientists are very hostile! (I am assuming that your somewhat cryptic answer above is directed at me, and implying that I am talking nonsense..?)


The first example of such a paper that comes up in google is this one:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187705091500719X



This is a relatively simple one, but obviously there are no limits on how complex such a model could be.

I am sure you talk a lot nonsense (as we all do!), but I didn’t have you in mind when I wrote this :)

In fact, on numerous occasions you’ve raised interesting questions, which in my view is indicative of the scientific mind.

If you talk nonsense (in my estimation), I’ll try and point it out ;)
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
I am sure you talk a lot nonsense (as we all do!), but I didn’t have you in mind when I wrote this :)

In fact, on numerous occasions you’ve raised interesting questions, which in my view is indicative of the scientific mind.

If you talk nonsense (in my estimation), I’ll try and point it out ;)
My apologies.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
Apologies for what?

NOW you’re talking nonsense!

:)
For having implied earlier that you were being hostile to me. :) Out of interest, are you a scientist?
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
For having implied earlier that you were being hostile to me. :) Out of interest, are you a scientist?

I am not a scientist per occupation.

But I write regularly and head a team of researchers.

So maybe I am a researcher trying to practice the principles that we associate with science.
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
That ebola paper is an odd one - is it just me, or does the abstract contain a number of nonsensical sentences?

Anyway, I'm not sure such a paper could be considered science per se, since it merely posits a descriptive mathematical model (not an hypothesis) and makes no suggestion as to how any hypothesis implicit in it might be falsified.

EDIT: let alone attempt to do so...

EDIT 2 (disclaimer): I'm not a scientist either. Do we actually have a scientist here who could chime in?
 
Last edited:

dc655321

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2018
Messages
1,597
Likes
2,235
But if there is nothing but a model and its predictions (and maybe some 'hindcasting'), should it be considered science...?

Isn't that (model + predictions) very nearly the defining characteristics of science?

The model is an expression of a hypothesis.
Whether the model is expressed as executable code or scribbles on a whiteboard, is often just a reflection of complexity.
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
Isn't that (model + predictions) very nearly the defining characteristics of science?

The model is an expression of a hypothesis.
Whether the model is expressed as executable code or scribbles on a whiteboard, is often just a reflection of complexity.

I'd say the model might constitute an hypothesis, but the science itself would be in working out an experiment capable of falsifying the hypothesis and then executing it in an attempt to do so.
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
That ebola paper is an odd one - is it just me, or does the abstract contain a number of nonsensical sentences?

Anyway, I'm not sure such a paper could be considered science per se, since it merely posits a descriptive mathematical model (not an hypothesis) and makes no suggestion as to how any hypothesis implicit in it might be falsified.

EDIT: let alone attempt to do so...

EDIT 2 (disclaimer): I'm not a scientist either. Do we actually have a scientist here who could chime in?

@oivavoi is a scientist, though in the social sciences - that some don’t hold in high esteem ;)

Disclaimer: The social area (which is almost everything) is in my view undoubtedly worthy of scientific efforts. Admittedly, though, there is much nonsense in this field, which - I believe - is a reflection of the fact that the social sciences are the most complex and demanding ones.

PS: Where is @oivavoi ? Vacation?
 

dc655321

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2018
Messages
1,597
Likes
2,235
but the science itself would be in working out an experiment capable of falsifying the hypothesis and then executing it in an attempt to do so.

So, the action of developing a testable hypothesis disqualifies that part of the process from being considered "science"?
IOW, only the act of testing the hypothesis constitutes science?

I know some theoretical physicists that may object to that narrow of a scope :)
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
So, the action of developing a testable hypothesis disqualifies that part of the process from being considered "science"?
IOW, only the act of testing the hypothesis constitutes science?

I know some theoretical physicists that may object to that narrow of a scope :)

Fair point, and as a layperson whose only experience is in studying some philosophy of science as an undergrad, I wouldn't presume to give an authoritative answer to that question.

I can say there is certainly a debate in philosophy as to whether, for example, cosmology can be properly called a science, given that most of its theories can't be translated into experimentally falsifiable hypotheses. My view is that if it's merely theoretical and cannot be experimentally falsified, it isn't science.*

Returning to the original example, my point was just that a model per se is just an attempt at a description. The development of an experimentally falsifiable hypothesis constitutes an aspect of science; a particular model may or may not meet the criterion of constituting an experimentally falsifiable hypothesis. And if it does meet it, whether we call this single step in the scientific method (i.e. the mere development of a hypothesis) "science" when undertaken in the absence of the other steps seems to me mostly a semantic question.

*EDIT: I thought I should explain why I think this is. It's because, once robbed of the concept of experimental falsifiability, nothing really remains to distinguish science from other fields. Put plainly, experimental falsifiability is the distinguishing feature of science.
 
Last edited:

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
The Science Council's definition of science is:
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
Something tells me they thought long and hard about that definition. It's got fairly wide latitude...

Computer models based on simpler elements, all of which are traceable back to peer reviewed science or mathematical/physical axioms would, ultimately be based on real evidence. i.e. if you can show that someone once published a paper showing that a typical bee visits 37 flowers per day, picking up 0.07g of pollen etc. etc. and this is part of your bee population model, you can claim that even though the model is vastly extrapolated from a sparse foundation, it is based on actual science-grade evidence. If this was the case, I think almost any modelling would constitute science by the science council's definition.

Karl Popper is so yesterday...
 
Top Bottom