The Science Delusion: has science become dogmatic?

[CtheArgie]

the level of precision of "physics" differs widely, depending on the phenomena being investigated

maybe you mean engineering?

Nope, not my point. If you read above, there is a rather difficult guy (tomtrp) arguing that Toole and Olive's work has limited validation because of sample sizes, precision, etc.

A bit of a pedantic point or maybe some arrogance into the mix.

 

[Wes]

yes, I saw his pedantic arrogance, but still...

all psycho-acoustics ultimately takes you inside the human brain, which is where the psycho-logists hang out

 

[j_j]

yes, I saw his pedantic arrogance, but still...

all psycho-acoustics ultimately takes you inside the human brain, which is where the psycho-logists hang out

No, not all of it does take you inside the brain. There is a reason that there is something commonly described to as the auditory periphery, and yes, it's rather well characterized, and the ways and means of how it works are also pretty well understood.

 

[Wes]

how do you perceive it?

 

[j_j]

how do you perceive it?

There have been experiments that measure it, for some animals, if that's what you're asking. As to how they are done, you don't want to know, and no, I wouldn't run such experiments.

For humans, yes, it can be done quite reliably via perception, as much as this might surprise some of our correspondents here. Things like ERB width, masking levels inside an ERB, loudness vs. intensity, are strikingly similar across population, language, race, color, creed, you-name it. The reason for that is likely (but who can prove this?) the need to be able to separate a voice out of the crowd (cocktail party effect, which results from many mechanisms) and understand the human voice.

 

[Ron Texas]

The last time I asked my brain what was going on up there I didn't get an answer.

 

[Killingbeans]

The last time I asked my brain what was going on up there I didn't get an answer.

I know the feeling. My fiancée keeps requesting that I do the same investigation, and every time I just get an answering machine.

 

[Doodski]

The last time I asked my brain what was going on up there I didn't get an answer.

lol... I get suggestions and answers without even asking.

 

[Wes]

There have been experiments that measure it, for some animals, if that's what you're asking. As to how they are done, you don't want to know, and no, I wouldn't run such experiments.

For humans, yes, it can be done quite reliably via perception, as much as this might surprise some of our correspondents here. Things like ERB width, masking levels inside an ERB, loudness vs. intensity, are strikingly similar across population, language, race, color, creed, you-name it. The reason for that is likely (but who can prove this?) the need to be able to separate a voice out of the crowd (cocktail party effect, which results from many mechanisms) and understand the human voice.

My point is that you inevitably are lead into the brain.

Yes, I already know how such 'torture' experiments are done, including blinding animals. (which I decided not to do BTW)

 

[j_j]

My point is that you inevitably are lead into the brain.

As is all human knowledge.

Yes, I already know how such 'torture' experiments are done, including blinding animals. (which I decided not to do BTW)

I think I'd have to say that the hearing experiments were worse, but also more humane. No, not something I'll do, either.

 

[JustAnandaDourEyedDude]

The last time I asked my brain what was going on up there I didn't get an answer.

I know the feeling. My fiancée keeps requesting that I do the same investigation, and every time I just get an answering machine.

lol... I get suggestions and answers without even asking.

I received a memo from my brain that in order to avoid undue exertion, it had turned to outsourcing its work to low-rent brainpower on the internet. Based on its subsequent functioning, I suspect the involvement of child labor.

 

[Ron Texas]

I find the title of this thread to be a bit unsettling. If science is becoming dogmatic, it's no longer science. The scientific method does not always result in a rule or law like Newton's laws of motion. We have the jump from hypothesis to theory when it is impossible to arrive at a rule but there is insurmountable evidence. That's an area where things could get a bit fuzzy. We also have the dismal science of economics where entirely different schools of thought exist. Building most models involves choices of assumption which is another area where someone's world view can influence the result. Perhaps in the fuzzy areas is where dogma comes in.

 

[Wes]

Scientists have never been very interested in wasting time on things that are unlikely to be true.* That may be what the various comments are about.


* I always preferred to have a graduate student work on such things, preferably someone else's.

 

[j_j]

I find the title of this thread to be a bit unsettling. If science is becoming dogmatic, it's no longer science. The scientific method does not always result in a rule or law like Newton's laws of motion. We have the jump from hypothesis to theory when it is impossible to arrive at a rule but there is insurmountable evidence. That's an area where things could get a bit fuzzy. We also have the dismal science of economics where entirely different schools of thought exist. Building most models involves choices of assumption which is another area where someone's world view can influence the result. Perhaps in the fuzzy areas is where dogma comes in.

I think a better way to put it is that many people (creationists, some audiophile, psi advocates, etc) are deeply offended by the fact they don't get a hearing, even though their claims have been tested, and massive quantities of evidence AGAINST their theory are available. A common example is those who demand **ABSOLUTE PROOF** that their notion (for example I'll use "green cheese on the moon") is absolutely 100% false.

There is no such "absolute proof", especially of a universal negative, in science or in logic. Such demands are simply a way to try to continue the argument. Accepted scientific theories are the 'best known explanation', and there are always limits stated. There ***is*** no absolute. There is always an error or probability. ALWAYS. Direct contradictory evidence ALWAYS forces a revision.

See Wegener, or Cuvier (in regard to the Grand Coulee, not everything) for good examples of how a theory that wasn't popular became the dominant theory. What changing scientific viewpoints requires is EVIDENCE. Yes, there will be push back, resentment, and resistance, but evidence wins, eventually.

As a personal example, someone (a leading person in the AES) told me, and I quote, "Nobody will ever accept 4 bit quality" when I first mentioned the idea of perceptual coding. Said that, in fact, in a meeting publicly, to substantial laughter from the crowd. Standard MP3, of course, is 2.9 bits/ sample.

But evidence wins out.

 

[Ron Texas]

@j_j Evolution is a good example of a hypothesis which has accumulated insurmountable evidence. I have something else in mind, but I don't want to set off a political argument. I remain concern that where there is wiggle room there is nonscientific influence. Economics comes to mind as the Chicago school (supply side) and Keynesians are so far apart. It isn't easy to test the result of these economic schools and possibly there will never be overwhelming evidence in favor of either. In the real world they are both in use, and seem to be on a pendulum which swings back and forth. I don't believe it's feasible to further discuss it here because it could veer off into politics.

Your observation about MP3 is interesting. It's also something which could be tested and produce a statistically significant result. Obviously, these things don't play out 100%, but they are good enough to the point that they work. Your field must involve a lot of psychoacoustics. I'm not an engineer or a scientist by trade. That's probably why I am a bit shy in technical discussions and long on humor.

 

[Sukie]

@j_j creationism is a good example of a theory which has passed the test.

Might have misunderstood your post but what scientific test has creationism passed?

 

[Ron Texas]

Might have misunderstood your post but what scientific test has creationism passed?

None. I have edited the post.

 

[SimpleTheater]

@j_j creationism is a good example of a theory which hasn't passed the test. I have something else in mind, but I don't want to set off a political argument. I remain concern that where there is wiggle room there is nonscientific influence. Economics comes to mind as the Chicago school (supply side) and Keynesians are so far apart. It isn't easy to test the result of these economic schools and possibly there will never be overwhelming evidence in favor of either. In the real world they are both in use, and seem to be on a pendulum which swings back and forth.

The problem with putting economics into the hard science category is the human equation. I have a good friend that is pretty high up in the Fed and when you realize that our overseas military capabilities have a lot to do with keeping the dollar strong you can see why it’s so hard to put economics as pure science. So much faith is required I’d put it more as art with a lot of math.

 

[j_j]

. It's also something which could be tested and produce a statistically significant result. Obviously, these things don't play out 100%, but they are good enough to the point that they work.

In fact, the fact that something can be TESTED is a basic requirement of science. If you can not test, directly or otherwise, a claim, it is not in the realm of science.

And bear in mind that physics, when you get down to the particle by particle interactions that actually cause physics, everything is probabilistic. We can in some (perhaps many) cases calculate the probability of an interaction to a ridiculous number of figures, but we will never EVER know what will happen in the next trial until it happens AND IS OBSERVED. Now, remember, "observation" can mean "bounced off a photon", that does not require conscious decisions or anything of that sort.

 

[Ron Texas]

In fact, the fact that something can be TESTED is a basic requirement of science. If you can not test, directly or otherwise, a claim, it is not in the realm of science.

How do you square your statement with things like evolution which accumulate insurmountable evidence, but really can't be tested, or can they be? Nobody is around for thousands of years to watch evolution in higher species take place. Evolution in pathogens is observable, but are they us? Still, evolution remains a theory and not a rule or law of science.