The Science Delusion: has science become dogmatic?

[maverickronin]

To expand a bit on an xkcd comic...

Hierarchy of Sciences:

Math
Physics is applied math.
Chemistry is applied physics.
Biology is applied chemistry.
Psychology is applied biology.
Sociology is applied psychology.
Economics is applied sociology.

 

[Tks]

Yes what? Undergo excommunication? By whom? By the countless doctors she consulted with, who gravely told her her son was condemned, before she resolved to turn to unconventional therapies? Or does her son's recovery void her engineering degrees? What kind of hubris makes you think that this woman, whose determination saved her son, has anything to prove to those doctors, or to you?

Umm, was you reply directed at me?

 

[maverickronin]

It's also worth noting that very little in audio besides the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem is demonstrated to the degree of most of the usual boogeymen of science deniers such as evolution or big bang cosmology.

 

[Wes]

I only wish. I have practiced law for 40 years. "Evidence" is maleble. You need to witness battle of the experts in a court room.

Don't confuse legal evidence with the results of hypothesis testing science. If properly done, the latter is conclusive. Arguments relate to how far the results obtain beyond the exact conditions of the experiment; e.g. does an experiment done of college students apply to 40 yr old adults, or to small kids, etc.

Expert testimony is merely opinion by someone who has expertise in the area.
In the US federal courts, there are different levels of scrutiny for expert testimony based on a case called Daubert.

 

[Wes]

Um, really? There is resistance to new theory, what wins the argument is evidence. Provide testable evidence. Or not.
Science

Technically, what often happens is that the old guard die off or become emeritii and have their labs taken away, clearing the pathway for the young turks. Kuhn's book is a bit idealized.

 

[Wes]

Anyone who promotes homoeopathy as a remedy for anything should be excommunicated from everywhere, anecdotes notwithstanding. Furthermore, referring to autism the way you do is disrespectful towards the millions of autistic people out there, and your suggestion that determination alone can overrule the laws of nature is disrespectful towards scientists as well as science itself. If there's hubris here, it's that woman who has it. Perhaps it can be cured with homoeopathy.

ok, many allergy tmts. involve homeopathy

 

[j_j]

Parapsychology may be bunk. But there is a 'consciousness' problem in science. We do not have a physical model that explains phenomena including:
- where do the voices known as auditory hallucinations affecting schizophrenics come from?
- what is the mechanism for time's arrow ordering our consciousness in a 4d space-time world?

More generally, we have an 'observer' problem:
- why does observation collapse a wave-function?

Any 'grand unified theory' of quantum gravity will be deficient if it does not solve the observer problem. Any physical theory of consciousness must explain time's arrow and make testable predictions about aberrant consciousness phenomena like hallucinations.

I watched some YouTube videos from Klee Irwin's quantum gravity channel. I think they are on a better track than the superstring theory guys. They still need testable hypotheses though for this to be science.

Well, selective analysis of background noise accounts for the first level of auditory hallucinations. Memory run amok the second, and internal dialog the rest. Why that happens is not yet clear, but neurochemical malfuction is clearly indicated.

Time's "arrow" is simply described as entropy. "Going back" reduces entropy. That takes energy No mystery there.

An "observation" is when one particle strikes another. It has nothing to do with human consciousness. We can calculate, for simple interactions, exactly the probability of such an interaction, but we can not define, ever, the outcome of a given experiment before it takes place, and Bell's Theorem makes it clear that prediction can not occur via any means within our universe.

Consciousness does not have to explain either time's arrow or quantum outcomes. Please don't claim that.

 

[j_j]

ok, many allergy tmts. involve homeopathy

Which is to say they affect perception, indeed. That is one of the hard problems in medicine. And, of course, affecting perception can change stress level, redirect attention, etc, all of which can affect reported symptoms at the very least.

 

[j_j]

To expand a bit on an xkcd comic...

Hierarchy of Sciences:

Math
Physics is applied math.
Chemistry is applied physics.
Biology is applied chemistry.
Psychology is applied biology.
Sociology is applied psychology.
Economics is applied sociology.

Except, Math is not a science, it is mathematics. In mathematics an absolute proof is possible. In science, a 'best supported theory' is the best one has.

As to economics, I'll keep away from the politics.

 

[mansr]

ok, many allergy tmts. involve homeopathy

Are you referring to gradually increased exposure to (initially) minute amounts of the offensive substance? That's not at all the same thing. Firstly, such therapy relies on some of the substance being present whereas many homoeopathic remedies have none of the supposedly active ingredient. Secondly, homoeopathy is said to work by means of water retaining a memory of what's been in it before (which is why none of it needs to remain). Allergy treatments are not based on any such bullshit.

 

[j_j]

Scientists publish papers, not "books". Basically, when she chose the second method, she wasn't acting in her quality of scientist, so using her degree/position as an argument while she purposedly went the other way is fallacious.

Scientists do publish books, often collaborations, to record the understanding of the moment. But calling something a science book does not make it a science book, and calling a science book nonsense doesn't make it not a science book. Wegener and continental drift, the origin of the Grand Coulee, etc, were once unpopular, but are excellent examples of science changing its opinion as evidence emerged, and better instrumentation provided better evidence.

 

[q3cpma]

Scientists do publish books, often collaborations, to record the understanding of the moment. But calling something a science book does not make it a science book, and calling a science book nonsense doesn't make it not a science book. Wegener and continental drift, the origin of the Grand Coulee, etc, were once unpopular, but are excellent examples of science changing its opinion as evidence emerged, and better instrumentation provided better evidence.

They do, but rarely as scientists, especially nowadays. What I meant is that you use papers to demonstrate stuff (which is what scientists are supposed to do) and books for other purposes (knowledge compilation, "dumbing down" for a less technically adept public, etc...). Of course, scientists do publish books, but for me, you temporarily take your scientist hat off when doing so.

 

[j_j]

They do, but rarely as scientists, especially nowadays. What I meant is that you use papers to demonstrate stuff (which is what scientists are supposed to do) and books for other purposes (knowledge compilation, "dumbing down" for a less technically adept public, etc...). Of course, scientists do publish books, but for me, you temporarily take your scientist hat off when doing so.

Oh no, not at all. Textbooks are anything but. Nowadays they are mostly electronic texts, but that's still a book. Textbooks are very heavy on basics and the way things are developed, and that's anything but "lightweight".

Popularization books are mostly done nowadays. Nobody reads any more.

 

[q3cpma]

Oh no, not at all. Textbooks are anything but. Nowadays they are mostly electronic texts, but that's still a book. Textbooks are very heavy on basics and the way things are developed, and that's anything but "lightweight".

Popularization books are mostly done nowadays. Nobody reads any more.

Well, you're right, I wasn't precise enough. I myself am a fan of handbooks like Toole's book, Hennessy & Patterson's "Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach" or Solomon & Motta's "Handbook of Data Compression". But still, these are compilations; when you want to show your new groundbreaking theory, you publish a paper (in LaTeX), in my opinion.

On that subject, anyone bought the 1000 pages horn loudspeaker book? Very interested in it.

 

[Wes]

also textbooks - good way to kill your career tho

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

Don't confuse legal evidence with the results of hypothesis testing science. If properly done, the latter is conclusive. Arguments relate to how far the results obtain beyond the exact conditions of the experiment; e.g. does an experiment done of college students apply to 40 yr old adults, or to small kids, etc.

Expert testimony is merely opinion by someone who has expertise in the area.
In the US federal courts, there are different levels of scrutiny for expert testimony based on a case called Daubert.

The word "conclusive" is the problem. Science is intrinsically not conclusive. Einstein's theories and quantum mechanics defy common sense yet continue to be confirmed with measurements. The theories are mathematically irreconcilable.

 

[j_j]

The word "conclusive" is the problem. Science is intrinsically not conclusive. Einstein's theories and quantum mechanics defy common sense yet continue to be confirmed with measurements. The theories are mathematically irreconcilable.

You mean "not yet reconciled" if you mean the tension between relativity and quantum mechanics. One theory works perfectly well at macroscopic size, which is what it was created for. The other works startlingly well for very tiny objects. It's the interface that needs work. What you've just done is try to apply a theory to a system it does not apply to. That's not a lack of reconciliation, you've misapplied a theory, counselor, and then used that misapplication to proceed to what you regard as a convincing point. Yes, that is often successful in law, which is one of the reasons we are in such a mess. That does not fly in science. Do not confuse the two.

The fact we do not know everything does not prevent us from knowing a lot. Was that a whipsaw I just saw vanish into the either, or maybe a fallacy of the excluded middle that fell into the quantum foam??

As to conclusive, if I hold out a rock over my foot, standing here on the planet earth, and let go, what may I safely conclude? Yes, science can be conclusive in well-established realms.

 

[Alice of Old Vincennes]

You mean "not yet reconciled" if you mean the tension between relativity and quantum mechanics. One theory works perfectly well at macroscopic size, which is what it was created for. The other works startlingly well for very tiny objects. It's the interface that needs work. What you've just done is try to apply a theory to a system it does not apply to. That's not a lack of reconciliation, you've misapplied a theory, counselor, and then used that misapplication to proceed to what you regard as a convincing point. Yes, that is often successful in law, which is one of the reasons we are in such a mess. That does not fly in science. Do not confuse the two.

The fact we do not know everything does not prevent us from knowing a lot. Was that a whipsaw I just saw vanish into the either, or maybe a fallacy of the excluded middle that fell into the quantum foam??

As to conclusive, if I hold out a rock over my foot, standing here on the planet earth, and let go, what may I safely conclude? Yes, science can be conclusive in well-established realms.

Interface is the problem??? When you solve the interface Nobel shall come knocking.

 

[j_j]

Interface is the problem??? When you solve the interface Nobel shall come knocking.

So, a misrepresentation, a mischaracterization, taking some words out of context, and then a personal insult.

 

[LeftCoastTim]

I think this "debate" just proves to me that our technology has become so advanced that it's indistinguishable from magic.

For example, almost no one can explain how GPS works. Even if you understand the general principle (that is, if you know the speed of light, and precise time of 4 satellites, you can derive your coordinates plus the current time), the technology involved (cesium clocks orbiting in space, time accuracy to 100 nanosecond at the receiver, measuring the speed of light to 9 decimal places) to give you that 1m resolution is staggering.

Similar magic exists with OLED TV's streaming 4k Netflix, COVID19 vaccine being developed in 4 months, etc etc.

So to an average Joe who doesn't have any experience with the scientific discovery process, it's all basically magic. And once it's magic, then one magic is not that different from another magic.

I have experienced the scientific discovery process first hand, and how many different disciplines interlock with each other to model the real world more and more accurately. So it's easy for me to read Toole's book and trust the results if the methodology seems sound (aka, double blind tests).

If I was an average Joe, that guy on U-Toob sounds really convincing. Yeah, that guy who spent $10,000 to prove to himself that the earth was not flat.

It's a failure of education, I would say. But education is neither desirable nor desired for most parts.