Hacker News Reader

Comment by jdoliner | Hacker News Reader

I cringe reading "belief in well-supported scientific conclusions is not optional."

Belief is always optional, if you want people to believe you have to get them to opt-in to believing. Telling them they must believe rarely accomplishes this and is endemic of the type of the scientism that has displaced real science. Of course, the thing this clown was telling us we didn't have the option of disbelieving turns out not to be true. I suppose now he's willing to grant us that option. How exactly does Kahneman expect people to distinguish "well-supported" science from not "well-supported" science when he himself is obviously wholly incapable of doing so?

View on HN

One good heuristic to use when evaluating scientific research is the Lindy Effect. Essentially, the longer a finding has stood without being falsified, the longer you can expect it to continue to stand without falsification.

This runs contrary to what I was taught in high school science classes, which was that newer science is more reliable than older science. The truth is that the old stuff that still stands is really where it's at. Most "novel" scientific findings are not true. A smaller portion will be thought true for a while, then discarded. Only a very small amount of research will stand for a long period of time.

Another thing to consider is that the scientific method and its modern, institutionalized implementation is not very old at all. You cannot exclude the possibility that some of our fundamental scientific understanding is totally flawed, and we've yet to discover how.

> You cannot exclude the possibility that some of our fundamental scientific understanding is totally flawed, and we've yet to discover how.

Much of modern technology is built on modern scientific findings. Since that technology unarguably works, the findings on which it is based cannot be "totally flawed".

This is wrong in a few levels. Much of modern technology is built on modern scientific findings but few modern scientific findings have technologies built on them. There are entire fields, such as social sciences, which couldn't really be said to have any technology based on them. More importantly though, technology working isn't the same as an experiment, fire worked as a technology well before we truly understood underlying physics.

I agree that soft sciences are much more likely to be seriously flawed.

That said, working technology absolutely is experimental validation of the underlying science on which it is based (if any).

It's very tricky to pinpoint what "the underlying science is." For example my phone is a piece of technology, you could argue it provides experimental evidence for any number of scientific theories. However, the hallmark of an experiment is that it can fail and in so doing disprove your theory. Can my phone fail? It can certainly fail as a phone and most phones do eventually fail for some reason or another. Does that mean that the experiment has failed and the underlying scientific theories need to be thrown out? Probably not, because it's failing as a phone, not as an experiment. What failure means when you try to consider your phone as an experiment is very unclear to me and without a clear failure case that would invalidate the theory it's useless as an experiment.

Transistors (semiconductors) work because of quantum mechanics. If it didn't work the way we expect, the CPU would be a useless piece of rock.

The GPS receiver only works properly because we understand and account for general relativity.

The radio relies on a lot of stuff related to information theory. Which might be science, depending on how you think of applied math.

The screen and battery are built on a lot of materials science, which I don't know much of anything about.

What failure means when you try to consider your phone as an experiment is very unclear to me

A phone is far to complex and intertwingled to be a proper experiment; if it works it proves a lot of things, but because of that if it doesn't work it doesn't disprove much of anything.

If the phone works, it says "all of these things are true", which is a lot of information.

If the phone doesn't work, it says "at least one of these things is not true", which is correspondingly less information.

Those things are tied together. Someone who knows more about statistics and information theory could probably explain how a lot better than I can.

Orbits of planets were calculated long before General Relativity. I believe we put a man on the moon using newtonian physics. Many types of medicine is successful without us knowing exactly why.

Just because technology that is built on top of science works doesn't mean that it is 100% correct. It isn't that our theories are outright wrong, but they probably still are incomplete or are only approximations.

"Orbits of planets were calculated long before General Relativity"

Interesting you would say that. They were calculated and the orbit of Mercury was not predicted correctly according to Newtonian Physics. Using Einstein's general relativity, the calculations matched observations.

They matched the observation that were available at the time really well. Even pre-Gallilean models matched the observations of their time.

"It works" isn't necessarily a great barometer for truth even for direct applications of theories. Ptolemaic astronomical models actually worked pretty darn well, even though they were based on a geocentric universe.

Nah.

If any phone ever works, it means that some of the underlying theories might be true. Any specific phone means nothing. And a phone that isn't working has absolutely nothing to do with any proof.

Implementations of objects that rely on theories are emphatically not proofs of them. And failed implementations of those objects are not disproof.

>fire worked as a technology well before we truly understood underlying physics.

Just following the analogy; what science was fire validating during that time? Just because something works doesn't mean it wasn't created by trial and error.

In regards to your last paragraph, I'd like to mention that we made use of electricity while still having erroneous ideas about the electron. We even made use of it before the electron was theorized.

I'd also like to mention that I am a scientist, albeit retired. I'm wrong more times, by 09:00, than most people are all day. I have no reason to believe we are at some sort of apex of knowledge.

The other day, they released findings that showed they can mathematically predict quantum chaos. I'm still pondering the implications. There is so much we don't know, and that's a great thing.

To me, this is the difference between a "good enough" theory vs. a "totally flawed" theory. Obviously, there's a gray area between the two, but I think the distinction is valid. We had a working model of electricity that was good enough for some initial applications. Contrast with, say, Lysenkoism in Russia, which was totally flawed.

BTW, I never said we were at an apex of knowledge. I'm trying to quell the concern that what little we do know is somehow going to turn to mud one day. That's very unlikely.

Off topic, but mind linking the paper you mention?

Start here:

https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-have-managed-to-fit...

I'm going to give it a serious investigation over the winter. I don't have the time to devote to it until then.

It can work, but for reasons different to our positive scientific understanding, no?

No. The odds of, say, the GPS in your mobile phone working by accident are effectively zero.

It's not that it would work by accident, it would be more like it works by a principle to which our physics is a good enough approximation.

Yes, but then our physics wouldn't be "totally flawed". It would just be incomplete in some ways.

How large is the preimage of conclusions that would lead to the mathematics of relativity? Is it improbable in light of that?

I should also say that physics has a better track record than softer sciences. But even in physics, things change.

There's no member of that preimage in which modern science is totally flawed.

Yet we're posting in a thread relating to a massive replication crisis.

The geocentric model of the universe was equally obvious and functional to our ancestors in the context in which they used it. We are the same creatures as them and are subject to the same basic epistemological limitations -- just because we have seen further does not mean that we have seen everything. The whole concept of science is exactly to that point. It is implausible under currently available information that we could be missing some fact that would fundamentally change our understanding, but that is not the same thing as saying that there is no possible fact that could cause such a rupture.

I guess it just depends on the definition of "totally." It is very much possible to develop something based on the insights from Newtonian physics for example. Newtonian physics is flawed, but often good enough.

Right. Newtonian physics is an example of a good enough theory. Although it's been proven "wrong", it's still taught in schools and will suffice to get a rocket from Florida to Mare Tranquillitatis. No mean feat.

>which was that newer science is more reliable than older science.

who taught that? I notice a lot of people seem to think this is true. Seems obviously crazy to me! People sure aren't any smarter now.

Yes, that gave me a stop too. I mean, a prominent researcher, Nobel laureate no less, writes this, what is the conclusion? Anybody who doubts it is a quack, a charlatan, at best - and a "denier", an underminer of science, an evil incarnate at worst.

And then turns out - oops, these conclusion are not well-supported and not that scientific in fact. And those who doubted it were actually correct. Does it mean anybody who doubts anything is correct? Surely not. Does it mean we should be a bit more careful with statements like "belief is not optional" and following condemnation of those who fails to comply? I think yes.

I don't have a better way to say this. Trust me, I've tried to find one.

Science has, in many ways, taken on some of the characteristics of religion. You either believe or you're a heretic. Which, sort of, I agree with. If you don't believe in the results of the scientific method, you may wish to reexamine your life.

However, a lot of what is published under the name of science hasn't actually followed the scientific method. You get people who believe in the strangest things.

A recent example was someone who told me that the oceans were going to rise by 57' by 2050. Now, I'm firmly in the belief of AGW camp. I pointed out that they were wrong and that no models suggested such a thing and that their citation had no citations, other than an article in some newspaper.

I provided link after link. I explained that I am not a climate scientist, but a mathematician. I explained that I'd actually run the models locally, just to learn more. I explained the process, the data collection methods, and even why the data is adjusted.

They decided I was a 'denier' and a Trump voter - quite literally, they called me a 'science denying Trump voter.'

I was baffled.

Later, I'd bump into them again, at the same site. This time, I explained that science was a philosophy. Of course, I provided the citation for this and even went so far as to take the time to explain what Ph.D. actually means.

They went ballistic, so to speak. Oh, the names they called me.

This is not an isolated case, they had others chiming in. It wasn't until several days later when someone finally noticed and chimed in to support me, but it was of no use.

That person is a science believer. I can't tell them to stop believing in science. However, it has the hallmarks of a religion, it's certainly a belief system. No, being a belief system isn't a bad thing.

I don't have the answers, but this is a problem. Sorry for the verbosity, but I haven't a better way to describe it, nor a better descriptive term than religion.

>>I don't have a better way to say this. Trust me, I've tried to find one.

>>Science has, in many ways, taken on some of the characteristics of religion.

There is no better way to put it. I have said this the same way. There is a growing sentiment of a "science clergy," a bureaucracy that controls Truth (tm).

Men in lab coats have become the new priests, handing down ordained works for the masses and being held up on a pedestal.

I say this as a scientist.

It's almost as strange as how people will ask me medical questions when I'm introduced as Dr. KGIII. I can kinda understand when people ask me things outside my discipline, but I'm the last person you want to ask about your medical problems.

Maybe they just thought you were exaggerating, like many people do in reply to this insight by Kahneman. From the fact that Kahneman misjudged some studies in experimental psychology it doesn't follow that all of science is hopelessly lost, philosophical, or wrong.

To put it in another way, most people I've met who criticized science couldn't even explain how a toaster works if they had to and had no grasp of what they were criticizing. Hearing superficial criticisms by people who do not know anything about the methodology and maths can be very tiring, and these criticisms have become abundant in online forums. It can be easy to overcompensate and react needlessly aggressive to such general criticisms. At the same time, the critiques of science I've met so far (in academia, and all leftists, not that it matters) were all relying on the outcomes of obvious and constantly ongoing scientific progress on a daily basis. From lossy image compression over GPS over microchips to modern medicine and diagnostics.

Maybe in your case people overreacted and missed the fact that you're a smart mathematician and not some random dumbass who says "statistics lie" as if that was an argument for anything, and you felt butthurt about it. Still, they are right when they say that science is not a philosophy. I should know that, because I have a Ph.D. in philosophy, and the standards for our 'theories' are not even remotely as stringent as in natural science or mathematics. And maybe you're also overreacting a bit.

Contrary to what seems to have become fashionable - mostly in certain political circles outside of Europe to be honest - the scientific process continues to converge to the truth in almost all disciplines and we reap the benefits of science daily. (I say almost all because I'd like to exclude literary science and the like.)

> I mean, a prominent researcher, Nobel laureate no less, writes this, what is the conclusion?

That even smart people can be dumb.

“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.”

― George Orwell

I cringe reading "belief in well-supported scientific conclusions is not optional."

Belief is always optional, if you want people to believe you have to get them to opt-in to believing.

Kahneman is describing part of a larger framework for human beings to cope with their own flawed human thought processes. You're talking about the art of persuasion.

If "you want people to believe" the most effective way to accomplish that is generally to lie to them in a clever way. That's a whole other discussion.

Belief should not be optional in the face of well-supported scientific conclusions. The problem is it's easy to mistake un-supported conclusions for well-supported conclusions.

Then the rule is "you should unquestionably believe in claims from the set A, but not from the set B, and there's no way we can tell for each case to which set it belongs. But we will always claim it's A". Not a very objective or useful rule.

Belief should always be optional. Behavior based on that belief shouldn't.

I'm fine with anyone who wants to question climate change, evolution or even something as accepted as gravity. Questioning is how we refine our thinking.

Where I get less okay is when people use their questioning to justify behaviors that, should they be wrong, are detrimental to society and the world. Question climate change all you like, but stop polluting until you've convinced the majority of climate scientists. Question evolution, but stop preventing schools from teaching it or forcing them to give creationism an equal standing until you've got something that is, at least, equally supported.

Science rarely does black and white, but you can still get a lot of benefit from altering behavior based on a scientific prediction that is 60%, 80%, 90%, 99% or 99.999% likely/accurate. Forcing belief doesn't honor that small bit of doubt that's inherent in any scientific study. But betting against what science believes to be likely when there are negative consequences to being wrong is stupid and we need to stop doing it.

Belief should always be optional. Behavior based on that belief shouldn't.

Question climate change all you like, but stop polluting until you've convinced the majority of climate scientists.

Just because they're all convinced it's completely our fault things are changing, doesn't mean that the prescribed remedies will actually work.

What if the models are wrong on the low side, and we're wasting resources trying to stop the inevitable when we should be figuring out how to survive it?

There is no real "inevitable" with climate change. More CO2 in the atmosphere will cause higher temperatures. There may be a "tipping point" where a little more CO2 will cause the system to shift dramatically to a higher temperature. But we sure don't know where that is. To give up trying to do anything about climate change (lower emissions, geoengineering, etc.) because it is inevitable we will have 2 degrees of temperature rise no matter what, is to loose track of the fact that 2 degrees would be much better 5 degrees which is much better than 10 degrees.

Part of the way we go from "un-supported conclusions" to "well-supported conclusions" is by the optional nature of belief. Because belief is optional, the proponents actually have to go to the effort of supporting their conclusions with evidence. When believing something becomes non-optional, the incentive to do that goes out the window, and conclusions generally become weaker.

To wit, it shouldn't be too surprising that the "scientist" who tells people that belief in his work is non-optional is the one who didn't bother to check if it's actually true.

>Belief should not be optional in the face of well-supported scientific conclusions.

What if I don't trust the scientists doing the work, or the larger system that they work in? What if I find the common incarnation of the entire field lacking? I do not trust much published by sociology, regardless of how many studies show results, because of the political nature of the field.

On the other hand, physicist who say they found a new particle? I don't have an once of doubt (though maybe I should have a little).

Part of the problem is that the very language used in sociology is crafted to reached the desired findings. Once the integrity of an entire field has been lost, what can be done to restore it?

I politely disagree. People are free to believe what they want. Belief should be optional. Reality doesn't much care what people believe. I'm not big on forcing people to think a certain way, nor am I sure how one would enforce such.

Good scientists have a well tuned sense of how much to doubt and believe various ideas. Some things can be determined to be true to high confidence and are most certainly true. Physicists try to get five or six sigma. For the LIGO black hole merger detection you get a statement like, "The signal was observed with a matched-filter signal-to-noise ratio of 24 and a false alarm rate estimated to be less than 1 event per 203 000 years, equivalent to a significance greater than 5.1σ." And then the physicists fight/debate over how good this estimate of uncertainty is.

Technology is created based on using facts discovered by physicists - layer, upon layer, upon layer of very precise and constant use of fundamental ideas of physics. If unexpected things keep happening, it gets investigated and sometimes "new physics" is discovered.

On the other extreme (of what some call science) there is the social sciences and psychology. A study with a p=0.05 (95%) claim to being true. Lots of problems with p-hacking and replication. Scientific experiments are either unethical or impossible.

Here is a cute cartoon about the spectrum (https://www.xkcd.com/435/), although I would title it, "Fields arranged by certainty of truth". I work in geology research where the certainty of truth of the ideas/theories we promote vary across the whole range. This can be quite fun, but one needs a very well developed sense of how true the ideas you hold are to make progress.

The subtleties on the probability of an idea being true and over which domain it applies to is why people consult "experts". Hard to choose an expert when you are not an expert.

I will believe as soon as you justify the correct answer to the demarcation problem. If you don't have an answer, then I'm free to interpret scientific results in my own way, including disbelief.

C'mon, use logic and reason.

> Belief should not be optional

What does that mean in real terms? What do you propose doing to those people who take the option of not believing? If the answer is nothing then belief is indeed optional.

disinvited to social events, placed lower on the mate selection hierarchy, opinions not taken seriously, media makes fun of them, all the normal ways culture shapes behavior.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "not optional", but my interpretation is "Anyone who disagrees with the reigning philosopher-kings will be fined, jailed, or shot".

I suppose there's ostracism for a non-state solution. So if you're a business, maybe once a year you make all of your employees measure some toads, and if they can't apply a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test correctly on the first try they're immediately fired and added to a shared blacklist.

How exactly are you handling enforcement?

More likely they'll be branded as "not believing in science" and unpersoned. But yes, this comment is spot on.

Belief is not binary.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." (Richard Feynman)

> if you want people to believe you have to get them to opt-in to believing

There's a very nice article I read recently [1], on a situation in educational research (as in, how learning happens). The authors point out a situation where a group of 30 scientists published a letter informing teachers about a persistent myth about students. They go into a beautiful examination of the impact of this, what the scientists (possibly) miss, and what effective persuasion may look like. The authors' recommendations, suitably generalized, are a great read for our times, when polarization and tribalism are high, with a startlingly low tolerance for people with “different” ideas. Highly recommended:

[1]: https://deansforimpact.org/why-mythbusting-fails-a-guide-to-...

Your mention of scientism reminded me of this good, recent article from the Australian "The Skeptic" magazine.

Skepticism, Science and Scientism https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2017/09/12/skepticism-science-a...

Have a read! I also submitted to HN at the top level. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15235291)

One approach is to never believe anything.

Belief is a problem, in my opinion, in every situation.

By definition, a belief is something you accept as true with insufficient evidence. It's kind of the opposite of knowing things.

So why believe at all when you can both think and know. Beliefs are garbage and the number 1 source of problems in this country.

agreed. why rely on evidence when we can trust the 'experts'? no thanks...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com