Hacker News Reader

Comment by DougN7 | Hacker News Reader

I’m a believer in science - was a physics major in college. However, I find the hubris in science distasteful. Theories are treated like facts. Also, words like “we know” are used, and then a decade later that knowledge turns out to be wrong. Science changes, but at a point in time it often acts like it has reached the ultimate truth. A simple example: I remember in Jr High being taught that red shift and slowing of the expansion of the universe proved beyond doubt the Big Bang happened. Except, oops, turns out the universe is expanding after all. But you would be ridiculed if you didn’t believe

View on HN

After moving from software development to data science, I've observed a change in my terminology when discussing findings. Rather than constructing definitive statements like 'X is greater than Y', I tend to soften it to 'We have evidence that X is greater than Y'. I see it as a move analogous to the move from verificationism to falsification. Though someone with a better grasp on the philosophy of science may have better perspective.

If I want to be a good scientific reader, I have to add in 'We have evidence of' to nearly all pop science articles. Article writers either tend to omit this or it ends up being edited out for either obvious or obscure reasons depending on what you believe.

Out of curiosity, why and how did you switch to data science?

I worked on getting a data pipeline up and running. It was fun enough that I downloaded rstudio and started playing around with some machine learning methods after the kids went to bed. After a few conversations with higher ups that started with 'hey want to see something cool?' I had the opportunity to start a data team.

That's awesome. How long did it take you?

Can you point me to a reputable source that definitively claims (or ever claimed) that the Big Bang happened beyond doubt?

I don't think the problem is with any hubris in science. It is the general population that is the problem. Most people will completely disregard a statement which has any qualifiers or accept it as gospel truth (anything with "evidence suggests..." will either be taken as gospel or completely disregarded). Very few people have the ability to understand and appreciate the nuance in a scientifically correct statement.

This comment demonstrates one if the #1 errors in assessing scientific statements: theories are fact based. Scientific literacy is so bad most people still don’t get that (and I’m not saying that to slander you, it just seems like an abundantly clear fact). There seems to be a large faction of the population that thinks something like global warming (a theory, derived from facts) is the intellectual equivalent to your kooky neighbor’s alien stories (delusional imaginations).

the•o•ry thē′ə-rē, thîr′ē► n. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. n. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice. n. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

> theories are fact based

Yes, but theories are not /themselves/ facts. A theory is just one way to explain the facts, and though a given theory may explain the given facts well, a new theory may come along which explains the facts even better, or new facts may come along that the existing theory cannot explain. In either case, it's obvious that the theory is not itself a fact, because we may eventually have to discard it as inadequate.

I think that often the arrogance that people perceive in scientists (or at least in scientific reporting) is from the fact that the best known theory is described as a fact when it's not. It's just a model. Like any model of reality, all theories are wrong, but some are useful.

So I don't find it helpful to keep beating the dead horse about how the technical scientific term "theory" differs from the colloquial version. I think a more helpful approach is to try to educate people on how to skeptically evaluate the usefulness of any kind of claim/model/hypothesis/theory for themselves. Even if people understand the technical term "theory," it still doesn't matter unless they can evaluate a theory's usefulness.

Definite arrogance out there. This arrogance also occurs with citizens who don't like it when science is questioned. Real scientists don't shy away from questioning. Questioning is a key part of science and advancements.

And you have science used as a tool when it supports ones agenda. But immediately thrown away when it doesn't align with their emotions and agenda. So we have a pandemic, people trust in the science and the policies to respond, but are all too quick to throw that all away so people can protest, go to church, or let companies film movies. So you believe in science but you are ok with making exceptions for certain things? How consistent.

If we allow the agendas of mobs to disrupt science, it becomes a lot less useful.

Many leading scientists and groups don't have the courage to stick behind the science either, lest they ruffle the feathers of those who donate.

There are plenty of scientists that are bought and paid for just like politicians. We have a long track record of this with cigarettes, pharma, the sugar industry, war on fat, etc.

I almost see an attitude now that what truly proves your commitment to science is the fact that you don't question it

>Theories are treated like facts. Also, words like “we know” are used, and then a decade later that knowledge turns out to be wrong.

Heck, just this year we saw WHO, CDC, and other experts gravely pronounce in February and March that wearing masks was useless in fighting COVID19, in May say the exact opposite, and the press and bien-pensants repeat this without ever examining how or why the counsel changed, all the while denouncing those who said the opposite as "not believing in science"! It's not quite WE ARE AT WAR WITH EASTASIA changing to WE ARE AT WAR WITH EURASIA in the middle of a Two-Minute Hate session, but it's close.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com