Hacker News Reader

Comment by lotsofpulp | Hacker News Reader

> elevate science as this god-like authority, and scientific consensus as the source of all truths.

Science is simply the process of using of data to come to conclusions. Is there a better method for building a model of the world?

Therefore, it doesn’t make any sense to talk about “science” as an authority. There are people and organizations that claim they used the scientific process to come to this or that conclusion. Maybe they used proper data and the right math. Maybe they didn’t. But their errors in the scientific process doesn’t say anything about the validity of the scientific process, for which there does not seem to be an alternative.

View on HN

It's not an enditement of science to accept that it is fallible. It's precisely the point of the article that "science as inquiry" as it is taught has led people to acquire a mystical infallible view of the scientific method which holds that people who come to different conclusions than the current consensus are biased. When in fact scientific consensus and scientific authority are social agreements based on trust.

As far as I can tell, it is not the point of this article that science teaching has led people to acquire a mystical infallible view of the scientific method which holds that people who come to different conclusions than the current consensus are biased; rather, it takes it as a premise.

In the final section, "Scientific Dissent versus Science Denialism", the article takes the position that this posited reverence for science makes it difficult to see the flaws in climate-change denial: "And without a social epistemological critique of the claims of climate change deniers, it is difficult to recognize that they are not doing credible science."

Ironically, the article itself does not present, or even mention, any empirical evidence for this being an important factor in people failing to recognize the above (maybe the evidence is in one of the references, but if the author can't be bothered to say so, I'm not going off on a wild-goose chase. The author here prefers to try deducing the alleged cause of this state of affairs from the position of another philosopher.)

I'm all for people gaining a better understanding of how science works, but I am doubtful that this particular issue is central to denialism not being recognized for what it is.

Well stated!

He's (or she's) talking about Scientism, which is a reliance in the outcomes and institutions of science, rather than the process of science itself.

>Science is simply the process of using of data to come to conclusions. Is there a better method for building a model of the world?

If we go with such a case, then yes, there is a better model. Using data to come to a guess that have yet to be disproven.

The difference is that a conclusion is more final that a guess not yet proven wrong. A scientists steeped in research may read conclusion and automatically conceptualize a notion much closer to guess not yet proven wrong, and maybe include the current winner among countless other guesses that have been proven wrong. They have enough experience to recognize that what we know may be wrong. It may be a little wrong due to some experimental error, it may be complete wrong (but relatively accurate as an approximation in the systems already applied), or some other option.

A layman wouldn't have the same take away. When they see conclusion, they would think it is a settled matter when it isn't. The difference between trusting science because it is best we currently have and trusting science because it is right. One is a trust tempered with caution while the other risks becoming blind faith.

The system could also further be improved by better expanding upon how disagreements to existing guesses are not always equal. A disagreement backed by data is better than one that is not, and a disagreement that fits the current data, though with no unique data supporting it over the existing guess, is better than one that contradicts existing data. Recognizing the possibility that data may be bad, and it is reasonable to be willing to refresh the data from time to time. A tolerance of letting people explore the wrong paths to see what data they may find. Lastly including the issue that all data is done by humans and thus subject to our biases (which is why things like double blind data is better than single blind data which is better than data without any layers of blindness). But that ends up being hard to fit into a few sentence explanation.

science is limiting...

precisely because it merely builds models.

Reproducibility of observed reality. The most simplistic summary I can come up with. Manufacturing to baking to software to economic models all strive to be reproducible but with the so many variables there is no way to have a true constant.

People like constants, cookies always taste the same, video game does not have glitches, car manufacturer always produces a fully fictional vehicle right from the plant. Yet some cars a lemons, cookies burn, quality of ingredients change with the seasons, software crashes.

Science is complex while most people just want to have a reduced cognitive load. Spend no time actually thinking about the complexity but accepting a more simplistic story. Since science can in no way offer a true yes or no people look else where, even when the simplistic reasoning is wrong.

A chief can say baking is easy but knowing which ingredients, when to mix, and how to use the tools is even too complex for a lot of people. Walk into a grocery store of how many different types of microwavable meals exist because it is easier to place something in to a rectangular enclosure for 10 minutes and press 5 buttons.

Only thing I've come to is to remind others is our world is complex and requires complex understanding, aka specialist, but often simplified where doing is easier. You might work on a manufacturing line, bake, or even play games but does not mean you know the science behind those processes. You may think there is no science behind baking until you ask questions, such as how does one build an electric oven? That is all I've come to, reminding people that everything is more complex than what it appears to be.

making the possibilities a reality

predicting the future of things we all know

I don’t know what that means. Everyone is merely building models.

can’t you see...

who looks through your eyes?

are you a model?

or the real deal?

What you see is very far from "real deal" and what you think you are is a model you have about yourself. It is models all the way down.

i do not think

yet

here

i am

Is this a copy pasted GPT-3 response?

a high compliment

Not all scientists are limited by the models. Fortunately

Everyone is limited by models, and scientists certainly are too. If you've ever taken a physics class and drawn a free body diagram, you've made a model. It's a good first order approximation, and an excellent pedagogical tool, but it's also a model that is limited in many ways. Is it too limited? Depends on what you want to do with it.

No. You misunderstand what science is. Science is the process of attempting to falsify a model that is already built.

Modeling in itself is not science. It is the verification of the accuracy of that model that is science and there is even a huge flaw in this science.

The keyword is falsify. Nothing in science and therefore in reality as we know it can be proven to be true.

When a scientist engages in the scientific method, no scientist has ever proved any claim ever made by humanity to be true. They are simply attempting to falsify a claim. Truth remains forever dubious for eternity.

We can only say that a theory is probably true because all our attempts to falsify the theory have failed.

Science is politicized by the establishment elites to further their narratives. It doesn’t matter what the science says or is even true or not.

Science is just euphemism to hide their agenda and further their goals.

Everything is politicized by everyone to further their narratives. It’s not a meaningful statement.

Science is not just euphemism. Science is the reason we have gotten as far as we have. Science is the reason why infant mortality is almost in much of the world, and food is plentiful.

Some people may use it inappropriately, and try to corrupt it, but it doesn’t change the fact that making conclusions based on data and repeating experiments to verify and adjusting the model as the data indicates is the best way we have to model our world.

Which people are using it inappropriately and corrupting it?

Why are they doing it? Why are they using silly phrases like, trust the science? Which is basically the same thing religious people do, when they say have faith.

Also, science, the classical definition, has no meaning on its own. It’s simply way to describe reality. It’s usually up to engineers and people to put into practice.

The science may describe gravity, although they still can’t answer why the gravitational constant is a constant.

But, engineers and people can test effects of gravity everyday, and act accordingly.

>Which people are using it inappropriately and corrupting it?

Journalists who misrepresent the results of a study to get clicks. Companies that purposely design erroneous experiments to get the results they want (a la the tobacco example elsewhere in this thread). Individual scientists who corrupt their own studies or falsify data to advance their own careers.

>Also, science, the classical definition, has no meaning on its own. It’s simply way to describe reality. It’s usually up to engineers and people to put into practice.

This makes no sense. Science is the process of refining the model of the world by testing hypotheses by performing experiments and then revising the model as new data is collected. This is in contrast to something like religion, where the model is not to be altered regardless of the data.

Science is about describing reality. You may be describing scientism, or some other psuedo scientific charade, which conflates actual science with hand waving mumbo jumbo, like people try to conflate astro physics with astrology.

Gold has always existed, as far as we know. People have known about gold and it’s properties, long before classic science described gold. There’s no model or testing hypothesis for gold needed. Gold exists because people use them regularly.

Science just described gold and other elements, because they exist in reality.

Engineers and people didnt need science to describe gold to use gold. Science is convenient way to describe reality for what it is.

Exactly. Same as religion has been.

> Is there a better method for building a model of the world?

One of the questions should be: Why should we build a model for the world? Is that really possible/doable? And if the real answer is "no", why should we apply that failed model to the real world, affecting (potentially in a negative way) the lives of millions of people?

It's obvious that useful models are doable.

You have picked the most expansive meaning of "of the world", which isn't really an interesting thing to talk about.

There is no alternative to building models of the world. There are only badly built models (based on individual experience, without opposition or falsification attempts) or better built models (like from scientific process).

You can avoid having models of some domain if you can avoid to make decisions in that domain.

> One of the questions should be: Why should we build a model for the world?

The decision not to build a model, is a model.

> Is that really possible/doable?

Models are just data-driven predictions based on understanding. The better the data, the better the understanding, the better the model.

If a model for the world is impossible, then either the data is impossible to gather or process, or the understanding is impossible to achieve.

Data is just facts based on observed events, so I refuse to believe that a model for the world is impossible based on ability to track data.

Understanding is the wildcard - humans are complex beings. But each tiny step forward increases global understanding. Years ago, autism was considered "cold mother syndrome". Now through decades of careful and detailed analysis it's understood as a neurological disorder. Depression and anxiety were thought to be issues of the soul, demonic possession, laziness, etc. Now there is an ever expanding array of diagnostic tools to help sufferers.

So I refuse to believe that understanding is impossible.

tl;dr: Yes, a model for the world is possible.

> And if the real answer is "no",

That's a big if.

> why should we apply that failed model to the real world

"failed model" what failed model?

Also recall doing nothing is also a model. Bring on the dark ages!

> affecting (potentially in a negative way) the lives of millions of people?

In my world view, doing nothing and praying to higher powers, or allowing chaotic despots to rampage the lands has already caused immeasurable premature death and suffering.

Why would anyone vouch for a return to the dark ages, just because progress feels like effort?

The decision of not doing math is not math, unless we go on obscure neo-platonic paths and equate negation with presence.

Recent history is full of failed models, eugenics itself came out of scientists’ books that some German former corporal later enabled. Eugenics was based on a (failed) model of the world.

Chaotic despots have rampaged the lands with the help of technology and science just fine, people wouldn’t have reached Magadan against their own will without railways. Give me “dark ages” every day against millions of people in the Gulag. Also, the trans/Atlantic slave trade wouldn’t have been possible without navigation-related advances, many of them scientific in nature.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com