Hacker News Reader

Comment by bally0241 | Hacker News Reader

Science isn't based on trust. It's based on evidence. You may "trust" that someone's results are what they say they are, but they must be reproducible and independently verifiable. If they aren't then its bunk.

View on HN

Even if your results are reproducible and independently verifiable, these results are open to interpretion.

Will you publish "X is associated with Y", or "we observed weak correlation between X and Y in self-selected subgroups from already self-selected population"?

Unfortunely, first approach dominates observational studies.

That would mean you ultimately have to personally reproduce the results under controlled conditions before you can trust anything. This is just not realistically possible for anybody, so in reality you have to trust somebody.

I did not say there was a need to personally verify the results of every experiment. Merely pointing out that the scientific process is not based on trust, but evidence. I would not believe a claim made by a single experimenter/group unless independent evidence corroborates it. Neither should you. Look up the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment, or pentaquarks.

Yeah but how do you then know the "independent scientists" actually reproduced the results and didn't just make it up? In the end it comes down to trust in the process and the community.

You don't. Case in point the drift in measured values of the fundamental charge of the electron over time starting with Millikan. However, given enough independent evidence you can conclude whether or not the results of a measurement are more likely than not.

You are still putting trust into the fact that the groups/experimenters are actually independent. Unless you have personally verified every experiment, you are still putting trust into the fact that others have done the work as they claim. What you are doing is being _pragmatic_ about your trust. You have a level of trust that is acceptable.

The reality is that we all are trusting "science" to one degree or another. I absolutely agree that all experiments should be repeatable and independently verifiable, but in the real world science (in my opinion) very much depends on trust. We don't all have time to verify every experiment.

Separate experimenters making claims to the same results is in itself a form of evidence. Believing otherwise requires either the existence a common error or a conspiracy.

> Believing otherwise requires either the existence a common error or a conspiracy.

Both of which are common.

Have you ever seen an atom? Have you ever had access to a Scanning Electron Microscope or equivalently advanced machinery to observe one? If not, you have had to put at least some level of faith in that they do exist.

that sounds more like religion to me, also people should have access to hacker spaces with electron microscopes the fact most don't is a failure

No, I have not "seen" an atom. However, I have done experiments in a lab which have produced results which are consistent with atomic theory. There is no need to have faith in the cartoon model of an atom. All that matters is that the theory can be used to make predictions which can then be verified by experiment. The underlying "objective" nature of reality is immaterial.

I trust people who claim X, then let me come and test every bit of X myself to see that it is correct, and then I go and test a few bits of X and see that the tests work, and everyone I know who did the same on different parts also got results agreeing with X.

It is perfectly rational to believe X in this scenario even if I didn't test all of it myself.

I don't trust people who claim Y, get angry whenever I try to test any part of Y, the few things I test about Y aren't true, the people I know who tested other things about Y also saw that they weren't true.

It is perfectly rational to assume that Y is just nonsense in this scenario even if I didn't test all of it myself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com