Hacker News Reader

Yes.

“Science says” is a statement of belief in a knowledge mafia.

“Scientists asked this question and here’s what they discovered and here is what they think” is how science news should be reported. More like entertainment tonight and less like a Sunday school sermon.

It should go even further, because even your modified statement "Scientists asked this question and here’s what they discovered and here is what they think" still implies "Scientist" is one singular thing or is a singular group of people.

The word "Scientist" has become a word without meaning. It's applied to anything we think we want to convince others of or use as argument of authority. When people say "Scientists", they often mean statisticians or other number/data crunching careers.

Instead, that statement could be rewritten as: "The Eggs-For-Health Institute, Department of Eggs-Every-Day asked this question and here’s what they discovered and here is what they think".

This rewritten statement now informs the reader of all the basics - who, what, where, when and why. It's unsurprising the Eggs-For-Health Institute (for a made up scenario) says eating eggs is a good thing.

Unfortunately it gets murkier when it's highly regarded institutions publishing ideas, such as the FDA, CDC, etc. These folks aren't any more certain of things as the rest of the community either. We saw variations of this during the pandemic - the CDC would release some preliminary aggregated data and suddenly headlines ran with "Scientists from the CDC say do X to stop Y" etc... which led to a lot of perceived flip-flopping along the way (because all of this was new territory at the time, ie. the scientific process was playing out in real time.

And then you have Coldplay co-opting the term "Scientist" for a song, further muddying the waters.

Fucking magnets, how do they work?

I wish it were possible to upvote this statement by double-underlining every word. (It's as though human nature abhors a dogma vacuum.)

"When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it." - Feynman

> Laymen might think that's a bad thing. But it's not... it's exactly how science is supposed to work. The problem is, people need to be told an absolute, but science can't do that for the most part.

Scientists have my full support to stumble around in the dark and figure things out. But it's not the laymen who desperately need certainty. It's the scientists themselves when they deign to make policy demands based these half-baked theories de jour.

But better than politicians who make policy demands that flagrantly ignore solid evidence because they're being paid to.

Truth is a probability and not a binary, but politics is still a casino pretending to be a church.

No, it is never the scientists job to talk about policy. At all. Ever. Once they do that, they have no credibility, and become no different from the politician.

I think there is a large distinction between an un-replicated statistical meta-analysis and 1st,2nd and 3rd laws thermodynamics for example. I'm not sure it makes sense to call the first one "science". I think, given how much we have benefited from actual science, we should hold the term in higher esteem. Let's not not allow it to become a magic word intended to convince others to believe everything one says.

I agree with everything you said - with the minor nitpick that even well established scientific laws can be challenged, lose consensus, and be replaced or amended (Newtonian understandings of Gravity, for instance).

That is pure science - accept something until better data comes along and changes the way we think about the topic.

We lose people there though, unfortunately. People like to "know" something absolute, and the media does a horrible job of communicating disagreements or opposing data.

In "real" science, ie stuff that has been proven by experiment, when new understanding is obtained the old stuff remains valid at laeast as a special case (otherwise it would never have been confirmed by experiment in the first place).

So, while we now know that Newtonian physics breaks down in some circumstances, where relativity and quantum mechanics are needed Newtonian is still good enough for most everyday and a lot of not so everyday applications (like sending probes to Mars).

It doesn't flip / flop like the "eating eggs was good yesterday and is now bad".

I think maybe the appropriate distinction (restating way you said) is "science" that models the physical world, like physics or chemistry, vs "science" that explores statistical relationships between stuff, like many medical or social studies.

In general an element of both is present, but on one end tou have, say Newton, and on the other you have some study that says electromagnetic waves are bad for you because of some statistical health outcome but proposes no causal mechanism.

The problem seems to be that the further towards the latter part of the spectrum someone's research is, the more likely they are to be adamant that they're "doing science" and promote all the BS about consensus and peer review that gives a pretend version of how science happens.

Presumably due to insecurity. When your work rests on a foundation of p-hacking, you're more likely to be pounding "the science" as justification, vs if you're a physistics that's traced a result back to basic axioms of your field, your work speaks for itself and you don't need to yell how the science is settled

My mother has been a doctor for some 35+ years at this point, she’s said many times that consensus on what is healthy or not has flipped many times in her career. While medicine isn’t the first three laws of thermodynamics there is usually a lot of agreement before doctors go out and begin offering a treatment or recommendation, and then suddenly it becomes obsolete and actually bad practice.

One way to think about this is to first determine what type of study would be actually be needed to prove conclusively, for example, that one egg per day is a net negative or net positive and go from there. I'm assuming that cost / complexity / time associated with conducting such a study would be prohibitive. If so, we can simply conclude that we will never be able to tell one way or the other (with current technology at least) and stop worrying about it.

This way, we ensure that our meta-analysis firepower (whatever/whoever that actually is), can be directed at studies that actually have a potential to uncover some real knowledge.

It seems that the common thread in your complaints is Commercial Journalism.

Yes, because the complaint is about it.

Then I agree with the complaint, though I note that the major issues with modern commercial journalism in society encompass a great deal more than merely scientific pieces.

"People don't think the universe be like it is, but it do."

- Science

https://www.theonion.com/eggs-good-for-you-this-week-1819565...

Science as a belief, not a process of learning?