Hacker News Reader

Comment by nilkn | Hacker News Reader

Everybody knows it, but the principle is selectively applied.

For instance, our observations imply both general relativity and quantum field theory are necessary to model various aspects of the world. That’s an example of a Y. The only known X that’s ever been discovered that can encompass all aspects of that Y at all energy levels is string theory. Yet we are rightly careful to assume string theory is correct and enshrine it into the core body of scientific consensus. That does not mean we cannot or should not investigate it or even theory build on top of it, but it does mean we should refrain from assuming it must be true just because nobody can find anything better.

View on HN

>but it does mean we should refrain from assuming it must be true just because nobody can find anything better.

The vast majority of science is not disproving a theory but adding nuance to it. Newtonian physics wasn't disproven by quantum physics, but quantum physics showed that Newtonian physics has limitations as a model. It's not unreasonable to assume our best model is true until there is a reasonable amount of data to the contrary.

As others have said, your point adds little to the conversation until you bring good data to the argument.

I don’t accept that I owe anyone any kind of additional data on any of this. Just like I don’t have to have a proven solution to the problem of finding a theory of everything to suggest that string theory may not be the truth of the universe while still acknowledging that it can be a worthwhile thread of inquiry and study.

Suggesting that we avoid possible dogma has intrinsic value. Let us step back and consider the fact that the combination of general relativity and the Standard Model already cannot explain our most basic cosmological observations. We cannot explain the stability of even our own galaxy based on current models. This situation clearly calls for some basic caution before we enshrine possible unproven explanations into humanity’s view of the universe. There’s a lot of evidence, both long established and newly growing, which shows that our models can’t consistently explain many of the basic things we see around us when we look up at the sky.

If you are trying to make a scientific argument, you should bring data since that's the cornerstone of science. You seem to be implying that people treat these models as gospel. I suspect most of those who are deep enough in the field understand they are models and respect the limitations. To that end, it's not dogma. Saying "this is the best model we currently have" is not the same as dogma. The article is specifically about using data to either support or reject a model so I don't know where you get the idea that anything is being "enshrined" and above reproach. Ironically, saying you don't need to bring data to support your point pushes your position closer to dogma.

Your original point says very little. Yes, science acknowledges that you can never 100% say "X causes Y". Science is about getting closer and closer to that 100% with better models and better data while acknowledging it's impossible to get there completely. That's why people are saying your point is a nothing-burger. It's stating the obvious based on a strawman position.

> If you are trying to make a scientific argument, you should bring data since that's the cornerstone of science.

He is making an epistemic argument, and epistemology is a part of proper science, though not of scientism, which is what you are bringing.

Binary is not the only form of logic available, but it is the most popular in discussions of the unknown.

> Your original point says very little.

You are literally mixing up subjective and objective.

> Yes, science acknowledges that you can never 100% say "X causes Y".

Careful though: science also does the opposite. Do you know why? Because science is composed of scientists, and scientists are Humans, and Humans are famously unable to distinguish between facts and their opinion of what is a fact. In fact, doing so is almost always inappropriate, and socially punished.

> Science is about...

It may intend to aspire to that, but what it is, is what it is. And what that is, comprehensively, is unknown, because it is unknowable. But we do know portions of what it is: there's the part you said, but there is also deceit, hyperbole, delusion, etc...again, because it is composed of Humans, and this is how Humans are. In my experience, all Humans oppose extreme correctness, I have never met a single one who does not.

I don't think anyone is claiming that science isn't biased because it's conducted by humans. Just like I don't think anyone is really claiming that the OP is incorrect in their statement. The comments I've read are merely pointing out "X causes Y does not mean that Y implies X" is a given in the context of a scientific discussion. It reads as if you and the OP are getting wrapped around the axle by treating science as an outcome rather than a process and, in doing so, fighting a claim that was never made, and one where the counterclaim is generally well understood in the scientific community. So well understood that it doesn't really need to be said.

You are practicing Rhetoric & Scientism, under the guise of practicing Science.

I do not expect you can be persuaded you are not 100% in the right so I will not try.

I've not made any claims that science is the only path to truth. But we are talking in the context of scientific domains of physics and cosmology, so using science as a benchmark is probably apt. If you want to discuss philosophy, that's all well and good but probably more appropriate for a different thread.

And I'll help you: I acknowledge there is plenty of room for error on my behalf. I also acknowledge there is probably plenty of value in things that can't be measured by science, but I'm not sure they belong in the topic of physics or cosmology. However, I don't think the wordsmithing is the way to illuminate error in the context of this discussion. It seems to fall into the realm of modern philosophy that is more about arguing words in the vein of trying to be smart, instead of good.

> And I'll help you: I acknowledge there is plenty of room for error on my behalf.

This is what I like to hear!

I propose that the ability to apply this recursively is an extremely rare, arguably ~superhuman skill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

The fact that your comment is downvoted speaks volumes to the close-mindedness of your critics.

If all the phenomena in reality, this one is my favorite. Though, I am not a fan of it.

Strong reactions like yours to what should be a very mild and uncontroversal statement that you evidently don’t even disagree with are exactly why these things are increasingly viewed by many as having elements of dogma.

What I wrote needed to be said, despite evidently containing very little interesting content, precisely because of how severely it provokes certain people who claim not to even disagree with it. The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement.

What makes you think I have a strong reaction?

>What I wrote needed to be said

There are apparently plenty of people who disagree (myself included) based on the comments. I think the reaction you're getting is because it's not a particularly fruitful comment because it adds nothing to the conversation, while being veiled as a profound statement.

>The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement.

Except the response isn't a response to the claim, it's in response to the absence of one. If a researcher publishes some incomprehensible word-salad and lots of people write to the editor saying it's a worthless article, it doesn't somehow translate value to the original work. I think what you're experiencing is people being protective of HN in terms of having meaningful debate and what you said isn't particularly meaningful despite the wordsmithing.

> I think what you're experiencing is people being protective of HN in terms of having meaningful debate and what you said isn't particularly meaningful despite the wordsmithing.

As of the writing of this comment, every single comment I wrote here was upvoted. So, no. I can’t control the future, but what you wrote here was absolutely false when you wrote it.

> There are apparently plenty of people who disagree (myself included) based on the comments.

And that’s great — that means it’s thought provoking enough to generate debate with complex views on both sides. In other words, yet again proving the value of the statement.

If internet points are how you’re measuring the validity of a point, there’s all kinds of things going wrong.

Again, people pushing back doesn’t mean you’re fostering fruitful debate anymore than flat-earthers are generating debate “with complex views.”

You are the one who brought up reception here, not me. I merely responded. So if you don’t like it, don’t choose it yourself first. All that happened is you selected a metric that you thought was favorable to yourself, but you miscalculated and are now claiming the metric was never even valid.

>you selected a metric that you thought was favorable to yourself

Please point to where I first used forum upvotes as a useful metric.

You used reception here to argue against me, going so far as to claim that people are “protecting HN” from my comment. Given that, I pointed out another form of measuring said reception. Suddenly, you were up in arms about using reception and continue to protest it.

>What I wrote needed to be said, despite evidently containing very little interesting content, precisely because of how severely it provokes certain people who claim not to even disagree with it. The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement.

The point of science isn't to punk the researchers. So no, what you wrote didn't need to be said.

As I (and others) have repeatedly pointed out, our models are wrong. We know they are wrong. What they are is less wrong than previous models. That doesn't make them "right" or "dogma." Rather it makes them the model that currently provides the best explanation for observed reality.

That neither requires or suggests that research/investigation into modifications of our current models and/or into completely different models is unseemly or inappropriate.

What I (and presumably others, as they've expressed similar thoughts) require, if you want me to accept modified/brand new theories/models is, at a minimum, a logic-based argument as to why a modified/new model describes the universe more completely/accurately than current models. Assuming you can convince me that it's plausible, the next step is to present observational data that supports your logically argued hypothesis -- and that such data is described by your model/theory more completely/accurately than other models. I.e., that your theory/model is less wrong than our extant models which are also wrong, but less wrong than previous models/theories.

And if you can't present such data (e.g., with M-Theory[0]), then it's not science, it's just math, philosophy and/or metaphysics.

That's not to say math/philosophy/metaphysics aren't useful. They absolutely are. However, without data (or the means to collect such data), it's impossible to falsify[1] such hypotheses and, as such, aren't science.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

>The degree of the provocation proves the value of the statement.

This is a great heuristic to practice often. I just told my wife she looks fat in her new dress, and the degree of her provocation proves the value of my statement.

I’d expect a bit more nuance on Hacker News. What I wrote is not provocative by being offensive or hurtful to anyone. It’s provocative by introducing an idea that intelligent, educated people cannot come to a consensus on in a purely intellectual way.

What you’re missing is there is not a debate about your point. The debate is about whether it adds anything to the discussion.

Saying “the sky is up” and having people respond by telling you that is a trivial point shouldn’t be conflated with fostering a meaningful dialog.

And yet you yourself have been passionately engaged at length in the very debate you say doesn’t exist. The evidence abounds here from your own comments that it is not purely about the triviality of my comment. In fact, your first objection was about whether you thought I owed you additional data before I’m allowed to make the statement that I made. Moreover, there are plenty of other comments engaging in discussion and debate that clearly go beyond a mere discussion of triviality but rather actually engage with the concept.

That's fair. I'm trying to point out that the degree to which your statements illicit an emotional response from someone, by any means, has no bearing on the validity of that statement.

And I acknowledged that by providing additional clarification.

>but it does mean we should refrain from assuming it must be true

A good scientist will tell you that we don't assume it is truth. Instead, it is the closest thing to truth we can get at this time, but we are always seek better. But like a limit, we can only ever approach closer and never arrive at truth. As the other poster mentioned, we don't have a way to open up the source code of the universe.

Some scientists get a bit too attached to theories and can move them from "closest we currently have to truth" to "truth", but I think the bigger issue is that the non-scientists involve in transmitting science too often present it as truth, instead of the best approximation we currently have. Often because fake confidence beats out measured modesty, and the one claiming to have truth is more convincing than the one saying we can't know truth and only better approximate it.

A scientist will say science is true for the sake of simplifying the philosophy of science to those unfamiliar with it, but any scientist who thinks they have captured objective truth has lost the philosophical foundations of science.

> The only known X that’s ever been discovered that can encompass all aspects of that Y at all energy levels is string theory.

This is not correct; string theory is not the only candidate we have for a theory of quantum gravity.

I didn’t say it’s the only theory of quantum gravity. You can get a theory of quantum gravity by taking standard QFT — it just won’t work at extremely high energies. Other options like loop quantum gravity do not reproduce the rest of our models about everything else.

I said it’s the only theory of gravity and everything else at all energy levels, and that’s true. In fact, you’ll notice I did not even use the term “quantum gravity” to avoid the exact confusion you fell into anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com