Hacker News Reader

Comment by samspot | Hacker News Reader

I really dislike when scientific theory is presented this way. You imply too much when instead of using phrasings like "We have evidence that suggest X" you say "X happened."

> The seas and lakes dried, the rain stopped, and that... was that.

We think there was water on mars, therefore it is true. Is it too much to put a disclaimer somewhere that explains this is the current consensus but we have more to learn? The truth is that this story is riddled with assumptions, and readers need to know that.

View on HN

Everything is evidence and consensus. It lengthens and weakens the prose to hedge every statement, making the actual message much less clear. Yes, people need to be disclaimed from believing everything they read, but you know whose responsibility that is? The public school system, teaching people to learn how to learn. One of the main things you should have taken from high-school science classes is that every time we had some understanding of something, we got more evidence and replaced it with a better understanding of that thing--and so everything is just a best-guess given current knowledge.

So: "A positive correlation was found between X and Y"--why are you even telling me? What's the message? "There is evidence that X might cause Y"--okay, how strong is this evidence? Is it enough to care? "X probably causes Y"--that is what you're really trying to say. I will hear that and put it though my own Bayesian updating to give slightly more credence to the statement that X causes Y (more or less depending on the trustworthiness of the source, where I read it, what other supporting statements were made, etc.) The previous two forms don't change this mental process one bit, except to make it harder to dig out the thing you were actually trying to get across.

The problem is that humans are not trying to answer one question like a Bayesian filter, even if they think they only are right now. Every assumption in your post, if it is believed, is remembered for a long time and can be combined with other knowledge to form nearly an infinite number of new associations and opinions. When you play with facts to make a point in a tone that suggests what you write is true, you poison those associations and conclusions and increase the chance that somebody will. Elieve the wrong thing.

Also, while it is true you will give up some brevity while you practice accuracy, eventually you will learn to write better and either shorten your posts again or present them in a more compelling way so that your readers do not notice the length much.

Thank you for that explanation. My basic issue is that it is difficult to tell statements with great scientific certainty apart from pure conjecture.

I like when scientific theory is presented this way. It is self-evident that it is scientific theory: anything in science can be prefixed with "We have evidence that suggests that..." You must follow that formalism in some forums, such as publications, but when having a coffee table discussion, when someone says "Mars formed around the same time as Earth", mentally add a note that says "We think..."

The nugget of truth in your statement is that some assumptions we are more sure of than others. We can probably say how old Mars is with more certainty than how much water there was on there. That may or may not need to be clarified, depending on what the focus of the conversation is.

I'm not a scientist, just a pithatician. I have no formal or informal education in this matter and my understanding is strictly derived from pleasure reading. But I think there's enough evidence to back up this general narrative without throwing asterisks everywhere.

Agreed. I've been looking at ways of communicating complex science-based or data-driven insights in compelling ways, and I think easily digestible narratives, like this one, are a great way to get broad range of people interested. I would love to ask you some questions and get your advice on how to better do this. If you're interested, please drop me an email: jake at insightdatascience.com.

What do you mean by "pithatician"? Really, absolutely no results searching the web or trying to translate it. O_o

I'm not a "pithatician", but methinks it has something to do with the word "pith" and its Variant "pithy". A quick google of said terms yielded the following points of note:

Pith is the central idea or essence of something. If you’re in danger, you could exclaim, “I would greatly appreciate it if someone would provide assistance.” Or, you could get right to the pith of your point by shouting, “Help!”

Following along this line of inquiry, one is led to consider the possibility (however remote) of this being an example of near-humour. Possibly of the genus: Pun, species: indirect. So, if one were to dress this up, it is perhaps alluded to as a Punnus Indirrectus.

Or, maybe Not. =D

Ding ding ding! A stuffed animal for the man. :]

Thank you @001sky for explaining and @jpxxx for confirming. :)

I'd guess an expert in being pithy.

I don't think you need to throw asterisks everywhere.

I think a simple opening statement like "our current theory is" followed by the main text would be more than enough, but it is good to remind people that theories are just that - theories.

"It's just a theory" is a common attack by creationists, based on the common usage of the word theory, rather than the scientific one.

What's the common usage of the word 'theory'? Maybe it's because I'm a former scientist, but I can't imagine how the public's definition would be different from the common dictionary definition:

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation

>a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation

I don't see how anyone would object to this definition of a theory.

to me, the common use is more like 'hypothesis' - a possible explanation, that is still waiting for "real" confirmation once the facts come in.

but the scientific usage includes the fact that lots of facts have already been evaluated, and even that the new predictions by the theory have already been evaluated and found to be true.

>but the scientific usage includes the fact that lots of facts have already been evaluated, and even that the new predictions by the theory have already been evaluated and found to be true.

It's been evaluated and found to be true...for now. Almost every major scientific discovery upends some form of thinking or fact that we had accepted up until new information is found.

that's a misreading of what I wrote. I mean, the predictions made by the theory have been found to be true, not that the theory itself is ever proven to be true.

A scientist might make a hypothesis that suspect A is the murderer; the prediction would be that the murder weapon would be found in their house, the fingerprints match, blood types match. Upon search, the murder weapon was actually found, and fingerprints and blood types match.

A layman would say that finding the weapon converted the theory into a nearly certain fact.

A scientist would say that finding it pushed the hypothesis towards being a theory.

"Current evidence points to" then...

That works well :)

"Pithatician" is a novel use of πείθειν, "to persuade;" it reminds me of pithiatism, which is supposed to be a form of hysteria curable by persuasive suggestion.

Disclaimers make for bland reading.

There's a time and place for them. I don't think this was it.

I like it. I think I'm critical enough to take "truths" about Mars' distant past with more than a grain of salt. I can visualize the whole thing without always going into how sure we are about different pieces.

When you react to something like this are your saying "I don't like narratives being presented to me like this. or "I don't want narratives being presented to people dumber than me like this."?

I was thinking the same thing while reading it, I have heard 10 versions of the same story in the past 15 years. There is nothing to suggest that the latest version is the correct one, and the scientists at NASA say as much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com