Started By
Message
locked post

Excellent (but longish) read on what we usually mean when we say "Science"

Posted on 9/26/14 at 9:13 am
Posted by 90proofprofessional
Member since Mar 2004
24445 posts
Posted on 9/26/14 at 9:13 am
for nobody to read, by Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry:
quote:

Here's one certain sign that something is very wrong with our collective mind: Everybody uses a word, but no one is clear on what the word actually means.

One of those words is "science."

Everybody uses it. Science says this, science says that. You must vote for me because science. You must buy this because science. You must hate the folks over there because science.

Look, science is really important. And yet, who among us can easily provide a clear definition of the word "science" that matches the way people employ the term in everyday life?

So let me explain what science actually is. Science is the process through which we derive reliable predictive rules through controlled experimentation. That's the science that gives us airplanes and flu vaccines and the Internet. But what almost everyone means when he or she says "science" is something different.

To most people, capital-S Science is the pursuit of capital-T Truth. It is a thing engaged in by people wearing lab coats and/or doing fancy math that nobody else understands. The reason capital-S Science gives us airplanes and flu vaccines is not because it is an incremental engineering process but because scientists are really smart people.

In other words — and this is the key thing — when people say "science", what they really mean is magic or truth.

quote:

The vast majority of people, including a great many very educated ones, don't actually know what science is.

If you ask most people what science is, they will give you an answer that looks a lot like Aristotelian "science" — i.e., the exact opposite of what modern science actually is. Capital-S Science is the pursuit of capital-T Truth. And science is something that cannot possibly be understood by mere mortals. It delivers wonders. It has high priests. It has an ideology that must be obeyed.

This leads us astray. Since most people think math and lab coats equal science, people call economics a science, even though almost nothing in economics is actually derived from controlled experiments. Then people get angry at economists when they don't predict impending financial crises, as if having tenure at a university endowed you with magical powers. Countless academic disciplines have been wrecked by professors' urges to look "more scientific" by, like a cargo cult, adopting the externals of Baconian science (math, impenetrable jargon, peer-reviewed journals) without the substance and hoping it will produce better knowledge.

Because people don't understand that science is built on experimentation, they don't understand that studies in fields like psychology almost never prove anything, since only replicated experiment proves something and, humans being a very diverse lot, it is very hard to replicate any psychological experiment. This is how you get articles with headlines saying "Study Proves X" one day and "Study Proves the Opposite of X" the next day, each illustrated with stock photography of someone in a lab coat. That gets a lot of people to think that "science" isn't all that it's cracked up to be, since so many studies seem to contradict each other.

This is how you get people asserting that "science" commands this or that public policy decision, even though with very few exceptions, almost none of the policy options we as a polity have have been tested through experiment (or can be). People think that a study that uses statistical wizardry to show correlations between two things is "scientific" because it uses high school math and was done by someone in a university building, except that, correctly speaking, it is not. While it is a fact that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads, all else equal, to higher atmospheric temperatures, the idea that we can predict the impact of global warming — and anti-global warming policies! — 100 years from now is sheer lunacy. But because it is done using math by people with tenure, we are told it is "science" even though by definition it is impossible to run an experiment on the year 2114.

quote:

for all our bleating about "science" we live in an astonishingly unscientific and anti-scientific society. We have plenty of anti-science people, but most of our "pro-science" people are really pro-magic (and therefore anti-science).

This bizarre misunderstanding of science yields the paradox that even as we expect the impossible from science ("Please, Mr Economist, peer into your crystal ball and tell us what will happen if Obama raises/cuts taxes"), we also have a very anti-scientific mindset in many areas.

For example, our approach to education is positively obscurantist. Nobody uses rigorous experimentation to determine better methods of education, and someone who would dare to do so would be laughed out of the room. The first and most momentous scientist of education, Maria Montessori, produced an experimentally based, scientific education method that has been largely ignored by our supposedly science-enamored society. We have departments of education at very prestigious universities, and absolutely no science happens at any of them.

Our approach to public policy is also astonishingly pre-scientific. There have been almost no large-scale truly scientific experiments on public policy since the welfare randomized field trials of the 1990s, and nobody seems to realize how barbaric this is. We have people at Brookings who can run spreadsheets, and Ezra Klein can write about it and say it proves things, we have all the science we need, thank you very much. But that is not science.

Modern science is one of the most important inventions of human civilization. But the reason it took us so long to invent it and the reason we still haven't quite understood what it is 500 years later is it is very hard to be scientific. Not because science is "expensive" but because it requires a fundamental epistemic humility, and humility is the hardest thing to wring out of the bombastic animals we are.

But until we take science for what it really is, which is both more and less than magic, we will still have one foot in the barbaric dark.

LINK
Posted by onmymedicalgrind
Nunya
Member since Dec 2012
10588 posts
Posted on 9/26/14 at 9:16 am to
Before I decide to read this, can someone let me know if this is one of those BS "science isn't really much more evidence based than religion" pieces?
This post was edited on 9/26/14 at 9:21 am
Posted by StringedInstruments
Member since Oct 2013
18317 posts
Posted on 9/26/14 at 9:18 am to
A most Kuhnian stance on science.
Posted by StringedInstruments
Member since Oct 2013
18317 posts
Posted on 9/26/14 at 9:21 am to
quote:

Before I decide to read this, can somewhat let me know if this is one of those BS "science isn't really much more evidence based than religion" pieces?


It's not. It's actually pretty good if you're into the history and philosophy of science.

I think what Gobry is trying to point out is that science is hedged. In rhetorical terms, it's mostly forensic, a tidbit deliberative, and almost-zilch epideictic. But people interpret science as being mostly deliberative and highly epideictic.

Science is great as an interpretation of nature based on apparatus available that corresponds with currently accepted paradigms. What science is not is a harvester of ultimate Truths that should be used in a no-questions-asked manner in terms of public policy making, morals, and values.
This post was edited on 9/26/14 at 9:22 am
Posted by 90proofprofessional
Member since Mar 2004
24445 posts
Posted on 9/26/14 at 9:21 am to
quote:

can somewhat let me know if this is one of those BS "science isn't really much more evidence based than religion" pieces?

I know I'm not really a prolific poster, but I was thinking that I was probably recognizable enough at least for non-retards to know that I'm one of them
Posted by TK421
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2011
10411 posts
Posted on 9/26/14 at 9:23 am to
quote:

Before I decide to read this, can someone let me know if this is one of those BS "science isn't really much more evidence based than religion" pieces?


You could just read two paragraphs and decide for yourself, you lazy a-hole.
Posted by onmymedicalgrind
Nunya
Member since Dec 2012
10588 posts
Posted on 9/26/14 at 9:24 am to
Sorry, I can't keep everybody strait on this board sometimes.

quote:

that I'm one of them

That you're one of who?
Posted by onmymedicalgrind
Nunya
Member since Dec 2012
10588 posts
Posted on 9/26/14 at 9:25 am to
Damn you mad. Chill bro.
Posted by 90proofprofessional
Member since Mar 2004
24445 posts
Posted on 9/26/14 at 9:26 am to
quote:

That you're one of who?

the non-retards

IOW not someone who might say something like "science & religion are on equal footing in terms of evidence-based-ness"
Posted by GoCrazyAuburn
Member since Feb 2010
34858 posts
Posted on 9/26/14 at 9:28 am to
Thanks for that. Interesting read for sure.
Posted by onmymedicalgrind
Nunya
Member since Dec 2012
10588 posts
Posted on 9/26/14 at 9:29 am to
Ok gotcha. Bookmarked to read later
Posted by 90proofprofessional
Member since Mar 2004
24445 posts
Posted on 9/26/14 at 9:33 am to
quote:

I think what Gobry is trying to point out is that science is hedged.

Or at least, that the amount of faith we tend to put into all Science really should only be put into that small segment of science that has been produced by these highly-hedged methods (and that might mean that some fields of study might never, ever meet this threshold).

Not to say that the rest is worthless, but maybe it shouldn't be described by the exact same word.
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
118603 posts
Posted on 9/26/14 at 9:36 am to
Thanks for that article.

Quite simply if your conclusions lack the means of the scientific method, it is NOT science.

The scientific method is:



In todays politicized "scientific" world scientist, espciailly climate scientist, are long on conclusions and very short to nill on experimentation. Of course you need to avoid experimentation to promote your magic.
Posted by GoCrazyAuburn
Member since Feb 2010
34858 posts
Posted on 9/26/14 at 9:37 am to
The biggest takeaway I got is his criticism of the willingness to make predictions on something that we cannot really test, and calling it science. He makes a very good point.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89472 posts
Posted on 9/26/14 at 9:38 am to
quote:

let me know if this is one of those BS "science isn't really much more evidence based than religion" pieces?


No. This isn't about "Global Warming" or other anti-human, quasi-religious based branches of "science".
Posted by USMCTiger03
Member since Sep 2007
71176 posts
Posted on 9/26/14 at 9:45 am to
quote:

Before I decide to read this, can someone let me know if this is one of those BS "science isn't really much more evidence based than religion" pieces?

My take on it is that many/most people put about the same faith/trust in science that religious people in God. Did they read and analyze the report and data or do they just adopt the conclusion as truth?
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
118603 posts
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:05 am to
quote:

Did they read and analyze the report and data or do they just adopt the conclusion as truth?



Oh, they read and analyze the report with said conclusion(s). They just don't repeat the experiment and today a lot what passes for science doesn't even include an experiment.
Posted by onmymedicalgrind
Nunya
Member since Dec 2012
10588 posts
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:11 am to
quote:

Oh, they read and analyze the report with said conclusion(s). They just don't repeat the experiment and today a lot what passes for science doesn't even include an experiment.

Well I think that depends on the way you define "experiment."
Posted by onmymedicalgrind
Nunya
Member since Dec 2012
10588 posts
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:12 am to
quote:

My take on it is that many/most people put about the same faith/trust in science that religious people in God.

Utter BS
Posted by GoCrazyAuburn
Member since Feb 2010
34858 posts
Posted on 9/26/14 at 10:24 am to
Not really. There are plenty that will take something at its word because of science, just as someone will take what a priest says at his word because of religion.

They aren't the exact same, but there are similarities.
This post was edited on 9/26/14 at 10:26 am
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram