Why I Hate Science
whattofix.com
whattofix.com
"Bullshit."
At this point, I stopped taking you seriously.
No. That is exactly what science is: an ongoing dialogue between scientists, using experiments to collect data to validate (improve certainty of) or disprove theories, theories which over time paint increasingly accurate pictures of how the thing we know as reality really works.
The garbage claims you ascribe to scientists are usually not made by scientists; instead, the claims usually come from the media who either don't understand the underlying science, or who do understand it but are sensationalizing the scientific result in an effort to get more people interested.
A problem only arises when Joe Sixpacks (who not only dominate society but Congress as well), who are completely ignorant of science, end up using media reporting of science to make decisions.
"What I'm concerned about is that the average scientific layman reader -- the person who assumes they are just as up-to-date on scientific matters as possible -- has no freaking idea where the real science leaves off and where the bullshit begins."
Which I completely agree with. There is the scientific method which strives to discover truth though rigor and their is the use of 'science' in rhetoric which attempts to lend truthiness to speculation or wishful thinking.
The blog post would have benefited greatly from taking this version of it, pulling out all of the actual things the author wanted to say, and then laying those out in a more cohesive fashion.
For those interested in the abuse of numbers in rhetoric I can reccomend the book 'Proofiness' [1] which talks about ways people abuse mathematics as a rhetorical tool. Science is one of those things that also helps lay people feel better about believing in something.
I agree with the original author's disappointment as to how it is being abused. But I also note that the author gets confused between how journalists report science vs what the science actually said. It is always a good idea to track down the original paper or study and read it to see what the journalist left out or simply missed.
I don't think that's what science is. It moves in fits and starts, has fads that come and go. Sure, if you average over long enough time it looks like smooth progress, but it's really not.
Your view is of course a very popular one. In fact, that's what he's saying is the problem. But it's far from the only philosophy of science that's out there. And it's a particularly naïve one in my opinion. It's a shame that as soon as you encounter someone with a different philosophy you stop taking them seriously; otherwise you might learn something.
Personally, I no longer have much time for the "inexorable progress through reason and logic" theory, which essentially boils down to the idea that if you just make sure you follow the One True Scientific™ Method to the letter then the right outcome is guaranteed. I've seen people claim that if you just make sure you follow the Waterfall Method to the letter then good software is guaranteed to come out of it. I don't have much time for that either. Before you complain about the comparison, note that both are essentially projections of the same philosophy (logical positivism) into different spheres.
I attempted to summarise some of the history and why it matters here: http://www.zerobanana.com/essays/politics-of-reason/ but in short, I disagree that the problem is just with journalists (or just with scientists, for that matter). It's a problem for all of us as a society in how we think about science.
My feeling was this critique was of the former kind, particularly with regards to scientists' communication. His view is fairly similar to that of most academics I know, though less nuanced.
In that light, I think you may have misinterpreted this particular comment.
The word "truth" is a diabolical invention that has a fairly subjective interpretation that changes when you start looking into what it means. However, once you dig deep enough, you find the inevitable: There is no spoon.
Empirical science is not about truths. It's about models. It's about modelling our world 'as well as we can'. The theory of relativity does not explain how the universe is architected, it's just a model that makes predictions. Any conclusions about the nature of the universe drawn from the structure of the model or any valuations of the model are entirely your own.
What does "as well as we can" mean? Here it comes down to merit. Accuracy is a virtue, but accuracy often implies complexity and limited applicability (e.g., simulations are relatively accurate, but only concern a single set of situations). Practicality is a virtue, because few people use relativity to calculate gravity. Correctness is a virtue, but probability can make things much simpler. Simplicity is a virtue, but not for any fundamental reasons. Generality is a virtue, but often comes at the cost of accuracy. Completeness is a virtue, but we do not know how to achieve it. Communicability is a virtue, because many good models are forgotten for lack of sex appeal. Usefulness is perhaps the greatest virtue, but it's always too early to judge that. As scientists, we are constrained by the same reality that all systems face: There is no right solution.
Why make models if they don't reveal any truths? Two reasons. One is that they (sometimes) allow us to calculate things, which is the most powerful concept in human civilization. It allows us to build bridges, launch satellites into orbit, produce the materials that we need, etc. without relying solely on trial-and-error. The second reason is that while the model does not reveal the truth, it does reveal a piece of the mathematics or processes that play a role in shaping the system being studied. Usually the model only reveals one aspect of the system, while in reality all things are related and influence each other and no calculable formula could describe it. However, it gives us a sense of direction, like a compass, rather than a map.
Once you grasp these subtleties of science, you become much more careful about your claims. Not so much because you think they might be flawed, that option should already be off the table, but because you know your claims do not (intend to) fairly represent the complexity of the truth. Part of the author's frustration, which many in the sciences department would share, seems to be that some scientists don't see or willfully ignore the subtlety when making claims in public. This leads people to misrepresent science as a magical truth producing machine, and make preposterous claims that distract attention from what science actually does: create models, for whatever purpose they have.
This appears to be written by someone that doesn't have a background in what I think most people would identify as "science". I don't think the authors in the current issue of Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/current_issue.html) would understand the opening sentence of the closing paragraph: "If scientists want to be considered in the same boat as the guys who think aliens built the pyramids, then fine, they should keep going the way they are going.".
I admit that the combination of the headline plus the photo he uses in his sidebar made me think derp even before I started reading.
Do try to be a bit nicer.
I don't know who he is or read many of his comments here, but on the basis of the article alone (long, incoherent, illogical) I didn't get a favorable impression.
Perhaps he should have thought a bit more about what he wanted to say, and he would have a written a better piece (which reminds me about a quote from Twain: "I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one").
To address this particular article: the writing is all over the place. First paragraph: he doesn't like science when it's a "club to beat up people you simply disagree with." Well, good, reproducible scientific results can indeed be used as a "club" to beat up ideas that are wrong. It's one of the best uses of science. Now my assumption (from reading further) is he hates bad science. Which I actually agree with, but that is not stated up front.
From the fourth paragraph. "...science is the beautiful application of reason and logic that slowly and inexorably moves from ignorance to truth." The next paragraph says "Bullshit." What's bullshit about it? That is indeed how good science should work.
Then he goes on to talk about scientists who speculate outside either their area of expertise, or outside scientifically produced results.
Later he says "It needs to be clear when reporting medical studies what types of methods were used...". Here's the deal: it is clear. It's clear in reputable scientific journals. Read by scientists that can actually make sense of that kind of information. And even then, as a reader, you have to use critical thought to mentally junk studies that don't follow appropriate methods. Reading the most reputable peer-reviewed journals is a start, but you can't shut your brain off while reading even those.
If he's talking about newspaper reporting about science, yes, it's frequently wrong, because it's written by non-scientists. As an exercise, read a regular newspaper article about anything you have deep knowledge in. I'll bet you find many problems with it based on the lack of understanding of the reporter.
In his last paragraph, his conclusion seems to be that scientists should do good science, and not bad science. Again, this is what peer-reviewed journals contribute greatly to. It's not a "totally new way of doing things". Not even close.
- overconfidence: scientists are much better at saying "this is a hypothesis we are testing", "we are 80% confident" or "not all of my colleagues agree with this thesis" than science journalists are at reporting those things.
- is anthropology a science now? This was just the field that was most clearly misclassified, but - I'd say - not the only one.
- things can be true without resulting in new cell phones. Facts can be relevant even if they are too hard to properly explain to a layman in five minutes. People really can be stupid and uninterested.
- it's possible to declare some fields completely broken/politicized without jettisoning all of "science". (For instance, the study of economic policy seems to produce really fervent advocates of rather different points of view.)
[Full disclosure: I'm doing a PhD, and rather like science.]
Exactly.
[EDIT: typo fixed]
Publishing sources in newspapers would be one of the most beneficial things they can do.
Science needs a new set of ethics. It needs to be clear when reporting medical studies what types of methods were used, what was brought into the study a priori, the sample size, and how it was reviewed. Scientists should be clear when they are speaking on matters of reproducible science -- such as the absorption spectrum of CO2, the Greenhouse principle, the fact that man changes his environment, and black-body physics -- and when they are totally speculating, like predicting the global temperature in 100 years. These are different types of information. (I hate to use global warming, but it's in vogue.)
First, Isn't what he wants in medical studies completely standard practice? I regularly read NEJM and their standard format is: Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion. I feel like he's getting his medical science from the NYTimes, which is fine as a starting point, but those are articles written by reporters. Find the actual study to see what the scientist did.
Second, if you actually read the "speculative" studies, rather than just watching Fox News you'll typically see how they come to the conclusion of the temperature in 100 years. They detail and construct a model, sometimes via simulation. It's not that anyone is saying, "This is what the temperature will be guaranteed", rather it's saying, "here's a model we constructed. We tested it on historical data and it's accurate to this extent. This is what we see looking forward. These are the factors that contribute most to this result." That's how science is done. That's how I can hypothesize the sun will come up tomorrow -- I have historical data, I create a model of the solar system, gravity, inertia, etc... and say based on that I think the sun will come up again tomorrow, and based on my models I think it will be colder in the winter than the summer. What he considers "speculative" science is just normal science, but where the models aren't as well understood, and part of science is strengthening the models.
I just feel like he doesn't get science at all. When you don't really understand something, you're more likely to hate it.
It probably is (I don't have a habit of reading medical articles.) But there are still people writing papers like "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" (see http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-dam...) so it's not clear that implies that they have their shit together...
With that said, sloppy research does happen. And Ioannidis has pointed this out. But pointing out that there's a high correlation between people who eat blueberries and IQ, in one study is useful. It's not a conclusive -- especially since there was no hypothesis going in. But it gives the pretext for double-blind studies. It advances science.
Of course, there is also flat out corruption, which I have no answers for. That's just part of human life.
To pick a random example, I've been told economists don't often look back to check the accuracy of the macro-scale predictions they made. (Un)succesful predictions are an excellent way to check for (un)truth.
Incorporating these methods will not significantly impact the public perception of science.
My reasoning is that there is a game of telephone between scientists and the public.
Currently it looks like this: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd051809s.gif
However, even if we were to refine the news process, or try to cut them out entirely through blogging, games of telephone will still happen, as people will still try to communicate a simplified version of what was said. This will not be intentional, but every time some fact gets left out, the certainties change, making the statement less and less true.
He should almost copy & paste that first paragraph and append it to the end.
...but at the end of the day you can make the argument that
everything about personalities are evolutionary in nature.
ADHD? Useful for surviving in the jungle.
It seems like the author is dumping on people for not getting it right, when he is not really getting the context correct themselves.
I think Daniel is angry not at science itself, but at the kind of story into which the 'clergy' is interpreting it.