
For Some, Scientists Aren't the Authority on Science - happy-go-lucky
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/11/28/503551431/for-some-scientists-aren-t-the-authority-on-science
======
imchillyb
People treat science like it's a religious text, or a set of unalterable
truths, and it's not.

Science is a method; period.

Science is a method humans use in order to produce a reproducible experiment
-or sets of experiments- in order to collect data. The collected data is only
as good as the tools we utilize to do our measuring. As such, when our tools
improve, so does accuracy of the data we collect.

There are a number of issues with this. The data can be incorrect, or
incorrectly attributed as a causation instead of a correlation. The data can
be manipulated in order to prove a bad theory. The tools can be flawed or not
precise enough. The peers reviewing the data can be manipulated into
consensus. The theory itself may be fundamentally flawed, but the inaccuracies
of the tools used can seem to prove the theory (see: electron shells and
superposition).

Science -at its most basic- is a checklist. That checklist ensures that an
experiment is both reproducible and as accurate as our data gathering tools
allow -at the time.

When our tools improve, change, or become obsolete our understanding must
also. That's why to some people science always seems to have two heads and is
double-tongued.

As with most other things, education is the key to solving this bad-perception
of science, scientists, and the data collected from experimentation and
observation.

~~~
tzs
By the definition of science you are using, wouldn't much of climate science,
oceanography, geology, astronomy, cosmology, paleontology, and archaeology not
be science? In all of those fields we have limited if any ability to conduct
experiments.

~~~
carsongross
It's a matter of degree, but to some extent, yes.

The conflation of experimentally verifiable science and observational science
(and, even more so, social sciences) is the crux of the issue. This is not to
say that observational or social sciences are useless, but that they are less
authoritative and more open to confounding variables than experimental
science. People use the results of the later as if they have the authority of
the former.

It is quite useful rhetorically and, unfortunately, as is so often the case,
good rhetoric wins.

What, do you hate science?

~~~
jmde
Whole fields have been devoted to defining science; I don't think experiment
is necessary to the scientific endeavor. Experiments in many fields, for
example, often suffer from problems related to generalizability or
applicability to real-world scenarios. It's a major reason for observational
science, although not the only one. Problems with replicability have also been
shown to be just as endemic to fields dominated by experiments as those more
influenced by observation, if not more so, across different scales of analysis
from the molecular to the societal.

I think a better definition of what science is is broader, something like
"logical argument based on empirical observations," although that too isn't
right. I think the appeal of experiments is in line with that, to the extent
that you accept that the experimental rationale involves a logical argument
pertaining to randomization over potential confounds.

The underlying problem being discussed in the article, to me, is the denial by
scientists that science is fundamentally a human endeavor, subject to all the
problems of humans: things like greed, deceit, ideology, and so forth.
Scientists like to pretend that they are somehow above all that, which means
they pretend it doesn't exist, which makes the effects of human weaknesses in
science all the more insidious. We see this play out with the problems in
academics, financial conflicts of interest, and so forth.

What happens is that a certain cultural subgroup, already primed to be
skeptical of science through their social context, recognizes the human
weaknesses of science. They then make the mistake of rejecting science
wholesale because of this. Scientists, in turn, often make the mistake of
rejecting the notion of human influences on science, thereby placing undue
confidence in their conclusions, leading to a lack of accountability or
explanation when failures occur. Some degree of evolution in scientific theory
is due to random variation, or lack of appropriate data, but some of it is due
to human factors.

~~~
carsongross
_I think a better definition of what science is is broader_

See how easy it is?

Why do you hate a broad, inclusive definition of science?

~~~
BrandoElFollito
Why do you think that another point of view is "hate"? You used this word
twice when faced with a different opinion.

~~~
carsongross
Parody.

------
dmfdmf
If anyone on the left was paying attention they would know that it isn't
science -v- anti-science as they demonize it but politicized science -v-
independent science. It is amazing to me that the same people that dismiss
"tobacco" or "soda industry" science/scientists have no problem accepting
"government" science at face value. That govt now funds the vast majority of
scientific research in the world it should come as no surprise that a lot of
it such "science" is used to justify increasing govt power. This is not an
explicit policy or devious strategy but implicit outcome of govt funded
science performed by real human beings who respond to incentives. Read Ayn
Rand's "The Establishing of an Establishment" in "Philosophy:Who Needs It" for
a good explanation of the process. The politicization of science is destroying
the credibility of science which should come as no surprise.

NB: Before anyone jumps to conclusions; not a Trump supporter and did not vote
for him. Also, I think that global warming is probably true based on
historical and temperature records (but I put almost zero confidence in
"climate models") but it is not nearly as dire as the scaremongers suggest.

~~~
stouset
> I think that global warming is probably true based on historical and
> temperature records (but I put almost zero confidence in "climate models")
> but it is not nearly as dire as the scaremongers suggest.

Based on what? I'm asking seriously.

I assume you're not a climate scientist. So, 95%+ of climate scientists (and
realistically, more than that) believe that the threat is dire and also
believe that our current models are accurate within reasonable margins of
error. Given this, isn't it hubris to think you know more about this topic
than they?

Consider Dunning-Kruger. The people who've spent their lives studying the
climate are the ones _most skeptical_ of their own understanding of the
problem, and yet they're also the ones sounding the alarm as loud as they can.

What's the tipping point where you decide to accept the findings of
essentially everyone in the field?

~~~
sien
The IPCC says:

"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed
increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by
the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other
anthropogenic forcings together."

That is very different from 95% of climate scientists think that the threat is
dire.

The IPCC says that perhaps 51% of the increase in temperature is due to
greenhouse gasses AND other anthropogenic forcings, you're saying something
quite different.

That is the consensus.

~~~
karmelapple
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97
percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-
warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human
activities."

From [http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-
consensus/](http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)

~~~
dmfdmf
" _Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that
97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists funded by the
government agree: The government should fund more climate research_ "

FTFY. I am joking but I think there is a serious credibility issue here. I
forget who but some famous science researcher (not in climate research) once
said that the conclusion of every research paper is, more funding is needed.
How does that institutionalized mindset impact objectivity and who is paying
for most of the research today? As I mentioned this is not an overt policy or
strategy but just the way things work out once the government takes over
funding science research. Read Rand on "The Establishing of the Establishment"
for a clear discussion of how it works insidiously to corrupt even an honest
man.

If you saw my reply to stouset then imagine that I tried to have a career in
climate research. If you aren't "all in" on the validity of the models you
don't get jobs, you don't get published and you don't have a career. And
that's just questioning the validity of the models not even questioning that
global warming is caused by man.

Moreover, the qualifier "peer-reviewed" is one of the standards being undercut
by government funded science. If all your peers have to "go along to get
along" then the independence of their review has to be questioned. There was
the email leaks a few years back where it was revealed that climate
researchers were publicly telling other researchers who disagreed with the
methods or conclusions to publish in peer-reviewed journals if they wanted to
be heard. But privately, through back channels and political pull, they got
papers spiked and opponents blackballed and threatened boycotts of journals
that published any "anti" papers. This is not science, it is politics.

~~~
stouset
> If you saw my reply to stouset then imagine that I tried to have a career in
> climate research. If you aren't "all in" on the validity of the models you
> don't get jobs, you don't get published and you don't have a career. And
> that's just questioning the validity of the models not even questioning that
> global warming is caused by man.

This sort of problem has historically corrected itself[1]. Unfortunately for
us, with regard to the climate, the numbers keep "correcting" themself in the
wrong direction.

[1]:
[http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm](http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm)

------
MollyR
Well within in nonevangelicals, this article was popular for a while.

The Food Pyramid That Made Us Fat
[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/29/934261/-](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/29/934261/-)

Not to mention the anti-vaccine people on all sides of the political and
religious spectrum.

This article really suggests to me a long term trend in the establishments
loosing their credibility across multiple groups of people or at least that is
the real issue.

~~~
ssivark
This comment remimded me of an article titled "The death of expertise" :
[http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-
expertise/](http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/)

I just re-submitted it to HN for another discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13058847](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13058847)

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
There are within science actually two types of "science". The one makes
precise models and therefore predictions and treats failures of those models
and predictions as a big deal, and takes verification so seriously that they
would rather delay publication to make sure they results are absolutely
correct and not a statistical anomaly. Examples of the first include the LHC
and Higgs-Boson and LIGO and gravitional wave detection.

The other type of science practically believes that "science" exists as a
purely social construct where you convince others that you have ideas that are
true. This science gives p-hacking, and irreproducible studies, and models and
predictions that are wrong but that's ok because the over-arching theory is
just fine. Examples of this are social sciences.

Also, the second type of "science" seems to insert itself into media and be
involved with telling people how they should live their lives. An example of
this is the dietary industry with "science" backing.

It turns out, the news media gives heavy preference to the second type of
"science", the one with crappy models and predictions, but which the media
feel can more easily become clickbait. Which article would you think most
people would click on - "An explanation of gravity waves", or "Scientists say
eating <common food> is killing you". In addition, because there is less
dependence on precise models, the inherent bias of the "scientist" comes into
play.

Because of this, the science that most people see in popular media is not
where precise models get refined, but one where outlandish predictions are
made and then discarded for the opposite outlandish prediction.

After being exposed to this, people decide that science changes from day to
day, and that "scientists" are just really influence hungry people just out to
tell people how to live their lives and claiming they should be listened to
because they have some special knowledge or qualification - just like the
"clergy" in the Middle Ages.

PS: The left also has a low opinion of science. You can see this when you see
people critiquing studies because they come from oil companies, tobacco
companies, or sugar companies. If they really believed in science, they would
know that science works regardless of the background of the people involved.

------
lordCarbonFiber
For any interested: [http://sci-hub.cc/10.1177/0963662516661090](http://sci-
hub.cc/10.1177/0963662516661090)

The actual paper, since this chain has been largely derailed for the confused
to come in and conflate media/reporting with science.

------
Kenji
Let us not turn science into a religion. Common sense goes a long way. The
more politically controversial the topic, the less likely it is that science
on it will be unbiased or valid at all. Religious organisations I don't even
comment on.

~~~
mjevans
Actually, I'd prefer if science, the worship of knowledge and the quest for
enlightenment, WERE a religion. That is, if it were recognized as a /belief
system/ and had the same tax benefits that religious organizations have.

~~~
gibbitz
I'm sure that those above who feel like the climate science that suggests man
is contributing to global warming somehow benefits the government, would still
suggest that the religious funding science gets is still clouding it's
judgement. Funny that this never comes up when discussing the political agenda
of Evangelicals...

------
lambdaphagy
Are scientists the authority on behavioral genetics, hmm? How does the average
NYT reader feel about the results of that field?

~~~
mr_overalls
I feel like there are some specific results from behavioral genetics that you
think would be controversial among Left-leaning people. Would you care to
elaborate?

~~~
lambdaphagy
There are specific results that are especially unpalatable, but I'm thinking
more of the general conclusion that all human behavioral traits are heritable.

[https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/all-human-
behaviora...](https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/all-human-behavioral-
traits-are-heritable/)

------
shshhdhs
It's also important to hold science accountable with a healthy level of
skepticism.

There have only been a few reports on HN of bad science, journal bias, biased
studies, and even potentially coverups (Theranos), but there are a lot more
that occur that we don't notice. Science is not always real. Read past the
headline, compare results, and follow the money.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
If you say that, it pretty much shows you don't understand how science works.

Science is all about fine tuning that healthy level of skepticism. That's what
science does.

~~~
humanrebar
> Science is all about fine tuning that healthy level of skepticism. That's
> what science does.

Science is a method. It doesn't do anything. Good science is an answer to
honest skepticism. It doesn't create planets, change minds, or fly airplanes.
It's a way to determine what is true and communicate our findings
convincingly.

~~~
sdenton4
So the findings should be convincing, but not change minds, because that's not
what science does?

~~~
humanrebar
Science has no mass or energy. It doesn't do anything. Talking about science
as doing things (like changing minds) just confuses what it's about. This
phrasing is popular and poetic, but in this case, the poetry confuses people,
even scientists and science enthusiasts.

Science doesn't save lives. Doctors do. We've used scientific methods to
understand all sorts of things about the world. And we've used that
understanding in all sorts of pursuits, good and bad, including curing
diseases and transplanting organs.

Saying science changes minds is like saying understanding, wisdom, technique,
or knowledge do.

------
happy-go-lucky
This reminds me of an apt quote from Feynman: science is the organized
skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.

