
Signs of the Times - nixtaken
https://kirstenhacker.wordpress.com/2020/01/07/signs-of-the-times-2/
======
ruarai
This article read a little annoying. I don't know why this PhD holder failed
to find the actual paper describing the algorithm: [https://www.cv-
foundation.org/openaccess/content_cvpr_2016/p...](https://www.cv-
foundation.org/openaccess/content_cvpr_2016/papers/Bouman_Computational_Imaging_for_CVPR_2016_paper.pdf)

The author is making it sound like the work is just p-hacking when it's /very
clearly/ not.

This single paragraph in the Method section explains it best:

> "Reconstructing an image using bispectrum measurements is an ill-posed
> problem, and as such there are an infinite number of possible images that
> explain the data [28]. The challenge is to find an explanation that respects
> our prior assumptions about the “visual” universe while still satisfying the
> observed data."

This is literally all of physics! You can say that Newtonian physics is 'just
curve fitting' just the same.

I don't know enough about the philosophy of science to make a further argument
here but clearly the author does not either.

~~~
whatshisface
The allegations are that the black hole image could have turned out to be
anything, given different starting assumptions about what it would look like.
The exact nature of this variation, along with the degree to which the other
possibilities would be plausible, is up for debate. Unfortunately that debate
is very technical and not suited for general-audience blog posts.

~~~
CrazyStat
The author of the post ignores all the work that went into validating that the
methods they used give reasonably consistent results, including simulation
studies and multiple blind analyses to make sure that they weren't just making
the image they wanted to see.

This is discussed in the Caltech talk which is embedded in the post. It seems
the author cherrypicked all the quotes that sound bad and ignored the parts
that disagree with her narrative.

------
dzdt
Its ironic.

The author formed a theory that the black hole image research was flawed,
specifically that the researchers are filtering for images with the right
shape and merging these to produce an image similar to predictions. The author
then looks at various talks and presentations and filters for isolated
statements that out-of-context support the idea of the research flaws.

The author has a flawed approach exactly analagous to the accused flaw in the
black hole research.

~~~
dnautics
In one case data directly about the object in question were thrown out, in the
other case, data were ignored (analogously: throwing out images of stars when
cataloging galaxies based on priors of galaxy spectral properties vs star
spectral properties)

------
Psyladine
>I should mention pre-existing biases; my default setting is skeptical. I
don’t really believe that black holes exist

Wonder if dark matter/energy will turn out to be the Aether of the 21st
century.

~~~
pete762
What does dark matter have to do with black holes?

~~~
davedx
They are related topically in that yesterday new research cast the very
existence of dark matter into doubt, and this blog post is kind of trying to
do the same (albeit with less rigour than the actual scientific paper posted
here yesterday).

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
As another reply mentioned, the paper in question cast doubt on one of the key
pieces of evidence for Dark _Energy_ , not Dark _Matter_. Despite the similar
names, they are not fundamentally related concepts and there is significantly
more evidence for the existence of Dark Matter.

------
basicplus2
<Some images are less likely than others and it is my job to design an
algorithm that gives more weight to the images which are more likely>

~~~
userbinator
..."based on what I think is more likely".

~~~
yorwba
Don't forget the observations that determine the image content. "what I think
is more likely" is about describing the relationship between observations and
image, whereas the most likely image is produced from actual observations
using that relationship to draw inferences.

------
losvedir
I think this article is running off on a wild goose chase.

I remember looking into this when it all came out and I don't think Prof
Bouman's algorithm was actually used for that picture. Her TED talk was great,
and I think that's why everyone latched onto it, but IIRC they ended up using
a different reconstruction algorithm.

Some people were unreasonably concerned with who actually did what with that
image, and I wouldn't normally care about it. It's just that this article is
trying to cast doubt on the existence of black holes by attacking an algorithm
that wasn't even used to generate the picture they're showing on the page.

------
iamthepieman
so if the data could represent any image (not sure if the term "any" is truly
infinite or just very large) then at least Bouman's algorithm and work sets a
stake in the ground and challenges other scientists to explain why it does or
doesn't belong there.

Reading this article makes it seem like the work is a scientific version of my
kids artwork. Interesting to the right audience, tells you a lot about who
created it but bearing only a slight semblance to reality.

~~~
CrazyStat
If you watch the Caltech talk (embedded in the blog post) or read the original
published paper, they did quite a bit of work to validate that their method
was actually giving them good results and not just what they wanted to see.
The author of the post doesn't mention any of this, presumably because it
doesn't fit her narrative.

------
raxxorrax
Without phase information the cat probably looks like a black hole if
transformed back into image space.

------
abnry
TL;DR "I don't believe black holes exist and it is easy to p-hack your image
processing algorithm, so I don't buy the media hype of the first image of a
black hole."

~~~
dnautics
I didn't believe the amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer's and I complained it was
easy to p-hack all sorts of observations, and then I quit science.

------
rafaelvasco
Not entirely related with the article, will probably be downvoted knowing HN
but the title makes something come to mind: Science is being so hold back by
scientists that are too afraid to go beyond their model. Someone in a book
wrote that Science is a religion too in a sense because it is as dogmatic as
any religion. I tend to agree.

~~~
alexithym
It's incorrect to compare science to religion.

In science, there are no facts that are presented as being undeniably true.
Rather, all scientific facts can be independently derived and understood to be
true by any person. This emphasis on reproducibility means that no scientific
lesson has to be taken on faith, eliminating any sense of dogma.

Furthermore, as our understanding of the world improves, we often challenge
dated scientific ideas and prove them wrong using empirical evidence. If
science was truly dogmatic this would never happen, because dogma requires
facts to be presented as being undeniably true, forever.

~~~
SimplyUnknown
If reproducibility is so important then why are we in the middle of a
reproducibility crisis? [1]

If reproducibility was really that important then the scientific body would be
more focused on replicating results rather racing to being the first group to
publish an idea or securing funding.

Scientific foundations are seldom challenged or refuted. The last paradigm
shift in physics or maths was over one hundred years ago. And as soon as
someone challenges them (as the author does) the criticisms are refuted.

Say what you will, but science is mostly a social affair. Works of prominent
groups are more likely to be accepted than works of groups with less status in
the scientific community. Belief in scientific work may not rely on faith, but
it is a far cry from pure scientific method.

I'm not trying to be cynical here and do think a good scientific body advances
humanity, but the current state of the scientific community might be closer to
religion than one hopes it should be.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis)

~~~
alexithym
Because we are human, science in practice will always fall short of perfect
adherence of the scientific method. However, the fact remains that the two are
fundamentally different, because one is existentially founded on dogma, and
the other isn't.

~~~
jaredgorski
“the fact remains ... one is existentially founded on dogma, and the other
isn’t.”

You’ve responded to a rhetorical challenge against your position by
essentially stating your position, which is circular thinking. It’s not a
“fact” or even a forgone conclusion that religion is, by necessity, more
dogmatic than any other human activity. Humans engage in political dogmatism
every day, for example, perhaps even rivaling religion in certain regions and
at certain points. Non-religious dogma has also fueled many recent wars.

~~~
alexithym
I didn't restate my position - I made the observation that the human practice
of science falls short of being devoid of dogmatism, but that that doesn't
make science itself dogmatic.

I never made the claim that religion is more dogmatic than other human
activity, only that it is certainly more dogmatic than science. Nothing in
science is presented as being incontrovertibly true, while religion
existentially depends upon the undeniable existence of God. No proof is
offered for the existence of this God, making religion dogmatic.

