

Why I Hate Science - DanielBMarkham
http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2011/07/why-i-hate-scie.php

======
runningdogx
_"It's not unusual in school to hear this religion of science put another way,
science is the beautiful application of reason and logic that slowly and
inexorably moves from ignorance to truth.

"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.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I found that part annoying as well, he goes on with one of his main points:

 _"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.

[1] <http://www.amazon.com/dp/0670022160/>

------
a3camero
Part of his rant is about things that are generally not considered to be
"science". Economics is usually categorized separately as "social science"
(look! Wikipedia agrees! <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics>). It's
ironic that someone who "no beg[s], scientists to adopt much stricter
standards of disseminating information" is so cavalier about lumping together
very different fields of study.

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.".

~~~
create_account
_This appears to be written by someone that doesn't have a background in what
I think most people would identify as "science"._

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.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
I don't follow DanielBMarkham closely, but I don't think his comments here on
HN suggest a high level of "derp".

Do try to be a bit nicer.

~~~
create_account
Perhaps that was a bit blunt.

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_ ").

------
JoachimSchipper
Not entirely wrong, but some criticisms:

\- 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.]

~~~
create_account
_it's possible to declare some fields completely broken/politicized without
jettisoning all of "science"_

Exactly.

------
scott_s
Daniel, please stop using link-bait titles and openers. It makes it far more
difficult for me to evaluate the actual ideas you're talking about, because I
have to separate the link-bait stuff from your real points. (The "bait" from
the "switch.") That takes more mental effort than I'm willing to afford an
essay that starts off being disingenuous.

~~~
gjm11
But without the link-bait, why would anyone ever post them to HN?

[EDIT: typo fixed]

~~~
lutorm
He posted it himself, so that would hardly be affected.

------
kenjackson
This guy seems to not understand the difference between science, publishing in
science, and science reporting for mainstream audiences. They're very
different things.

Publishing sources in newspapers would be one of the most beneficial things
they can do.

~~~
hasenj
I think he understands the difference. His point is that most people _don't_.

~~~
kenjackson
I don't think so. Take this statement for example:

 _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.

~~~
lutorm
_First, Isn't what he wants in medical studies completely standard practice?_

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...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-
and-medical-science/8269/)) so it's not clear that implies that they have
their shit together...

~~~
kenjackson
This is one of the problems with the perception of science -- which is that
scientists always are right. They're not. Falsifying existing claims is part
of science. If no claims were ever debunked then I'd be suspicious that it was
more faith than science.

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.

------
zwieback
After the third or fourth paragraph I started expecting an argument for
creationism and against global warming. It's never explicitly made and it's
not really clear what the point of the article is but there's something about
this kind of scientific-strawman knocking that smacks of revisionism.

------
wccrawford
He's got a good point. The layman doesn't know the difference at all. Heck,
most of the 'experts' don't seem to be able to tell the difference. You
constantly hear how X is bad for you according to a new study, and people
repeat it like gospel, instead of the theory that it is. Often it hasn't even
been reproduced yet.

~~~
create_account
What point is that? Lumping unrelated fields together and disliking them all?
What alternative does he offer?

~~~
JoachimSchipper
He does suggest a few things which are useful but not practiced in all
academic disciplines (note "academic" instead of "scientific"): systematic
ways of finding truth (specifically, Bayesian analysis), carefully specifying
the exact experiment done, being open about your confidence (or lack thereof)
in the results.

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.

~~~
archgoon
These methods should be incorporated.

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.

------
tomlin

      ...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. 
    

I've read about the "hunter vs. farmer" theory on ADD/ADHD. So far, from what
I've read, no one has _agreed_ that ADD/ADHD is an evolutionary response
to/for hunting. Rather, it may have made the hunter quicker or more aware of
surroundings, and thus made a better hunter overall.

It seems like the author is dumping on people for not getting it right, when
he is not really getting the context correct themselves.

------
uros643
A fringe, but relevant, furthering of this line of thought from another
direction: [http://partialobjects.com/2011/04/is-science-just-a-
matter-o...](http://partialobjects.com/2011/04/is-science-just-a-matter-of-
faith/)

I think Daniel is angry not at science itself, but at the kind of story into
which the 'clergy' is interpreting it.

------
merraksh
Any field of science should be talked about by someone who has a deep
knowledge of that field. Unless he knows Evolutionary Psychology,
Anthropology, and Economics very well, making generic comments about all these
fields isn't a good way to prove his very point on science.

------
owenmarshall
This reminds me very much of Paul Lutus' essay "Is Psychology a Science"

<http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/index.html>

------
VladRussian
this is why you need to teach science in schools as early as possible and as
much as possible, so the people wouldn't need BS guides on distinguishing good
... err... there is no such thing as a "bad science" so just science from
anything else.

