
The impossibility—and the necessity—of distinguishing science from nonscience - howsilly
https://www.weeklystandard.com/daniel-sarewitz/all-ye-need-to-know
======
ttctciyf
On Hossenfelder's book, but not so much on the (IMO doomed) philosophical
project of logically demarcating some ideal notion of scientific practice, see
also mathematical physicist and long-time String skeptic Peter Woit's
review[1] which goes into some interesting details of her conversations and
comes with a copious and interesting comments section.

1:
[http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10314](http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10314)

------
spicymaki
Here is a link to an excellent discussion between Sabine Hossenfelder and
Julia Galef about this issue:
[http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs-211-sabine-
hoss...](http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs-211-sabine-hossenfelder-
on-the-case-against-beauty-in-phy.html)

------
cryoshon
a few interesting points here, but the author misunderstands one critical
idea: science is always wrong by design. this is why the author claims that
popper is irrelevant.

he doesn't understand what popper understood: each scientific experiment is an
asymptotic step towards a 100% accurate understanding of reality. that's it.

it doesn't matter if the experiment "failed" or succeeded, so long as it was
methodologically sound. you don't even need to understand that you're making
an asymptotic step at all! every element of a hypothesis built this way is
falsifiable by another such asymptotic step. note: falsifiable does not mean
that the entire hypothesis is discarded -- just one element.

is this process inherently self correcting? not on the timescale we'd like,
but ultimately, yes.

the current institutional problems with science are severe, but largely
inconsequential in the very long run of human knowledge. institutional science
as it is currently practiced is not the only "science" nor is it so flawed as
to be unworkable. simply put, problems of scientists and people performing
science can slow down the march of science, but it can't stop the production
of new knowledge.

the same goes for editorialization of findings, misuse of descriptive language
by scientists, misuse of quantitative models, etc. these are problems which
MIGHT cause a smaller number of asymptotic steps, but only on the scale of a
hundred years at the worst. we're in the game for thousands or maybe millions
of years. we have the time to make these mistakes and get over them. and
often, when we realize our mistakes, we make a ton of progress immediately
after.

so, then, what is science? an intentional use of objective methodology to
improve knowledge of reality.

------
andrewl
The topic itself is important, but I thought a few statements were subtle
attacks on the scientific community. Perhaps I'm too suspicious. But here are
the statements, with my italics emphasizing the key parts:

"In a time when expertise and science are _supposedly_ under attack, some
convincing way to make this distinction would seem to be of value."

It seems to me that science and rationality are under heavy attack in this
country, and the author is attempting to undermine that view.

"According to the New York Times, the Higgs discovery confirms “a grand view
of a universe described by simple and elegant and symmetrical laws—but one in
which everything interesting, like ourselves, results from flaws or breaks in
that symmetry.” _Whatever that means_ —but I’ll come back to the question of
meaning later."

I take _whatever that means_ as a dig at those highfalutin egghead scientists
and their mouthpiece, the _New York Times_ , who are trying to put something
over on us. It's unbecoming of an author who is himself a research scientist.

"But if all this activity is just self-correction in action, then why not call
_alchemy, astrology, phrenology, eugenics, and scientific socialism_ science
as well, because in their time, each was pursued with sincere conviction by
scientists who believed they were advancing reliable knowledge about the
world? On what basis should we say that the findings of science at any given
time really do bear a useful correspondence to reality? _When is it okay to
trust what scientists say?_ "

I see this as more undermining of science.

"What we nonexperts choose to believe about such matters will depend much more
on _whom we trust_ and what we find to be helpful than on what can be known to
be true."

Don't trust liberal scientists.

As I say, maybe I'm too suspicious, and this author has no agenda.

~~~
moduspol
It's from the Weekly Standard (a conservative opinion magazine). It certainly
has an agenda, but that doesn't mean it can't make valid points. And I think
it does.

------
madhadron
What makes something a science is actually a good question, and most
practicing scientists don't have a good answer for that because they have only
seen their own field, which is shaped by the peculiarities of its topic of
study. I didn't have a clear view until I had been through three or four
fields and spent several years resolving my mental dissonance.

I [wrote a book]([http://madhadron.com/into_the_sciences-
sample.html](http://madhadron.com/into_the_sciences-sample.html)) on the
structures I found. Sadly, I don't think it's an effective teaching tool. It's
made most people's eyes glaze over except for other people who have also
worked across different scientific fields who breezed through and say, "Yeah,
that's it exactly."

------
tpeo
_> Popper’s idea that scientific theories must be falsifiable has long been an
outdated philosophy. I am glad to hear this, as it’s a philosophy that nobody
in science ever could have used . . . since ideas can always be modified or
extended to match incoming evidence._

I don't know what is the context of this quote, but this sounds like a deep
misrepresentation of Popper's position. As far as I know, he explicitly
addresses the issue of ad hoc and auxiliary hypotheses. Unless this is part of
a bigger point about some the "fine-tuning" of theories i.e. just how much the
main proposition can be off the mark given the additional hypotheses.

------
08-15
> ecology, epidemiology, cultural anthropology, cognitive > psychology,
> biochemistry, macroeconomics, computer science, > and geology? Why do they
> all get to be called science?

They do?! Well, then the term "science" clearly means nothing anymore.

~~~
madhadron
On the contrary, it does mean something. It just doesn't mean "looks like
physics," which is actually a really strange science. Add musicology and
history to that list, too.

~~~
08-15
So, what does it mean?

As far as I understand, science means to have at least one theory with some
explanatory power, to test that theory by experiment, and, crucially, to
discard the theory if it is invalidated by experiment. That quite obviously
does not apply to many of those listed.

> Add musicology and history to that list, too.

History?! Well... nope, it isn't. I might change my mind if you (or anyone)
can come with a definition of "science" that includes history and doesn't also
include astrology, though.

~~~
madhadron
I wrote a book about it. :) See elsewhere in the comments.

The framework is a little more than a theory. The basic unit is some kind of
trial (experiment, observation), which is an attempt to adequately approximate
an idealized trial. Whether that approximation is adequate is a matter of
reasonable practice in a given time and setting. Trials produce values of some
kind of primitive notion: a velocity, a drawing of a typical dandelion. Then
you construct a formal system (a theory) that recapitulates the values of
primitive notions that emerge from trials.

History and musicology certainly fit this.

~~~
08-15
So do astrology and bioinformatics.

Let's look at (a particular application of) bioinformatics. I sequence the DNA
of a bunch of humans and a neanderthal. I apply some statistics and proclaim
that humans and neanderthals admixed. Later, I sequence more humans and
another neanderthal. Applying the same statistics, things look a bit messy
now. So I proclaim that there were two admixture events, but I also change the
estimated amount of admixture and pretend that this is still consistent with
the first claim. Years later, another genome, another admixture event, more
hand waving excuses for the numbers that don't seem to fit the big picture.

Is that science? Some kind of trial is there. It is appropriate given time and
setting. Some kind of value (a p-value) is produced. Even the theory is there,
even though calling it "formal" is a stretch. So this is science? I don't
think so.

~~~
madhadron
Yes, there's more to it, otherwise I would have written a blog post and not a
book.

------
mcguire
" _It’s one thing for theoretical physicists to chase the wrong theory about
fundamental particles for 25 years with nothing to show for it but high-
prestige publications. That’s fun._ "

 _Nothing_ to show for it? Nothing?

Supersymmetry is a very successful theory. Alzheimer's research had actually
learned a lot. Sure, there are a lot of problems with how science is done, but
there are a lot of problems work how anything is done.

If you go into science expecting that your theory is the perfect answer and
that anything else is failure, you are going to be disappointed.

~~~
Bartweiss
Those examples seriously undermined the article.

If you want to be annoyed that an MRI of a dead fish gets publishable results,
go ahead. I am too. But this very quickly took a detour into "sometimes
hypotheses are wrong, therefore science is stupid".

We haven't had 25 years of a wrong belief about Alzheimers, just 25 years of
"shit, this is hard to understand". And given the history of non-scientific-
theory medicine (we cured scurvy ~5 times before word got out), it still seems
like a winning score.

I know it's fair to criticize something without having a better solution, but
it's still jarring to see science attacked on topics where it has a better
track record than anything else ever devised.

~~~
extralego
I agree, but I won’t not disagree. We are due a resurgence in responsible
Hegelian dialectics, but it’s easier said than done. I think both arguments
fail the test in this case.

------
crazydoggers
I’m sorry, but why is the neo-con anti science article on HN?

The article is attempting to say that modern particle physics is not science
because there are a ton of failed experiments to find exotic particles and
test theories.

This is how science works!! Your doing science correctly if you fail a lot.
Yes it costs money to set up an experiment that fails to prove a hypothesis.
That’s just science.

Read more about “The Weekly Standard” here..

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weekly_Standard](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weekly_Standard)

Edit: Here’s an excerpt

“Of course the standard explanation of the difficulties with theoretical
physics would simply be that science advances by failing, that it is self-
correcting over time, and that all this flailing about is just what has to
happen when you’re trying to understand something hard. Some version of this
sort of failing-forward story is what Hossenfelder hears from many of her
colleagues. But if all this activity is just self-correction in action, then
why not call alchemy, astrology, phrenology, eugenics, and scientific
socialism science as well...”

Umm... seriously?

~~~
coldtea
> _I’m sorry, but why is the neo-con anti science article on HN?_

Knee-jerk labelling much? What exactly do you disagree with the article with
and why?

Reading things outside of one's echo chamber and comfort zone is not something
to be avoided. Even if it's something "anti-science" and "neo-con" \-- you get
to learn the ACTUAL points of anti-science people and neo-cons (as opposed to
just second-hand reading your favorite writers disparaging their claims)

~~~
crazydoggers
Okay, shall we upvote articles about how the earth is flat, or how evolution
is false? Those are outside the echo chamber.

How about considering if an article has points that are valid rather than nut
case propaganda.

~~~
coldtea
> _Okay, shall we upvote articles about how the earth is flat, or how
> evolution is false?_

Why not? The scientific method doesn't preclude anything a priori.

> _How about considering if an article has points that are valid rather than
> nut case propaganda._

Where is this consideration though? And where are the counter arguments? I
only see a quick labelling?

~~~
crazydoggers
> Why not? The scientific method doesn't preclude anything a priori.

You're right it doesn't. But my criteria for an interesting and worthwhile
article isn't one about crazy ideas that have been beaten to death 1000s of
times already. If HN front page had tons of those types of stories, no one
would come here!

------
crazydoggers
An actually question for HN readers. Why do we think this article is worth
discussing? Why shouldn’t we be discussing things like how maybe 2+2=4 might
not be correct?

This article is attempting to refute the value of the scientific method. Why
is science alone worthy of “debate” about if it’s useful or worthwhile or not?

Is it perhaps because science often makes statements about the world that
cause problems for those with an agenda?

If we discuss articles like this seriously (who’s “philosophy” has been
debunked 1000s of times already) then we’re giving voice and allowing doubt to
sow about science.

I’ll leave you with a quote from Carl Sagan...

“Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a
foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the
United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the
manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome
technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing
the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the
ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority;
when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our
critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good
and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and
darkness...”

Edit: Just because it's hidden in a comment below, I'm adding it here. Some
more examples of articles from The Weekly Standard to gauge whether they have
a political agenda or not:

Calling climate change a religion: [https://www.weeklystandard.com/irwin-m-
stelzer/the-sacred-sc...](https://www.weeklystandard.com/irwin-m-stelzer/the-
sacred-science)

Some Hawking bashing about climate change:
[https://www.weeklystandard.com/nathan-cofnas/dadaist-
science](https://www.weeklystandard.com/nathan-cofnas/dadaist-science)

Or how about some Bill Nye bashing: [https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-
scrapbook/bill-nye-the-qu...](https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-
scrapbook/bill-nye-the-quisling-guy)

An attempt to show that Democrats are astrologers:
[https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-scrapbook/anti-science-
li...](https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-scrapbook/anti-science-liberals)

This list goes on...

~~~
torpidor
Although you present it as ridiculous, whether or not 2+2=4 is actually a
serious topic among mathematicians. The search term you are looking for is
"alternative axiomatic set theories". The alternatives may or may not be
useful, but a lot of math we use today was not originally useful and it's a
good thing people worked on it.

I understand that you are concerned about a general distrust of science that
stands in the way of human progress. I am too. But this distrust is only
partly caused by "those with an agenda". The other part is that science is
sometimes oversold by zealous adherents. Then, when the results are more
moderate, people feel lied to and they grow distrust. Being more critical
about science, far from being the problem, is actually the solution to the
problem you are concerned about.

Elsewhere in the thread the question of eugenics etc have been raised. And I
understand you know they are psuedo-science etc., but without you personally
labeling all the pseudoscientists how is someone supposed to tell the
difference? (And if there's an oracle who can tell us what is true or false we
can just use that, we don't need science.)

A more modern example might be this paper:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26834996](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26834996).
tl;dr it is a quite well-designed, peer-reviewed meta-analysis published in
the _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology_ from a credible researcher
who concludes that precognition exists (which is ESP, basically). Now
obviously that is bullshit, but A) isn't it a little backwards to say
something is obviously bullshit when it has strong evidence behind it, B) if
obvious bullshit can make it through the scientific process what does that say
about the usefulness of that process?

The scientific method _as it is practiced_ is deeply flawed. It is operated by
fallible humans, funded (or not) to advance an agenda, and so on. At various
times it has been the scientific view that the sun revolves around the earth,
that electricity exists in two fluids, that flies are spontaneously generated
from rotting meat, and on and on. Modern times are actually the golden era for
scientific acceptance and its influence on human lives, and yet it is those
same scientific discoveries – the combustion engine, atomic bomb, antibiotics
and mass communication technology – that threaten our civilization.

Being critical of the scientific method is not only important, it is
necessary. The temptation throughout human history is to find some "holy
grail" that will lift humanity beyond its current vantage point. Once upon a
time this was _actually_ a holy grail, but in modern times science – perhaps
due to its effectiveness – has often captured this slot in human psychology.
But a grail science is not; it's a human system with human triumphs and human
weaknesses and the sooner we get a realistic picture of that, the better for
learning how to use it to achieve our objectives effectively.

~~~
08-15
> credible researcher who concludes that precognition exists

See, that's exactly what Popper referred to when he said that theories cannot
be confirmed, only rejected. Simplified to that extent, it's not nearly
correct, but apparently we need to simplify it even more to get through the
thick skulls of people like Bem.

The theory Bem et.al. refuted is "ESP doesn't exist and if ESP does not exist,
there is no effect in these experiments." That's a much bigger theory than
"ESP doesn't exist". And indeed, every single time somebody purported to have
evidence for ESP, it turned that the typically tiny effect was a flaw in the
experimental design, be that due to fraud or incompetence.

> obviously that is bullshit

No, not at all. Nothing is obvious. It's bullshit by sound reasoning.

There aren't just two theories that are competing here ("ESP" and "no ESP").
There's also "this researcher is incompetent", "this researcher is a fraud",
"these statistical methods are useless", "I'm high on crack and none of this
real", etc. A priori, "ESP" and "no ESP" might be the most believable among
those, but all the past evidence points strongly towards a combination of
"this researcher is incompetent" and "these statistical methods are useless".
That's why we can say that this is bullshit and not feel bad about it.

> if obvious bullshit can make it through the scientific process

A pay-to-play journal like F1000Research is part of the scientific process?
That may be where your confusion comes from.

~~~
torpidor
> but all the past evidence points strongly towards a combination of "this
> researcher is incompetent" and "these statistical methods are useless".

Your arguments seem to be based in unfamiliarity with the paper. Bem is an
extremely well-regarded researcher in social psychology, he has hundreds of
papers, several of which are seminal in the field and boast thousands of
citations (this paper in particular has a citation score of 700+). Moreover
this is a meta-analysis, not his own study.

While there has been some chatter about the statistical methods in those 700
citations, the fact is the methods are a lot better than the average social
psychology paper (and this paper has attracted extraordinary scrutiny for the
obvious reason). So if there is a problem in the paper (and of course there
must be) there is a much larger problem in the standard practices in the
field.

> pay-to-play journal like F1000Research

The original paper was published in the _Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology_
([https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vd-Z7x...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vd-Z7xDcvxwJ:https://prevention.ucsf.edu/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/2011/02/bem2011.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)) but their
website is down

> every single time somebody purported to have evidence for ESP, it turned
> that the typically tiny effect was a flaw in the experimental design, be
> that due to fraud or incompetence.

This is incorrect for the simple reason that it is much easier to make claims
than it is to investigate them, and therefore, _not all claims can be
investigated_. Perhaps you meant to say that of the proper subset of things we
_investigated_ turned out to be methodologically flawed, but then we have
situations like the present paper, which somehow got through peer review. Of
course we can continue to poke at it until we find what is wrong since we
"know" it "has to to be there", but if science only produces the correct
answer when we make it match the answer in the back of the textbook, it
doesn't seem a good method for finding anything out.

------
matthewmacleod
This article is literal nonsense from start to finish without a single
compelling or novel point.

~~~
crazydoggers
I’m actually starting to worry about how much of this type of anti science
stuff is getting pushed. It really feels like a campaign of some sort.

~~~
aldoushuxley001
I'm more worried about the science zealots who try to push some faux purity
test on legitimate scientific pursuits

~~~
crazydoggers
Can you give me an example? Is intelligent design your example of legitimate
scientific pursuits?

~~~
dang
You're way overposting in this thread and turning it into a mediocre flamewar.
Please stop. We don't need bickering about 'intelligent design' or 'Bill Nye'.
Those topics are extremely well covered elsewhere, and HN is for things that
haven't been repeated a million times. Let me put it this way: if it would
sound repetitive on Reddit, it's definitely off topic for HN.

It's clear you didn't like the article, and that was clear a dozen or two
comments ago.

~~~
crazydoggers
You’re right. I’m sorry. I’ve spoken with the moderators and won’t continue. I
did flag the article now, not because I didn’t like it, but because I
genuinely think it’s off topic and meant to insight political flame wars. I
also genuinely want HN users to be aware of subtle disinformation campaigns
that seem to be growing in social media from the alt-right.

Sorry for exacerbating it. Won’t happen again.

