
People have no idea which sciences are robust - frostmatthew
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/people-have-no-idea-which-sciences-are-robust/
======
throw_away_777
I really wish "data" journalism did a better job of conveying uncertainty. It
is incredibly common to see comments like such-and-such increased 10%, without
any comment on what the number of such-and-such actually was or if the 10%
change was statistically significant. Likewise journalists often make claims
that are not supported by the research. Scientists don't have the reach to
describe their results to the public, news organizations need to do a better
job of conveying the results accurately.

------
jgeada
Also related, people need to understand what "wrong" means in the context of
sciences. In many cases, wrong is merely that our model improved, but the old
model was still perfectly adequate for most practical purposes. Isaac Asimov
wrote a wonderful essay on the subject:

[http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm](http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm)

------
msandford
Physics and chemistry are pretty robust, everything else is far squishier.
It's pretty easy to get identical atoms or molecules or subatomic particles.
It's much harder to grow a field of identical plants or raise hundreds of
identical mice.

~~~
0x445442
Agreed, from a Physicist's perspective, Darwin's Theory is extremely
"squishy".

~~~
ealloc
My impression is that physicists who say this usually don't know much about
the theory and evidence for evolution. (I am trained in physics, I now do
biophysics).

What about the beautiful and often very precise linear relationship between
radioactive dating of the fossil record, and genetic dating using the
molecular clock?

What about the beatiful correspondence often found between the principle
components of genetic variation and geographical position (isolation by
distance)?

What about all the biochemical discoveries related to DNA function (including
the existence of DNA itself), how mutations occur, about heritability?

What about everything we've discovered about genome composition and how it
changes over time? (duplicate genes, pseudogenes, transposons, hotspots of
various kinds).

Is a DNA sequence less precise than a spectral line?

~~~
xaa
(Bioinformatics) I wonder if he means not that evolution is
false/unfalsifiable/irreproducible, but that it is not really a very
predictive theory. I agree there is a lot of evidence that it happened and
continues to happen, but predicting _how_ it will happen, i.e., how an
organism will evolve, what genes will mutate etc, in a certain environment, is
very difficult and really basically impossible.

> What about the beatiful correspondence often found between the principle
> components of genetic variation and geographical position (isolation by
> distance)?

Funny you mention this. There is a student I work with trying to observe this
with metagenomics data with much less success than you might imagine.

~~~
magicalist
> _but predicting how it will happen, i.e., how an organism will evolve, what
> genes will mutate etc, in a certain environment, is very difficult and
> really basically impossible._

By that measure physics isn't predictive either. Any moderately complex system
and the best we can do is statistical models, often with little to no
predictive power.

~~~
godelski
Statistical models doesn't mean that there is no predictive power.

If we look at a (perfectly random) coin flip we can predict a 50% chance of
heads. We can also predict the likelihood of distributions of values over x
flips. If the system we are modeling is inherently statistical we would expect
our prediction to be statistical.

You are also confusing the fact that the stuff in physics that isn't
statistical in nature has extreme precision. Think of how well we know the
orbits of planets.

~~~
xaa
Your overall point is correct, but I would add that there is no such thing as
a non-statistical model or prediction in any science or aspect of physical
reality IMO. For two reasons: A) reality is inherently statistical at the
quantum level, and B) measurement error will always exist.

Thus even our models of planetary orbits are statistical. The inverse-square
law, GM1M2/r^2, even if it perfectly describes reality (probably, but not
entirely certain! see [1]), will have some degree of measurement error in M1,
M2, and r (not to mention G) and so the resulting Fg will be a distribution,
not a single number technically speaking.

It seems that the situations where physics can best describe things with very
high accuracy is when it can abstract away many relatively homogeneous
particles or entities into a bigger "thing" with aggregate properties. For
example, in fluid dynamics or gravity, you don't attempt to determine the
behavior of individual particles, which would be subject to enormous
uncertainty, only the behavior of the system-as-a-whole. By the law of large
numbers then the uncertainties decrease dramatically.

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

~~~
godelski
Yes, but you're implying "predictive" means 100% accurate. No science, no
math, no language, will ever be 100% accurate. We say things have predictive
power if we can, to a reasonable degree, if our results reflect our
prediction. This is definitely true. And most those equations involve a pi. Pi
doesn't have an end. There is ALWAYS and WILL ALWAYS be some uncertainty to
our predictions. But is it that big of a deal if we can predict a planet's
location down to the nm? Would you even say that it isn't predictive if we
were off by 10km? No, you wouldn't. Because it is a planet and if you are
looking for a planet and off by 10km you will still find the planet because
the error is small. It would also be unreasonable to calculate the location of
a planet down to the plank scale.

And to your mention of everything being statistical because quantum, well
there's a reason Newton's methods didn't require them to be powerful (useful
or predictive). Because the likelihood of quantum like events happening on a
macro scale is basically zero. Sure, your hand could quantum tunnel through a
wall, but would we ever expect to see it within the lifetime of the universe?

We're talking about the relativity of wrong here[1]. Physics wouldn't have
become so popular if it wasn't predictive. We don't need to be 100% to be
predictive nor useful. Accuracy and predictiveness are two different things.

[1]
[http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm](http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm)

~~~
xaa
> Yes, but you're implying "predictive" means 100% accurate.

No, I'm not. Or I didn't intend to, in fact I intended quite the opposite. I
completely agree that "wrongness" is relative. "Wrongness" could be more
accurately described as the amount of variance in a predictive model plus that
model's divergence from reality.

My point was that all models and predictions are statistical/probabilistic,
but not all have even the same order of magnitude of error. For shorthand, we
pretend that models with very low variance/error are "exact" solutions, but in
actual reality, they are not, they are just solutions that have a negligible
error rate for the purpose at hand.

I am not implying anything like "well, psychology and physics both have
probabilistic models, so they're equally valid". Their variance and error rate
are very far apart. I agree physics is very predictive and has high accuracy
but it is still probabilistic.

~~~
godelski
> My point was that all models and predictions are statistical/probabilistic,
> but not all have even the same order of magnitude of error.

Definitely not. The models used in undergraduate physics classes, or even to
high school physics are not statistical. A good example is ohm's law. When
building circuits this is necessary to use. Works just great. Now this is
different from any attempts at GUT, but that's a different ball game. And
those are different models.

> For shorthand, we pretend that models with very low variance/error are
> "exact" solutions

Maybe the public, but not the actual scientists. For shorthand we generally
say "is" instead of "to an error we can't measure" because it is easier to
say. But if you read the research papers errors are always included. But
that's just language. Doing otherwise would be pedantic. Yes, the public gets
confused, but for all they are concerned with these predictions might as well
be "exact". When the public starts venturing out of their realm without
learning they get confused with other more important ideas like "observer" and
"information". Don't get me started on how many people believe stupid quantum
stuff.

> they are just solutions that have a negligible error rate for the purpose at
> hand.

This demonstrates that you understand my point too. Or that you don't
understand what negligible is. But I think you understand. At a certain point
we stop worrying. Why would you care if you could predict the location of a
planet down to the 10^-40m? I get doing it just for fun and because you want
to, but there is no practical purpose. Anything this accurate might as well be
exact.

~~~
xaa
> The models used in undergraduate physics classes, or even to high school
> physics are not statistical.

You are correct insofar as they are not _presented_ as being statistical. But
in reality, they are. Ohm's law is a good example. Resistors in reality do not
have the exact resistance specified on the package, but rather are constructed
within a certain tolerance, so that the final behavior of the circuit will be,
again, a distribution. This would be an example of measurement error. The
quantum effects also exist, as Intel will affirm as they are trying to build
very small transistors, and the behavior of such transistors is probabilistic.

> Maybe the public, but not the actual scientists...

Ehh, I'm an "actual scientist". I work in bioinformatics & medical research. I
don't care about what the public thinks for the purposes of this conversation.
Even actual scientists will sometimes use this shorthand if the error is small
enough, which is fine by me.

> At a certain point we stop worrying...but there is no practical purpose.

You're right. When we talk about the error rate in predicting planetary
orbits, there is no practical purpose. My only point in my original reply was
that the "exact" is a special case and a simplification of the statistical
model, which is ubiquitous. If we are wanting to be technically correct,
however, I stand by my assertion that all physical laws are inherently
statistical.

I think we don't really disagree. This all started because you asserted there
are phenomena which are "not statistical in nature", which I disagree with at
a pedantic level.

~~~
godelski
> which I disagree with at a pedantic leve

I think we'll agree there. Because while you are technically correct you
aren't practically.

Like how the Newtonian equations taught to undergrads literally don't have
statistics. It isn't that it isn't presented to them that way, it is that they
are using a different model. Going through physics (because this is the
experience I have) you just keep learning better and better models.

As for Intel, you're confusing micro and macro scales. With the ohm's law you
just measure the resistor before applying. This would be common procedure,
depending on application. But this conversation is really arguing extremely
fine points.

------
drallison
The sample studied by Broomell and Kane contained 217 people! While the
results may be "interesting" and "evocative", the size of the sample really
does not allow any conclusions to be drawn. The arstechnica post ignores the
details; read the original paper.

~~~
DrScump
An _online_ survey at that, meaning that they can't even properly gauge if
that sample was representative at all.

------
jbapple
Some sciences are not robust because they are hard to make robust. In
contrast, forensic science, the example given in this article as perceived by
the public as robust, seems to be set up by the government's criminal justice
apparatus to ensure that the state imprisons and executes as many people as
possible. Examples of impossible and absurd forensic science include the
results of James Grigson, Pamela Fish, Annie Dookhan, Michael West, Steven
Hayne, John Preston, and FBI hair analysis.

For example, Steven Hayne claimed that he could tell from a bullet wound that
more than one person was holding the gun. John Preston claimed his dog could
track a human scent on a street after a hurricane. Annie Dookhan and Pamela
Fish falsified drug and DNA tests.

------
andrewclunn
Ironically, polling and association studies like this would be something I'd
classify as low precision.

------
charles-salvia
The article attributes a lot of the results to the perception of varying
degrees of precision in these various fields, but a lot of the results are
also explainable via US politics. Words like "climate change", and by
extension "climatology", are so politically charged that tribalism usually
kicks in when many people hear these terms. A similar thing happens with
evolution, however there is also a religious dimension there alongside the
political dimension.

------
II2II
The author spends a lot of time talking about precision and seems surprised
that people think astrophysics is imprecise. Much of astrophysics is
imprecise, and one result builds upon another to that imprcision propagates.

Of course the redeeming quality of astrophysics is that many of the
uncertanties are easy to quantify, so at least we can say how well we know
what we know.

------
d-sc
It's interesting how there is likely more people reading this from hackernews
than the 217 people surveyed in the study.

------
alganet
People have no idea what science is

~~~
saycheese
Okay, what is science?

~~~
alganet
I like the definition that Carl Sagan presented on Cosmos:

> It is, so far, entirely a human invention, evolved by natural selection in
> the cerebral cortex for one simple reason: it works. It is not perfect. It
> can be misused. It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool we have,
> self-correcting, ongoing, applicable to everything. It has two rules. First:
> there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined;
> arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent
> with the facts must be discarded or revised.

~~~
saycheese
Feels to me as if to you science means "Be truthful."

Am I missing something?

~~~
alganet
It is less about truth, more about the process of trying to find it.

~~~
saycheese
Think we agree, just semantics at this point and me trying to simplify the
expression. Thanks!

------
77pt77
lowdown:

> The fields that were labelled as “least precise” were psychology and
> evolution. Also on this end of the scale were economics, climate science,
> and—wait for it—astrophysics. On the other end, forensics was perceived as
> the field with the highest level of precision, followed by aerospace
> engineering.

> They also note that classing medical research, seismology, and nuclear
> engineering at roughly similar levels of precision is giving a bit too much
> credit to seismology and medical research.

------
pdkl95
(I've posted this before, but it's very relevant to this topic)

Learning to filter guesswork and scams from robust claims is easily the most
important skill that the general pubic needs to learn. It's hard to progress
in any other topic if you don't understand the basic methods for filtering
good information from the many mistakes, misinterpretations, scams and other
bad data.

Democracy and modern civilization itself requires at least some understanding
of the scientific method. Sagan's warning in "The Demon-Haunted World"[1] was
frighteningly prescient:

    
    
        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...
    

Until the public "baloney detection kit"[2] (and uses it regularly), trying to
teach other topics is probably a waste of time, especially when you aren't
even speaking the same language[3].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-
Haunted_World](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World)

[2] [https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-
detection-k...](https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-
kit-carl-sagan/)

[3] [http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-
resi...](http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resistance-
of-s/)

~~~
dsjoerg
"easily the most important skill that the general pubic needs to learn" <\--
important for who, them or you?

~~~
pm90
For everyone. Witch-hunts and human sacrifices were believed to help with
getting better harvests and they did not. And yet they were believed for
thousands of years before we finally understood and adopted the scientific
method. If you do not try to understand the causes of your problems, it
becomes very hard to effectively find solutions as well.

------
NikolaeVarius
IMO the "March for Science" movement and these kinds of "People who don't vote
the same as me do so because they're not as smart as me" kinds of things are
starting to really annoy me.

Science is a tool/process. Not an agenda. Everyone in their own heads will
choose whether or not to believe something regardless of how much SCIENCE they
shout. The same people who yell SCIENCE on the internet could be the same
people who turn around and claim that weight and calories are independent of
each other, no matter how much that doesn't make sense.

~~~
nickpinkston
Sure the SCIENCE crowd can be a bit much, but science has an "agenda" of
finding the truth and making that knowledge useful for people.

That has clear political ramifications: climate change, pollution, GMO foods,
heliocentric solar system, etc. Science may not have an agenda (ish?), but it
does support/detract from others agendas.

Humanism is likely the agenda of the marchers, and their aesthetics/ethics are
informed by "science".

