How much can we trust science?

[Mock Turtle]

Science can also create 'objective' truths that cause great harms.

Scientific racialist theories, eugenics, homosexuality as a 'mental illness', etc. weren't 'misuses' of science they were mainstream 'objective' concepts that influenced the world in a negative manner.

Well the history of science, and many other related fields, are littered with mistakes (as might be expected given that knowledge is often related to the tools and ideas available), but they tend to get corrected a lot faster than those in religious doctrines - being tied to their past origins - so which has the better mechanisms for correction?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

On balance this is obviously true, but there is a not insignificant percentage of the time when it is untrue.

When it comes to finding out how stuff in the universe works (which is what science is all about), it is always true.

At best, the scientist makes no progress and nothing is accomplished by either side.
But nobody ever figured out a natural phenomenon by sitting on their knees and asking their god for the answer.

As well as the being the best tools we have to gain understanding of certain parts of the world around us, the sciences are also a major source of false information/anti-knowledge.

This anti-knowledge often cause tangible harms, and the act of creating it may be worse than doing nothing.

Can you be a little less vague?

Also many scientists work on things that are not beneficial to society, from biological weapons to food additives to polluting chemicals to techniques to manipulate our thought or actions against our interests.

That's engineering.
Weapon designers need scientists to figure out how atoms work, before they can create a nuclear bomb.

I'm not talking about practical applications of technology. I'm talking about the figuring out how stuff works, which underpins technologies.

So while the sciences are obviously a net benefit for society, they do also cause a sizeable amount of harm.

I heavily disagree.
People applying scientific knowledge, can cause harm.

Big difference.

People didn't have to create a nuke with the knowledge they gained about atoms.
People didn't have to create biological weapons with the knowledge they gained from bacteria and virusses.

This is like blaming people who came up with the knowledge of extracting ore from rock "because swords".

 

[Augustus]

Humans have to create those. Genetics and biology are what they are. People have to decide certain people are unworthy and twist eugenics into forced sterilization and oppression. Homosexuality as a mental disorder didn't have solid evidence to support it, and was discarded. Racial theories are not supported by facts, but only speculations passed down from cultures and times that did not have the means or abilities to test these claims and further investigate them.

Whether scientific beliefs are later discarded or updated doesn't magically remove the harm they have caused or remove their presence from society.

Racialism, eugenics, etc were considered proper science at the time. Eugenics was even very popular among progressive intellectuals.

And, no, science does not create truths or proofs. It helps us to objectively understand the world, but proofs and such things are the realm of math. Science is observations and explanations and it uses math to give us formulae to support the explanations. None of that is telling us what to do with it.

As I said, I'm not treating science as a normative abstraction that exists in a nice, neat, perfectly textbook manner. It is a real-word human activity with real-world consequences as scientists are creators of 'truths' that have major impacts on human behaviour.

Should we ignore the fact that the sciences frequently produce incorrect information, or harmful ideas or 'products'? Seems very unscientific to me.

 

[Augustus]

When it comes to finding out how stuff in the universe works (which is what science is all about), it is always true.

At best, the scientist makes no progress and nothing is accomplished by either side.

Findings in biology, medicine, psychology and other social sciences are not 'always true'.

Can you be a little less vague?

In many fields the majority of published findings are false (or at least a very high %).

Psychology, medicine, neuroscience, economics, etc are major examples.

This false information influences human behaviour, government policy, etc. and may cause harm.

That's engineering.
Weapon designers need scientists to figure out how atoms work, before they can create a nuclear bomb.

I'm not talking about practical applications of technology. I'm talking about the figuring out how stuff works, which underpins technologies.

Most scientist work for companies and organisations that do stuff, they don't live in ivory towers performing pure and noble feats of perfect reason.

They also have their own needs, wants, biases, motivations, pressures, etc.

I heavily disagree.
People applying scientific knowledge, can cause harm.

Big difference.

People didn't have to create a nuke with the knowledge they gained about atoms.
People didn't have to create biological weapons with the knowledge they gained from bacteria and virusses.

The scientists who performed cutting-edge scientific research as part of the Manhattan Project to develop a nuke, were trying to create a nuke as well as advancing the state of scientific knowledge.

Personally, I don't understand the need to treat science as a purely normative construct that in no way reflects the reality of how the sciences are human activities that significantly impact the world we live in to both positive and negative ends.

 

[metis]

Science tends to be self-correcting over time.

 

[Augustus]

Science tends to be self-correcting over time.

Some sciences do, others not so much.

 

[metis]

Some sciences do, others not so much.

Which supposedly aren't?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Whether scientific beliefs are later discarded or updated doesn't magically remove the harm they have caused or remove their presence from society.

Knowing of DNA can cause now harm. Explaining it causes no harm. Because it's just there. Like a star or a tree.
What humans do with, that is another issue.
Like a nail gun, the tool itself is just a tool and does nothing. The individual user can build a house or do copycat ******* stunts.

 

[Augustus]

Knowing of DNA can cause now harm. Explaining it causes no harm. Because it's just there. Like a star or a tree.
What humans do with, that is another issue.

We know exactly what humans are going to do with it though, and this will certainly cause harm, possibly less harm than benefit, possibly not.

Especially something like DNA, where people gain the ability to monkey around with it, long before they fully understand it.

To me it makes no sense to pretend we can abstract human activities from human society and evaluate them without recourse to real life.

So, in real life, the sciences are a net benefit for society, they do also cause a sizeable amount of harm.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We know exactly what humans are going to do with it though

You have a crystal ball?

To me it makes no sense to pretend we can abstract human activities from human society and evaluate them without recourse to real life.

Gravity just exists. You can take advantage and throw someone off a building, but that's not what gravity is. It just exist. It is nothing of gravity to blame that some humans have used its effect as an execution means. Bombs, however, don't just exist. They were created by humans. They also created Social Darwinism. DNA, however, is just there.

 

[Augustus]

You have a crystal ball?

Gravity just exists. You can take advantage and throw someone off a building, but that's not what gravity is. It just exist. It is nothing of gravity to blame that some humans have used its effect as an execution means. Bombs, however, don't just exist. They were created by humans. They also created Social Darwinism. DNA, however, is just there.

Give humans the ability to manipulate DNA and they will try to manipulate DNA, nothing is more certain.

This is why it's pointless to try to pretend the total of human activities and knowledge that constitute the sciences can be neatly isolated from every other form of human activity.

 

[Augustus]

Which supposedly aren't?

Am not sure many of the social sciences are 'self-correcting'. The signal/noise ratio is probably becoming more unfavourable over time.

 

[metis]

Am not sure many of the social sciences are 'self-correcting'.

I'm an anthropologist, now retired, and no group is studied by just one person alone. On top of that, scientific papers must be put in peer-reviewed forms, thus any other anthropologist can peruse and make comments based on questions they may have or areas of possible disagreement. I worked on one such study decades ago, and it's remarkable all the hoops and cross-checks we had to go through, and then after we were done ya wait for the reactions.

The signal/noise ratio is probably becoming more unfavourable over time.

I don't know what you mean by this.

 

[cladking]

I'm an anthropologist, now retired, and no group is studied by just one person alone. On top of that, scientific papers must be put in peer-reviewed forms, thus any other anthropologist can peruse and make comments based on questions they may have or areas of possible disagreement. I worked on one such study decades ago, and it's remarkable all the hoops and cross-checks we had to go through, and then after we were done ya wait for the reactions.

"Peer review" makes nothing at all self correcting.

Peer review merely assures the status quo is respected.

 

[cladking]

I don't know what you mean by this.

He means it's getting worse; more noise, less signal and I agree with him.

Where there is ample anthropological evidence ancient people and culture are well understood. But this applies to nothing and nobody before 2000 BC. There is far too little data and too much status quo and other sorts of "noise" to understand cavefolk. There is no reason to believe we know anything about the origins of agriculture or early cities and societies. There are all mere constructs based on later peoples and little data.

 

[metis]

"Peer review" makes nothing at all self correcting.

Peer review merely assures the status quo is respected.

Absolutely false, and one can see this rather clearly if one has a subscription to "Scientific American", whereas some articles will counter certain other articles on either specific parts or on an overall analysis. Also, near the front there's a place for comments by some researchers on some other's research, and they often can be quite biting.

I personally was involved in this process, plus I still read research regularly, thus I know all you are doing is fabricating a conspiracy theory. Maybe you're into "status quo", but we certainly ain't.

 

[cladking]

"Peer review" makes nothing at all self correcting.

Social "sciences" are not sciences and not self correcting. The fact that we sometimes find egregious errors in them does not mean they are approaching the truth, merely that some parts have been discovered to be wholly wrong. In all sciences perspective and assumptions are important but cause and effect can not be determined by just "looking and seeing". Without experiment we see our models preferentially to reality itself.

 

[metis]

Where there is ample anthropological evidence ancient people and culture are well understood. But this applies to nothing and nobody before 2000 BC. There is far too little data and too much status quo and other sorts of "noise" to understand cavefolk. There is no reason to believe we know anything about the origins of agriculture or early cities and societies. There are all mere constructs based on later peoples and little data.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Yes, there are limitations the further we go back in time, plus the amount of available information is certainly not always the same, but we use forensics much the same way detectives use them to gain evidence and, sometimes, convictions on that basis alone.

Much of the research is put in hypotheses forms, thus subject for further review and other possible evidence.

 

[metis]

Social "sciences" are not sciences and not self correcting. The fact that we sometimes find egregious errors in them does not mean they are approaching the truth, merely that some parts have been discovered to be wholly wrong. In all sciences perspective and assumptions are important but cause and effect can not be determined by just "looking and seeing". Without experiment we see our models preferentially to reality itself.

See above.

 

[cladking]

Absolutely false, and one can see this rather clearly if one has a subscription to "Scientific American", whereas some articles will counter certain other articles on either specific parts or on an overall analysis. Also, near the front there's a place for comments by some researchers on some other's research, and they often can be quite biting.

They were a great magazine many years ago.

I don't remember them running many articles about the social sciences even in more modern times. Many individuals can look at experimental design and pick out the flaws and compare those flaws to the results in meaningful ways. But the fact no one finds a flaw or that the results look right does not necessarily mean that the replicable experiment perfectly reflects reality. Peer review of statistics and observation will always tend to reflect the models of peers. Peers and educated people will spot methodological errors but will not always be able to see errors founded in definitions and theory.

I have a great deal of respect for peers and all knowledge but this respect never includes their beliefs.

I personally was involved in this process, plus I still read research regularly, thus I know all you are doing is fabricating a conspiracy theory. Maybe you're into "status quo", but we certainly ain't.

There is a "conspiracy" of belief. Everybody believes the same things and based in the same thinking in the same mutually translatable languages. They use the same models based in the same observations and definitions. It is these models at fault since there is no "conspiracy" to be wrong or to mislead people. I suppose one could say the models are at fault because so many things are "obvious" to everybody that these "observations" are never tested or analyzed. Even without such errors caused by what's obvious we still think the same way and still use induction based on language and we still compare all sensory input to models we all share.

There are millions of examples where "science" went wrong. Progress is always the exception rather than the rule. Today we are stuck in place by semantics.