Scientists Know Better Then You. Even When They’re Wrong. May 12, 2008
Posted by BrewFan in News.trackback
When I first saw the headline, I did a mental double-take. Its not as bad as it sounds and it is interesting. Wrong, but interesting. The notion there is an ‘authority of science’ is just weird. He does rip Richard Dawkins a new one which is nice.
Read the article. You’ll be glad you did.
I don’t think you can apply the lessons learned from a group of gravitational physicists to “science” at large. Very, very few disciplines follow the rigor of physics, and that leads to their downfall.
When I was a lad, I was taught (with only a bit of tongue-in-cheekedness) that only physicists and chemists were scientists, and astrophysicists were marginal. Among biologists, only some molecular biologists were scientists. So social scientists, zoologists, astronomers, anthropologists, botanists, environmental scientists, nutritional scientists, and the rest of biologists weren’t really scientists.
So the lessons this fellow claims to have learned (which didn’t seem awfully profound) don’t really apply to 90% of the people calling themselves scientists.
But geoff, he did an experiment! Don’t you dare question him!
Did you even understand what the point of the “I walk the talk” stuff was? I couldn’t see how that was very compelling at all - it’s not nearly enough to be able to sling jargon; you’ve got to create a body of work as well. Your credibility and authority as a scientist stems not only from your ability to interact with the community (which actually isn’t 100% necessary), but from the quality and importance of your research.
So what was his point again?
He wasn’t saying that he had credibility as a scientist. He was just demonstrating the usefulness of maximizing your skill ranks in bullshit.
Also, the chemists I have seen in action are complete strangers to the concept of scientific rigor.
O/T: Prince Caspian comes out this weekend!!! I am so there.
He was just demonstrating the usefulness of maximizing your skill ranks in bullshit.
I thought his claim was stronger than that - that he was claiming that the BS ability gave you access to the social group and the “tacit knowledge” of a field. That in turn gives you the ability and right to contribute to a field.
Complete crap.
I didn’t think he was going all the way to actually contributing work, although he did seem to be implying that merely being able to BS gives you the ability to discern which scientists are “right.” Which is itself BS.
I also thought his remark about ordinary people being unable to understand science was really snotty. I happen to think that ordinary people are perfectly capable of understanding the basic concepts. It’s just a matter of being willing to listen and finding someone who is willing to explain.
I didn’t think he was going all the way to actually contributing work,
Well, I’m using this Q&A to form my impression:
In the corporate world, managers are often expected to “walk the talk”.
e.g. a manager at a software company might have an MBA and no programming experience, yet still be able to talk sensibly about compilers, builds, source control, and the like.
Scientific rigor is not necessarily restricted to any field, but it can be as a matter of practice.
History can be based on sound science. Form a hypothesis, gather evidence, reach a conclusion, subject your data to scrutiny, and modify your analysis as new data emerges.
But the science of history can differ from the “hard” sciences in a number of ways. First, the data can’t always be measured in numbers. In chemistry, you can test the boiling point of a liquid and get a precise measurement every time. In history, even when it is possible to quantify the data (for example, historians believe that informants routinely inflated the size of medieval armies in central asia), it is not possible to quantify the “whys” the make historical inquiry interesting. Second, the data necessarily has gaping holes. Whereas mathematical proofs can be reproduced on any given day, historical data only exists if someone recorded it. And if someone recorded it accurately.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the science of history is subject to the abuse of ego and professional reputation. But I include this is a separate paragraph because the same is true of the physics and mathematics departments.
Bascially, scientific rigor is not the exclusive province of what we normally call “scientists,” at least not necessarily so. But as to whether that rigor is applied depends on the frequently-not-at-all-rigorous human beings in any given department.
I think the law is the antithesis of scientific rigor. The question is almost never “what do the data say and how do we interpret them,” but “what did we do last time, and did it work?” Any new case that comes in, any new legal issue that comes up, the fundamental question for attorneys and judges is always “what did we do last time.”
If you want to change the course of the law, you always start with a description of the past and explain why it has not worked in practice, or would not work in this particular case.
Even when the question is “what do the data say,” as in the context of a law review article on, for example, recidivism among shoplifters, the author won’t stop at simply describing the numbers — a lawyer then proposes a change in the law to obtain a better result. Increase maximum sentences for shoplifters to reduce the recidivism rate through greater deterrence. Decrease maximum sentences so shoplifters can get decent jobs after punishment and they won’t be forced to shoplifting. But there is no scientific rigor in the proposals; at most it is in the merely prefatory introduction.
When I was reading my wife’s algebra book maybe a year ago, I noticed it had some interesting parallels to my books from law school. In each case, the book presented a “rule,” whether it was a(b + c) = ab +ac or the four elements of negligence are breach of a duty causing damages. At the end of the chapter there are a series of problems, the first of which tests your basic knowledge of the rule, and the last of which try to expand into grey areas so you can test for yourself the boundaries of the rule in increasingly difficult situations.
Scientific rigor is not necessarily restricted to any field, but it can be as a matter of practice.
Well, there’s rigor, and there’s rigor. You’re describing rigor as informed by the scientific method taught in grade school. That’s nothing like real scientific rigor.
Let’s fight about it.
“Rigor” is more a descriptor of the formalism, intensity, and quality of the application of the scientific method. In disciplines that don’t have a decent formalism (like all social sciences), it’s not really possible to talk about scientific rigor.
History as science? Well that right there is blasphemy, that’s what that is.
I see you’re avoiding the pertinent question.
Which is: when and where do you intend to meet me to fight about it?
I don’t look at it as fighting - I look at it as reeducation. More of a public service than a conflict.
As far as when and where, I note that you have been delinquent in signing up for the summer IB gathering (like everybody else, mind you). If you care to remedy that oversight, I’m sure all your needs can be accommodated.
Fight! Fight!
I don’t look at it as fighting - I look at it as reeducation
Sobek, I think this means you’re a dumbass.
Does Christ Onstad read AOSHQ? This almost seems an anti-Scandi. Are Finns technically Scandis?
http://achewood.com/index.php?date=05132008
geoff @ #7 - I interpreted that as saying that he had the ability to distinguish which scientists were contributors, not that he was a contributor himself. I dunno, maybe you’re right and he does think he’s an actual scientist. With his degree in sociology.
I interpreted that as saying that he had the ability to distinguish which scientists were contributors
Well, I thought he made the statement in the context of outsiders trying to make contributions.
I dunno, maybe you’re right and he does think he’s an actual scientist.
I think he does. Later he talks about learning the lingo of the gravitational wave physicists so that he can hang with them and talk shop. But he insisted that he wouldn’t actually do any physics.
Sounds like a sociologist’s vision of science, all right.
Yes Laura, Finns are indeed considered to be snowbilly reindeer humpers.
I see you’re avoiding the pertinent question.
Geoff, I think that means Sobek is calling you a nancy boy.
Geoff, I think that means Sobek is calling you a nancy boy.
Water off a duck’s back. But if he calls me a social scientist…
So if a snowbilly humps a reindeer in the woods and there’s no one there to see it, that reindeer is a damned liar!
Dear Likka:
We haven’t met, but may I suggest that “humps” is not the sort of verbal tapestry one strives for in depicting these romantic events. Perhaps “a solid and capable dry-rogering in the cornhole” might provide a more evoke a more colorful mental image.
Yours,
geoff the un-rogered
Oops - should have finished editing that last sentence. Oh well.
Scientists? Whenever I hear the word, I still think of those guys with Van Dyke beards who always showed up in 50’s sci-fi movies. You know the guys - the ones who would stand in front of a chalkboard full of random equations and then slowly turn towards the camera and dramatically say “Yes, Timmy. My calculations show that we must nuke the moon in order to defeat the horde of giant grasshoppers/spiders/carnivorous rabbits.”
Well Geoff, I’ll make you a deal. You find me a job in Denver before July, and get me and my family relocated before the IB gathering, and I guarantee I’ll be there.
Otherwise, I’m not really a “maybe” so much as a “I’ll do it if physically possible but there’s absolutely no way to predict what my schedule will look like.”
You filthy sociologist.
It’s on!
Roger that, Sobek.
Eh heh. Heh, heh-heh.
LOL!
Dry Roger that, Sobek.
Fixed that for you geoff.
Heh.
Blatant Blog Pimp. I’m down to about 1 post per month on my moronblog, so I guess it’s OK.
Mrs. Geezer flips Michael the bird.
I think that’s what she is doing.