The conservative nature of science: beneficial or hindering?

[sal_vager]

I'd like to keep this thread clear of gender issues please phoenix_ca

[vger]

Sure, if the victim is a girl. If you're a boy, SUCK IT UP MISTER.

No, I'm not jaded because of my childhood experiences with an educational system that quite literally justified its inaction because of my gender.

Preaching to the crowd.

But we're talking about the institution that always gets labelled as being better because "no gods" and "intellectualism," etc.

[Kryten]

But we're talking about the institution that always gets labelled as being better because "no gods" and "intellectualism," etc.

Do you even have any idea what the scientific method is? You seem to be talking about a pop culture caricature of science rather than anything that actually exists.

[vger]

Do you even have any idea what the scientific method is? You seem to be talking about a pop culture caricature of science rather than anything that actually exists.

Probably just Atheism tainting it.

Yes, I know exactly what the scientific method is.

I also can't count the number of times I've ended up being right about something, but simply had no way of proving it.

Not everything can be proven via the scientific method. Maybe something that gets thought up today, could be proven a thousand years from now once we have the instrumentation (ie: the number of dimensions proposed in string theory). In the absence of that, if you're LUCKY, your idea is something that can be turned into a formula. But not everything can be quantified that way, so all other ideas are more or less screwed.

[phoenix_ca]

I'd like to keep this thread clear of gender issues please phoenix_ca

I was kidding! Mostly. *hem*

Edited May 25, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[Vanamonde]

Everything in history is a reaction to something else. Way back when, Aristotle said that tidy ideas were more important than messy reality, so if an experimental result didn't turn out as theory predicted, it's because the world is imperfect, and therefore the idea should prevail anyway. So for a couple of thousand years, human knowledge largely ignored evidence and came up with ideas based on nothing, such as the theory that disease is caused by an imbalance of the 4 bodily "humors," or fluids.

As a reaction to that, science was devised with the rule that if evidence for an idea is not conclusive, the idea CAN NOT be relied upon. The idea may be true, for all we know at that point, but it would be folly to follow Aristotle's path and behave as if the theory is true. So yes, science rejects a lot of ideas, and for good reason, but only until the ideas can be and have been proven, credibly, and in a repeatable way.

But scientists are fallible human beings, just like everybody else, and they can at times get carried away with rejecting non-conventional ideas. And sometimes they get cranky about it, like when they are badgered by believers in nonsense that was proven wrong years ago, like astrology.

But the fact remains that science is conservative, and deliberately so.

[Kryten]

I also can't count the number of times I've ended up being right about something, but simply had no way of proving it.

You could've just said 'no'. It's impossible to prove anything scientifically, that's the whole point of the scientific method.

[Jouni]

Jouni, I sincerely hope you were intentionally being ironic, with at least some of what you said there. Particularly in the 3rd paragraph.

Maybe a bit in the 4th paragraph, but I was serious in the 3rd paragraph.

I can do mentally demanding work for 3-4 hours a day, for something like 200-250 days a year. I'm currently in a privileged position, where I can mostly do research, without any significant teaching or administrative responsibilities. If I spend half of those prime hours reading, I can read thoroughly maybe 100 research papers a year. The number of new publications in respected theoretical computer science forums is at least 100x higher.

[N_las]

I also can't count the number of times I've ended up being right about something, but simply had no way of proving it.

And could you count how many times you ended up wrong?

[vger]

Agreed, Vanamonde. But there's also a big difference between rejecting an idea, and subjecting the originator of it with a proverbial tar and feathering.

[phoenix_ca]

Not everything can be proven via the scientific method. Maybe something that gets thought up today, could be proven a thousand years from now once we have the instrumentation (ie: the number of dimensions proposed in string theory). In the absence of that, if you're LUCKY, your idea is something that can be turned into a formula. But not everything can be quantified that way, so all other ideas are more or less screwed.

My prescription: Some philosophy courses. If it can't be proven through rational argument, it doesn't really matter that whatever it is is right or wrong, there's no logical way to prove why it is so. Conclusions without support have as much substance as arguments without reason.

Basic epistemology would show you that there are ways to build knowledge from a basis of reason.

Everything in history is a reaction to something else. Way back when, Aristotle said that tidy ideas were more important than messy reality, so if an experimental result didn't turn out as theory predicted, it's because the world is imperfect, and therefore the idea should prevail anyway. So for a couple of thousand years, human knowledge largely ignored evidence and came up with ideas based on nothing, such as the theory that disease is caused by an imbalance of the 4 bodily "humors," or fluids.

Glossing-over Socrates, are we? Medieval Europe didn't have the monopoly on the world's knowledge.

And sometimes they get cranky about it, like when they are badgered by believers in nonsense that was proven wrong years ago, like astrology.

Hell, I get cranky about it, and such don't even badger me that often. Although Jehovah's Witnesses do tend to be on my way to the grocery store. That's always good for some amusement. O.o

Edited May 25, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[vger]

Maybe a bit in the 4th paragraph, but I was serious in the 3rd paragraph.

I can do mentally demanding work for 3-4 hours a day, for something like 200-250 days a year. I'm currently in a privileged position, where I can mostly do research, without any significant teaching or administrative responsibilities. If I spend half of those prime hours reading, I can read thoroughly maybe 100 research papers a year. The number of new publications in respected theoretical computer science forums is at least 100x higher.

Yeah, about that. What I found funny about your third paragraph, is that in summary it means, "You can do whatever you want. You just have to be rich first."

That applies both to going back to college to become a scientist, AND building a company around your idea. Even if the idea IS something that could be worth a billion dollars, you're still going to need a substantial amount of money to get it started. And unless you are already rich, that still means having to convince someone else that you're right (an investor instead of a scientist), without any way of proving it.

Of course, if you've got a billion dollars to kick around, you don't even need to bother with grants, and can afford to research anything you want by funding your own lab, as long as it isn't a private LHC.

[Jouni]

Yeah, about that. What I found funny about your third paragraph, is that in summary it means, "You can do whatever you want. You just have to be rich first."

I was thinking more about startup companies. Most successful startups were founded on ideas that were obviously bad. After all, if the idea were any good, somebody would already have done it.

If you can't convince others of the value of your idea, you'll have to prove its worth in some other way that doesn't depend on convincing other in advance. If you can build a company that Google buys for a billion dollars, it's a clear sign that there was something to the idea after all.

Almosts everyone starts as just another nobody out of more than seven billion nobodies. Even if you manage to attract some attention, you'll have at most 10 seconds to convince others of the worth of your ideas. To be taken seriously, you'll first have to establish yourself, which almost always involves a lot of work. In science, the easiest way is to get a PhD and publish enough stuff that the big names in the field know you.

[DJEN]

This thread seems to have gone astray.

If not, then keep things civil.