• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Science

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
"Science is not objective. Science is fundamentally about the uses of measurement. What does not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded. Scientific determinism has repeatedly excluded some data from its measurement and fudged other data."

He's confusing two points. There is observation, and there is prediction. Observation is objective by defintion. No scientist has interest to deny observations. There must be a choice among the facts observed in order to insert the data in the model for prediction, because otherwise the model would become too complex to be easily computed. Scientists have to find the optimum tradeoff between ease in computation, and stric accuracy of prediction. Somebody is going to be discontented by the choice made, by defintion of choice.
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
For an example far afield, think of a football player. Sometimes there is a football player who doesn't have very good statistics, but is said by all to be a valuable part of the team; maybe he has strong leadership skills, maybe he sets an example by practicing hard. Science can measure how many touchdowns he's scored, but science would underestimate this player's value because it can't measure leadership or heart.

Wrong. You can take a measurement by surveying the opinion of the teammates, and/or the coach. Just find the right stick (not to insert in your ass). Of course you cannot quantitatively measure the level of feeling (luckily!!), but you can asses its external manifestation.
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
7,312
MBTI Type
INTJ
Please cite one concrete example of this. (I like how you've anthropomorphized science, by the way.)

The example I was thinking of was God. The concept of a God is alogical. Science as we know it can not really prove or disprove it. Yet I have read from more than one source that the percentage of atheists among those who work in the sciences is significantly higher than in other professions. That to me is an example of what Heart called Scientism, the establishment of science as an infallible dogma.

By the way, I have read your other posts in this thread and I see that we agree for the most part about this topic. Kudos to you for zeroing in with laser-sight precision on the weakest part of my post!
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
The example I was thinking of was God. The concept of a God is alogical. Science as we know it can not really prove or disprove it. Yet I have read from more than one source that the percentage of atheists among those who work in the sciences is significantly higher than in other professions. That to me is an example of what Heart called Scientism, the establishment of science as an infallible dogma.

I've... read this over numerous times, and I don't understand your logic. Male interior decorators are more likely than the general populace to be gay, but that doesn't mean the act of decorating the inside of a home is inherently homosexual.
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
7,312
MBTI Type
INTJ
I've... read this over numerous times, and I don't understand your logic. Male interior decorators are more likely than the general populace to be gay, but that doesn't mean the act of decorating the inside of a home is inherently homosexual.

In the process of trying to make this logically sound, I realized I couldn't. My point boiled down to, "Scientists know better than anyone that God can't be proven or disproven. So if they choose to stand as atheists in large numbers, it can only be out of the kind of vain Scientism that says 'If I can't prove it, it has no value.'"

This remains my opinion, but as I cannot contend that it is logically sound, I concede the point.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
I find the quote refreshing, and it puts into words a feeling I've had for a long time that I could not express as concisely as this person did.

Science is excellent at determining the physical laws of the universe...the ones we know about anyway. Science, however, is not very good at saying "I don't know". When science doesn't know, it dismisses.

I don't know if this is the sort of thing you are talking about, but I have found that it is not uncommon to find scientists that are "pig-headed" and will be dismissive of things that can't readily be explained. This is especially true of theorists as opposed to research scientists.

One quick example is ball lightning. A physicist friend of mine used to complain about how most of the scientific community rejected that ball lightning existed because it couldn't explain how. Then someone came along and finally gave a thorough and logical explanation of ball ligntning, and it was like all of the sudden the scientific community accepted that it now exists. It's somewhat comical from my perspective.

The reason I say that theorists tend to be the more dismissive ones is because theorists tend to be INTP's. The INTP mind is not especially made to accept new details which might contradict existing theories. First of all INTP's tend to get very attached to theories which they've put a lot of time into, and secondly an INTP's understanding tends to come from building elaborate logical frameworks from given assumptions and understanding. This means that if you introduce new contradictory information they will have to start all over and rebuild a new elaborate logical framework. The INTP has a lot to lose mentally and emotionally from accepting new data, so you can see why they would be resistant to it.

INTJ scientists on the other hand tend to lean more toward labrotory research over theory. Ni is the dominant function of INTJ's, which is extremely good (actually the best) at incorporating new and seemingly contradictory information into an existing framework and making sense of it all. The downside is that INTJ's tend not to be nearly as good at explaining their understanding as an INTP is. So an INTJ might make great new insights into some field, but when they try to explain this to the theoretical INTP community, the ideas are likely to get rejected, especially if it seems to contradict an existing theory. (Then the INTJ says "screw you guys" and invents some new tech and makes millions. :D )

What I've noticed is that while both INTP's and INTJ's like to be both logical and correct, the INTP usually favors logic over accuracy, while the INTJ favors accuracy over logic. The INTP wants scientific arguments to be constructed logically above all, while the INTJ first and foremost wants the details to be correct with logic being a secondary goal.

Now if some other NT entering the field is choosing who to learn from the INTP or INTJ, then who will they choose? Well since the INTP can give the most reasonable explanation, then people tend to side with the INTP. So if the INTP actually did create a fairly accurate theory, then good for all the other NT's, and the technology in that field will advance greatly. But if the INTP made an error in a significant assumption, then growth in that field will be stunted until someone discovers an INTJ that made some new novel technology. Then some young new INTP without preconceived notions will get on the ball and create a better theory around the new tech.

So my point to all this is essentially, yes scientists are human and can be stubborn and dismissive. They in fact do not always listen to the details. But if given enough time (sometimes generations) the details will get corrected. Science is not infallible (far from it in fact), but there are social mechanisms in place to correct any type of science that is technology driven.
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
7,312
MBTI Type
INTJ
I don't know if this is the sort of thing you are talking about, but I have found that it is not uncommon to find scientists that are "pig-headed" and will be dismissive of things that can't readily be explained. This is especially true of theorists as opposed to research scientists.

One quick example is ball lightning. A physicist friend of mine used to complain about how most of the scientific community rejected that ball lightning existed because it couldn't explain how. Then someone came along and finally gave a thorough and logical explanation of ball ligntning, and it was like all of the sudden the scientific community accepted that it now exists. It's somewhat comical from my perspective.

This is EXACTLY what I meant when I said "what science can't explain it dismisses" and when I was talking about atheist scientists. Thank you for stating it better than I did.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
This is EXACTLY what I meant when I said "what science can't explain it dismisses" and when I was talking about atheist scientists. Thank you for stating it better than I did.

I curious why anyone things this is a bad thing. For every good theory, there are infinite bad theories. Why should scientists care about theories that aren't supported sufficiently. That barrier of entry is fundamental - it requires a level of proof sufficient to challenge any new theory.

The dismissal has to do with the theories, not with the underlying observation. The difference is that science doesn't create an explanation when it doesn't know.

If it did that, it would be science... so I don't really see the problem.
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
7,312
MBTI Type
INTJ
The dismissal has to do with the theories, not with the underlying observation. The difference is that science doesn't create an explanation when it doesn't know.

If it did that, it would be science... so I don't really see the problem.

I don't expect science to create an explanation when it doesn't know. That's bad science. Where I think we part ways is that I think without a ready explanation, scientists can dismiss something entirely. To use Liquid Laser's example, everyone who lives in certain areas knows that ball lightning exists. But those scientists said that it must not exist because they couldn't explain it.

Making up an explanation when you don't know is far different from being unable to say "Well, something is going on there but I don't know what it is right now."
 

Bushranger

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
169
MBTI Type
INTP
I don't expect science to create an explanation when it doesn't know. That's bad science. Where I think we part ways is that I think without a ready explanation, scientists can dismiss something entirely. To use Liquid Laser's example, everyone who lives in certain areas knows that ball lightning exists. But those scientists said that it must not exist because they couldn't explain it.

Making up an explanation when you don't know is far different from being unable to say "Well, something is going on there but I don't know what it is right now."

Saying that they don't know is what scientists do best. They have the practice of not knowing honed to incredible precision.

The scientific method requires the existence of a theory that can be tested before a phenomenon can be integrated into 'Science'. The method, and the framework of knowledge around it have developed an inherent resistance to the accumulation of anecdotal knowledge. Even in psychology, anecdotes have to treated with great care.

everyone who lives in certain areas knows that ball lightning exists.

At one point everyone knew that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. 'Everyone' isn't as reliable as they think they are.

Ball lightening also seems to have a natural aversion to scientific measuring equipment, making it very hard to create a theory.

When a plausible theory was put forward, the sudden rush of interest from the scientific community was a case of "Ah, now we can do Science". Prior to that, all they had to go on were anecdotes and historical observations, neither of which can be tested in a scientific context.

To the non-scientist, the creation of a theory about ball lightening was little more than a paragraph in the newspaper on page 16. To some physicists, chemists and material scientists it was the highlight of their week, possibly leading to a new range of phenomena to explore and understand.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!') but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'
-Isaac Asimov
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I don't expect science to create an explanation when it doesn't know. That's bad science. Where I think we part ways is that I think without a ready explanation, scientists can dismiss something entirely.

Scientists don't dismiss something entirely; they dismiss it on the grounds of not being science. Theories are not, in and of themselves, inherently scientific. Once someone puts in the proper research and documentation to prove that it's scientifically sound, it's accepted accordingly.
 

Zergling

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,377
MBTI Type
ExTJ
At one point everyone knew that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. 'Everyone' isn't as reliable as they think they are.

There's a difference between saying "I have a serious pain in my stomache", "I have a stomache ulcer" and "stomache ulcers come from stress". In the first case, it's an observation, in the second case, it's a slight leap of thinking from some observations that a stomache pain is occuring, in the third it involves a lot more leaps of thinking from bits and pieces of information, that might not be experimentally tested, and/or just relying on anecdotes, so is much less certain than the first one. The same applies to scientists dismissin ball lightning, it's one thing to say "We don't know where these balls of light come from that a lot of people are seeing", but a much different thing to say "We don't know how to explain these balls of light, therefore they must not exist.

In general for odd phenomena such as giant waves, ball lightning, will-o-wisps, spontaneuous human combustion, etc., something caused people to see what they saw, and unless they have a reason for lying or prone to hallucinate, there isn't any reason to assume that the observations must not exist just because there is no explanation.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
Scientists don't dismiss something entirely;

I would say that it depends on the scientist and it depends on the situation. Ideally scientists are always open-minded to new explanations if there is sufficient data. In practice it doesn't always work that way, because scientists are people, and some people are simply more open-minded than others, and for other people their openness depends on the subject that is being discussed.

It's like saying that "Justice is blind. Therefore judges cannot be bribed." Ideally this is true, but it's not necessarily true in practice.
 

sassafrassquatch

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
961
Science is not objective. Science is fundamentally about the uses of measurement. What does not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded. Scientific determinism has repeatedly excluded some data from its measurement and fudged other data.

Sounds like the sort of thing creationists, IDiots, new-age woo peddlers and other faith afflicted morons like to say.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
There are different theories of science.

As with rationality, most people implicitly take for granted their own theory. Until the discussion is made explicit, then you'll all continue to talk past each other.
 

InFlux

New member
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
18
Scientists are people and science is a human endeavor. People make mistakes and people fudge data, though they shouldn't and there is pressure not to (public humiliation).

People are also subject to prevailing winds. (*cough* String theory *cough*)

Nothing is objective. This is the best we've got and it works pretty well. The most important thing is that science is falsifiable so if things don't work, someone will eventually come along and figure that out.
 

Apollonian

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
121
MBTI Type
INTJ
“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.” –Pope John Paul II

Abductive reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are three kinds of logical reasoning, two of which are most common:

Deduction is usually conducted in terms of mathematics. For example, in the Theory of Relativity, Einstein started with several fundamental assumptions and used geometry, algebra, and calculus to take those assumptions to their logical conclusion. The result was a mathematical model which can predict natural phenomena provided the assumptions hold. Thus, in Quantum Mechanics where his assumptions are invalid, Relativity is not predictive.

Induction is often used in more experimental and observational sciences. If someone proposes a theory, scientists endeavor to test and retest the results. If multiple scientists are able to reproduce the same results from the same experiment, induction indicates that the theory is sound. However, it is conceivable that something could have been left out and at some time in the future the experiment may fail. Logically speaking, induction is a prediction with a margin of uncertainty.

Abduction is the form of reasoning which is most often used by non-scientists and by many religious people. Essentially, if something looks like it provides a good explanation to something, and no other explanation exists, the theory is taken to be true. Its truth depends upon the ability to enumerate all possible theories. Since the set of all theories for a given phenomena is conceivably infinite, this type of "logic" is often a fallacy.

Abductive logic is often used mistakenly in terms of both science and religion. In the case of science, this is what happens when people "fudge data". In the case of religion, this is what creates fallaceous dogma. Emotional types are particularly succeptible to this sort of reasoning because the logic often appears to be correct if the person presents it in a passionately rational way.

To respond to the OP, science is objective only insomuch as it is conducted with deduction. Induction is succeptible to insufficient inquiry, and thus peoples beliefs determine how soon they will stop testing/searching for the correct solution. Abduction is almost entirely subjective in its approach.

However, as for discarding data. I don't think real scientists ever discard data. They simply set it aside until we have the ability to measure what we need.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Scientists don't dismiss something entirely; they dismiss it on the grounds of not being science. Theories are not, in and of themselves, inherently scientific. Once someone puts in the proper research and documentation to prove that it's scientifically sound, it's accepted accordingly.

Mmm hmmm. That's the problem with things like ID -- it's not actually science (i.e., does not derive from the scientific method). It is more a process of abduction described above... There is no ability to validate the ID concept.

I've... read this over numerous times, and I don't understand your logic. Male interior decorators are more likely than the general populace to be gay, but that doesn't mean the act of decorating the inside of a home is inherently homosexual.

It's okay, you know -- you're with friends here, so you can let the little gay window dresser in you come out. :D

(btw, I agree with your point.)
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
Science is not objective.

Science is a human endeavor, and is so limited to human perspectives, and human failings--like any other human endeavor.

But science is systematic, and aims to expose, and counter the biases of individual researchers.

Science is fundamentally about the uses of measurement.

No it is not. This is a marginalization. Science is a methodical pursuit of truth. It makes use of measurement. It makes use of mathematics. It makes uses of philosophy. It makes use of experimental design. It make use of whatever is available and appropriate.

What does not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded.

If this means that a lot notions become untenable under scientific scrutiny, then its true. So what?

Scientific determinism has repeatedly excluded some data from its measurement and fudged other data.

There are examples in the past of reputed scientist having fudged data. It happens in all fields. I think fraud with intent to defraud is rare. Still, I don't think fraud itself is rare.

Incompetence is a large source. Sometimes, graduate students do good work. Other times they just publish something to complete their degree. Sometimes people are so enamored w/ some statistical tool or another that they find it hard to see how it is inappropriate the technique is. Sometimes the users of stats have little understanding of the assumptions behind the stats (esp. significance testing and the null hypothesis).

Strong debates w/ good points on both sides still continue in scientific circles. Even if something is a minority opinion, it may not stay that way forever.

Finding out what drives the processes, systems, etc. that science studies is still an art. There are some formulaic attempts to get at the answers that science seeks, but there is often clinical judgment in throwing out data (imagine subjects that are biased by past testing, subjects purposely fudging data due to being "encouraged" by the prof. to participate in a study, subjects answering all c's or b's just to finish the task, "professional" subjects who have been part of so many trials for money that they kind of know how to make it "successful", ....).

I think holding a skeptical attitude is a healthy one for consumers of science. There are incompetent and fraudulent scientists just as there are incompetent and fraudulent people in all fields.

However, if you are going to hold this attitude, IMO you will need to become much better versed in techniques that scientists use and look for particular missing pieces of info.

Unfortunately, the public gets very misleading characterizations of science. They have every right to be skeptical of science "news".

Cargo Cult Science

We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of -- this history -- because it's apparent that people did things like this: when they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong -- and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that kind of a disease.

But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves -- of having utter scientific integrity -- is, I'm sorry to say, something that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
 
Last edited:
Top