How our botched understanding of 'science' ruins everything

[Coriolis]

One big problem I see with science (and in medicine) is the deliberate attempt by establishment authorities to shut down the practice of science by individuals, not associated with academia or corporations. It is very difficult to purchase certain chemicals for the purpose of experimentation. Instead of banning the sale of such chemicals, a better alternative would be to limit the quantity of chemicals sold.

One terrific development is crowd-funded open science, where volunteers pitch an idea for an experiment and interested parties contribute to it. The experiment is performed and streamed live over the internet and the results shared with everyone.

I agree on both counts. (For someone who sometimes gets labelled a liberal, I have a huge libertarian streak, which is why I try to avoid labels altogether and just say what I think on each issue.)

I agree with you about Mark's grandma. Swearing to tell the truth isn't a statement of truth. If I said I swear I'll tell you the truth then what is the truth value of that until I start telling you things? The causes of the Civil War are debatable and given the evidence accumulated on the matter it would seem that both slavery and economic reasons contributed largely to the causes of the Civil War. We can't say it was slavery alone because the institution has never before that caused a Civil War, not even during the Revolution. Also, none of America's neighbors which practice slavery ever erupted into Civil War. We also can't say it was purely because of economic reasons because economic issues have always existed yet never led to a Civil War. I don't think both reasons are exclusionary rather a combination of both along side the theories surrounding disputes between the right of the Union vs. the rights of the states all played a part in it. It depends on how one defines god. If god is objectively true then evidence is required just like it is for Mark's grandma.
"True to yourself," what does this mean?

Exactly. The legal truth, which one swears to tell in court, is a good example of a different kind of truth than would apply in science. It is more akin to honesty, in that the person will tell the truth as he/she knows it. In this sense it is possible to be truthful but inaccurate (you believe it to be true, but you are mistaken). Such a definition of truth is incompatible with scientific practice.

So wait, is there a scientific standard of truth?

So truth can be applied only subjectively or should we make a distinction between subjective and objective truth? How is subjective truth anything else but an opinion (an opinion someone believes very strongly)?

I would say there are scientific standards of accuracy. Again, I rarely see the words "true" and "truth" in scientific communications. Instead I see words like accurate, precise, valid, repeatable, etc. Truth can be objective, as in the case of Mark's grandma, but more often than not it is subjective, and we do need to make a distinction. Perhaps the use of other terminology is science's way of doing so.

Science is all encompassing. Act of science is searching for truth of what is. Crossed me mind the other day, you have engineers and technicians in every field. Engineers are the theory people, let's test, group, organize, record, calculate. Technicians are the real life people, let's do, experience, learn, apply.

Actually scientists are the theory people, engineers are the designers, technicians are the real life applications folks, though in reality there is usually overlap of functions.

 

[á´…eparted]

I agree on both counts. (For someone who sometimes gets labelled a liberal, I have a huge libertarian streak, which is why I try to avoid labels altogether and just say what I think on each issue.)

While I like the idea on paper, I am just not so certain on this. Essentially, I could see a lot of wasted resources being spent on individuals who claim to have some innovative idea they want to research, but lack the nesscessary skills to properly conduct worthwhile research. There would have to be some sort of way to demonstrate this. I mean, it's already in place, anyone can submit a grant application, though I suspect if it doesn't come from a university, and just a person's home, it would be thrown out with little review (which I do regard as the wrong thing to do).

Now that I think about it, it sounds like this is already possible, but people don't know how to go about it. It would be good to see some sort of infrastructure (literal or not) developed to accomidate for independent research. I suspect though it would only come about through from properly trained people, and I fear the process would quickly become capitalistic and thus undermine the research itself.

Aka. good idea on paper, not likely feasable in practice. I'd rather see the internal structure shift around, then to create something entirely new.

 

[Fluffywolf]

The pursuit of truth is academically void. Science is not the same as religions in trying to seek and have a monopoly on the 'truth'. Science seeks to answer questions about the natural world one at a time in the pursuit of knowledge. Not in the pursuit of 'truth'.

The pursuit of knowledge is and always will be subject to disproof (and in the pursuit of knowledge, disproof as much as proof is a step forward.). This is what makes science awesome.

The pursuit of truth is an impossibility filled with traps and blind sides.

 

[Kheledon]

Fascinating. Rhetoric precedes philosophy, historically speaking, and science (or the search for objective truths) derives from philosophy. As a natural rhetorician (there is no universal "truth" that's worth discussing when it comes to the most important subject we discuss--i.e. people). Of what value would it be to discuss whether or not 2+2=4? None. What people discuss, and what people need to discuss, are the issues about which we disagree--cases where their either is no objective "truth" or in which that "truth" can not be known with certainty (because human "truths" are subjective and, therefore, relative). The latter perspective forms the basis of the art we call rhetoric.

That said, the scientific method was a tremendous intellectual advance, and the West leads the world in science today, I would argue, because the West first developed philosophy.

Nifty historical fact--philosophy became an "Empire" within 4 generations of teacher-to-student interaction, as follows: Socrates-->Plato-->Aristotle-->Alexander the Great.

 

[nonsequitur]

So you see merit in continuing to accept a theory that has been shown to be false, that is, without modification or revision? That works only as a limiting case, and must be identified as such. It no longer holds as a more general theory.


I do not think it is nearly that subjective. What I do see is individual scientists as well as certain groups and organizations that don't live up to the standards of science, some of which you related in your earlier post. That is much less a critique of the "standard" definition of science than of those specific people.


Why not? One can at least make the case that a substantial number of researchers in that field have fallen away from good practice, and that the field is suffering as a result. It has happened before/elsewhere, and humans being humans, will surely happen again.


As someone who both publishes and reviews in the physics literature, I can attest to the fact that we have some of this, but I don't think it is as pervasive as what you are describing from life sciences. I actually see more reviewers with negative bias, who try to shoot down publications from people who are not their friends and allies. When we recommend reviewers for our own work, we avoid these people, but also avoid people who are too close in our professional network. Similarly, we decline to review papers of professional collaborators or acquaintances, even if on topics outside our collaboration. Again, more an indictment of scientists than scientific standards.


I see the highlighted in physical sciences as well. It seems part and parcel of a society that seems to have lost the will to be directly critical: to say "this paper isn't good enough to be published here". I honestly doubt the average taxpayer has the ability to recognize when their dollars have produced worthwhile scientific results, but all the same I agree with open access. It is not just good for the public, it is good for the advancement of science. I see more journals starting to offer open access, some universally, others if the authors pay an additional fee as part of their page charges. I hope this trend continues.


No problem. I work in the physical sciences, so if someone reads both our comments, they will have a more complete picture of what is out there. If anything, though, I think we need more "high minded" discussion of scientific ideals, if only to help things get back on track.

I wanted to add something that I saw linked from the Times Higher Education website (also not open access) - it is far, far easier to blame "individuals", or bad apples, rather than a pervasive culture or "the whole barrel is rotten". My criticisms are directed at science policy and systemic failures in funding and academic research, and I'm far from the only person with these views. This article was published in Current Topics in Developmental Biology, and is behind a paywall so I'm essentially pirating it on dropbox to contribute to this discussion. https://www.dropbox.com/s/gzon5krlgos6mbe/1-s2.0-S0070215315002203-main.pdf

Publish or perish has real-life effects. A culture of encouraging people to "choose" data that will allow them to spin a narrative that will get them the highest impact publications as opposed to the most "correct" interpretation is pervasive. It's also worth highlighting that because biology is so damned complex, there are a multitude of angles and interpretations for any one study, so a "high impact" interpretation might not necessarily be wrong.. It's just that it usually is, and because of the rush put out on publishing quickly and "impactfully", people are encouraged to take the most adventurous interpretation and journal-shop, hoping that it gets by a couple of lenient reviewers. I mentioned stem cells as being a sub-field where there's a tonne of irreproducibility, rubbish and incorrect interpretation because of low standards in sub-field conventions, you suggested that we write off the entire field as "unscientific". My criticisms apply equally to the sub-field of cancer research. Seeing that only 6/53 "landmark" cancer studies published in the trifecta of Nature, Science, Cell could be replicated by Amgen (they were trying to figure out why their clinical trials had such a ridiculously high failure rate), perhaps we should also write off cancer biology?

Considering that (in the case of the US government) the non-defence R&D budget makes up $69 billion (2015 figures) and the NIH budget for 2015 grants is $30 billion, the problem of a "rotten barrel" in the life sciences is not trivial. This is just the US too; where I am right now, the biomedical research budget forms an even larger percentage of the budget in an effort to "grow the biotech industry".

The reason why I am uninterested in talking about "high minded" discussion of ideals and "truth" that have no relation to how research is conducted in reality is because I dedicated the last 17 years of my life towards becoming a life scientist, hoping to make a difference to public health. I have lost friends and family to cancer. I have met with patients who suffer from debilitating, incurable, untreatable neurodegenerative disease, and overheard my PhD supervisor sneer that he "hated having to come to these things to network for small grant funding". There is a very very real human impact that renders chasing academic impact and political influence towards personal advancement incredibly distasteful to me. Talking about philosophy of science and its epistemological relationship to the truth might be relevant to the interests of physical scientists, but I am more interested in having treatments work for patients. Especially since there is good evidence that efficacy of treatment is highly dependent on individual genetics, cultural background, lifestyle and even the patient's relationship to the medical practitioner. The way that we consider/conduct basic research, clinical trials, and administer healthcare needs to change. Pointing fingers at the individual "bad apples" while defending the status quo of the rotten barrel and its public perception as being "fact/truth" makes me very suspicious. In my experience, those who do so have a vested interest in being held unaccountable and preserving influence.

[/types this as she finishes up in the lab at 2am]

 

[Tellenbach]

I would urge anyone and everyone with an interest in cancer (historical context, current research, cancer pharmacology, alternative treatments) to read "Tripping Over the Truth: The Metabolic Theory of Cancer". It's currently the number 1 book on oncology at Amazon. Basically, biochemists at Johns Hopkins have figured out what causes cancer and how to stop cancer for over 10 years now, but the patent holder can't get the funding from the various Cancer non-profit charities or any cooperation from the hospitals and oncologists around the nation.

If you don't want to get the book, here's an excellent paper on the topic:

Advanced cancers: eradication in all cases using 3-bromopyruvate therapy to deplete ATP

Advanced cancers (2-3cm) developed and were treated with the alkylating agent 3-bromopyruvate, a lactate/pyruvate analog shown here to selectively deplete ATP and induce cell death. In all 19 treated animals advanced cancers were eradicated without apparent toxicity or recurrence.

Can't get help from Komens, every Cancer hospital in the US, or from Obama. That's right. The lead researcher wrote to Obama and got ignored.

 

[Coriolis]

I wanted to add something that I saw linked from the Times Higher Education website (also not open access) - it is far, far easier to blame "individuals", or bad apples, rather than a pervasive culture or "the whole barrel is rotten". My criticisms are directed at science policy and systemic failures in funding and academic research, and I'm far from the only person with these views. This article was published in Current Topics in Developmental Biology, and is behind a paywall so I'm essentially pirating it on dropbox to contribute to this discussion. https://www.dropbox.com/s/gzon5krlgos6mbe/1-s2.0-S0070215315002203-main.pdf

Publish or perish has real-life effects. A culture of encouraging people to "choose" data that will allow them to spin a narrative that will get them the highest impact publications as opposed to the most "correct" interpretation is pervasive. It's also worth highlighting that because biology is so damned complex, there are a multitude of angles and interpretations for any one study, so a "high impact" interpretation might not necessarily be wrong.. It's just that it usually is, and because of the rush put out on publishing quickly and "impactfully", people are encouraged to take the most adventurous interpretation and journal-shop, hoping that it gets by a couple of lenient reviewers. I mentioned stem cells as being a sub-field where there's a tonne of irreproducibility, rubbish and incorrect interpretation because of low standards in sub-field conventions, you suggested that we write off the entire field as "unscientific". My criticisms apply equally to the sub-field of cancer research. Seeing that only 6/53 "landmark" cancer studies published in the trifecta of Nature, Science, Cell could be replicated by Amgen (they were trying to figure out why their clinical trials had such a ridiculously high failure rate), perhaps we should also write off cancer biology?

Considering that (in the case of the US government) the non-defence R&D budget makes up $69 billion (2015 figures) and the NIH budget for 2015 grants is $30 billion, the problem of a "rotten barrel" in the life sciences is not trivial. This is just the US too; where I am right now, the biomedical research budget forms an even larger percentage of the budget in an effort to "grow the biotech industry".

The reason why I am uninterested in talking about "high minded" discussion of ideals and "truth" that have no relation to how research is conducted in reality is because I dedicated the last 17 years of my life towards becoming a life scientist, hoping to make a difference to public health. I have lost friends and family to cancer. I have met with patients who suffer from debilitating, incurable, untreatable neurodegenerative disease, and overheard my PhD supervisor sneer that he "hated having to come to these things to network for small grant funding". There is a very very real human impact that renders chasing academic impact and political influence towards personal advancement incredibly distasteful to me. Talking about philosophy of science and its epistemological relationship to the truth might be relevant to the interests of physical scientists, but I am more interested in having treatments work for patients. Especially since there is good evidence that efficacy of treatment is highly dependent on individual genetics, cultural background, lifestyle and even the patient's relationship to the medical practitioner. The way that we consider/conduct basic research, clinical trials, and administer healthcare needs to change. Pointing fingers at the individual "bad apples" while defending the status quo of the rotten barrel and its public perception as being "fact/truth" makes me very suspicious. In my experience, those who do so have a vested interest in being held unaccountable and preserving influence.

I am not disagreeing that these problems in science administration exist and have a significant negative impact: on people who should be benefitting from research, on researchers themselves, and on science as a human endeavor. Nor am I blaming individuals or "bad apples". By the way, you used the term "write off" in regard to certain fields where problems are especially rampant. What I wrote was "One can at least make the case that a substantial number of researchers in that field have fallen away from good practice, and that the field is suffering as a result." I do not see how this disagrees with the description you presented.

We (at least some of us) have been discussing scientific ideals because that is part of the thread topic. If one is calling something a botched understanding of science, identifying what is a correct understanding of science is relevant. It is also relevant to the situations you mention, because it is the yardstick against which the current reality must be measured. You obviously don't approve of how scientific research is being managed and guided, which presupposes you have some idea of how it should be done. I suspect what you have in mind is not too far from those high minded ideals some of us have been discussing.

Moreover, I am making a distinction between what I call managing science and conducting science. Sure, we are both aware of publish or perish environments, and the cronyism and lax standards related to the review process, which seem worse in some fields than othes. The actual conduct of science goes a level deeper, to what researchers actually do in making their measurements, analyzing their data, etc. I suspect there is more adherance to standard scientific methods there, even if it eventually falls victim to the administrative problems described here.

Bottom line: if scientists are not following standard scientific methods, that is not an indictment of those methods, but rather of the people involved, both on an individual level and a group (systemic) level. It should be noted that this system is strongly influenced by people with no scientific background (like politicians), which is probably a large part of the problem.

 

[great_bay]

Science is just a method used like engineering. It's a form of engineering of trial by error much like the article said. I don't pass down my values behind science. A person may do as they wish. I wouldn't tell a person what they should do with a screwdriver though they certainly shouldn't hit other people with it. Much like a screwdriver, I wouldn't tell a person with to do or think of science.

 

[Cowardly]

Science is the pursuit of knowledge about the natural world. I would reserve "truth" for the pursuit of knowledge about the spiritual world.

Very well written. I agree with everything except for "truth" being reserved for spiritual knowledge because I don't know what that means

In my understanding the natural and the spiritual aren't separated. Paradoxically, I don't believe in a spiritual world, yet I see it (if 'it' exists) as part of the natural world.

 

[Coriolis]

In my understanding the natural and the spiritual aren't separated. Paradoxically, I don't believe in a spiritual world, yet I see it (if 'it' exists) as part of the natural world.

They are not separated in that they are both part of our here-and-now, intertwined. But they are quite distinct, and require different methods and tools to study. Sort of like the audio and visual streams of a movie are contained in separate tracks, but combine into the overall effect.

 

[Cowardly]

They are not separated in that they are both part of our here-and-now, intertwined. But they are quite distinct, and require different methods and tools to study. Sort of like the audio and visual streams of a movie are contained in separate tracks, but combine into the overall effect.

What do you see as the spiritual world?

 

[Coriolis]

Aspects of reality that are not material/physical, usually related to views on deity, subjective values, and the idea of humans having some essence (soul, spirit) beyond the physical.