i have had a lot of conversations with a friend about the dogmas of science. according to me, science has its share of blind faith as much as the semitic dogmas do. this is a welcome sceptical view of the validity of science.
incidentally, there is a book about western philosophy called "all things shining" that has got rave reviews including in the NYT. i was listening to a conversation with these guys -- and they said in so many words that they believe polytheism is superior to monotheism as a way of life, and that this is reflected in the preference of secular westerners to get away from the fire-and-brimstone of semites and look at the greek works of literature that celebrate many gods, who are reflections of human nature.
i guess i should get hold of "all things shining", by berkeley prof dreyfus and harvard prof kelley.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: sri
Date: Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:15 PM
Subject: Scientists doubting science now?
To:
Scientists doubting science now?
Here is an interesting article .. in a gist scientists are no longer
able to replicate their results just casting doubt in the entire
scientific process.
Is there something wrong with the scientific method?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer
The below comment on the article was the most interesting -- Venkat
"I know that a phrase like this has become popular: "Claims that defy
almost every law of science are by definition extraordinary and thus
require extraordinary evidence" but that does not really make
sense--why should any claim require any more than "normal" evidence?
If you think about it, what is "extraordinary evidence" anyway?
Furthermore, new discoveries like this may not "defy" laws of science,
but simply illustrate forces that exist, that can be part of science,
but which we cannot currently detect based on the sophistication of
our current tools. Black holes existed even before we could measure
them, and so of course do all sorts of other forces....and once
understood could then be recategorized as our new "updated"
science....."
--
From: sri
Date: Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:15 PM
Subject: Scientists doubting science now?
To:
Scientists doubting science now?
Here is an interesting article .. in a gist scientists are no longer
able to replicate their results just casting doubt in the entire
scientific process.
Is there something wrong with the scientific method?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer
The below comment on the article was the most interesting -- Venkat
"I know that a phrase like this has become popular: "Claims that defy
almost every law of science are by definition extraordinary and thus
require extraordinary evidence" but that does not really make
sense--why should any claim require any more than "normal" evidence?
If you think about it, what is "extraordinary evidence" anyway?
Furthermore, new discoveries like this may not "defy" laws of science,
but simply illustrate forces that exist, that can be part of science,
but which we cannot currently detect based on the sophistication of
our current tools. Black holes existed even before we could measure
them, and so of course do all sorts of other forces....and once
understood could then be recategorized as our new "updated"
science....."
--
4 comments:
Scientific method itself evolves and scientific theories are challenged all the time as part of science. Theories are then are either discarded or modified. Also, the limitations of science are acknowledged in science itself, for example - Godel's Incompleteness Theorum, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle etc.
In short I don't see a problem as the article suggests.
I also don't see the problem.
Every instance seems to be the example of bad scientific and experimental techniques/practices being applied.
Note that he does not provide any examples of hard sciences such as physics and chemistry. On the other hand examples are from pharmaceutical and psychological studies which are very subjective to begin with.
A tacit rule of science publication is nobody ever wants to publish a negative result (unless to refute some major earlier theory/data)and with any new exciting result there is a herd mentality to show duplication.
Most of these issues can be explained by the *assumption* that random events have Gaussian distribution. If you take out that assumption, then the 95% confidence test etc. will break down. Nassim Nicholas Taleb explains this beautifully in his books "Fooled by randomness" and "Black Swan"..
So there is nothing wrong with the science itself, but with the scientists and their assumption. Science is just a tool. And by "science", I dont mean Western materialism, but in the sense of Vigayam.
The so-called scientific method cannot handle one single Black Swan just like a turkey fed for 1000 days cannot survive the butcher's knife on the 1001st day.
Post a Comment