Insights Is Science an Authority? How to View Announcements from Scientists

[PeterDonis]

The Nature paper is behind a paywall.

It's hard for me to evaluate this specific case if I can't see the actual scientific paper. In general terms, the track record of such predictions does not seem to be very good (this particular set of predictions being an example of that).

 

[member 656954]

Tom Nichols raised the broader contextual issue of authority in a well-described article, The Death of Expertise, highlighting the challenge of rational engagement when participants feel that their uninformed opinions should carry equal weight to opinions informed by expertise. 'Science' as an informed opinion suffers in such dialog for many reasons, including an inability to bootstrap participants onto an even playing field of understanding for the purpose of having a cogent discussion in the first place.

 

[PeterDonis]

an inability to bootstrap participants onto an even playing field of understanding for the purpose of having a cogent discussion in the first place.

I think it's fair to say that this phenomenon has been observed here at PF.

The Nichols article is interesting, but it is using a definition of "expert" that is quite a bit broader than the category "scientist with a strong predictive track record to back up their claims" that I was using as a basis for discussion in my article.

For example, Nichols says he is (or at least would like to think he is) an expert in social science and public policy. But I don't think he could show very much of a predictive track record to back up that claim. His basis for saying he is an expert appears to be, basically, that he is better informed and has a better grasp of the techniques of using reason than most of the people he encounters. But it is perfectly possible to be all those things and still not be able to make useful predictions in a specific domain, even if that domain is of great practical interest, simply because the domain is too complex and intractable to analysis, and too unsuited to the kinds of controlled experiments that have allowed us to develop a strong predictive track record in physics or astronomy.

In that kind of domain, I think the best attitude is to recognize that there are no "experts" in the sense of people who have a better predictive track record than others. There are certainly people who are better informed and have a better grasp of correct reasoning. And there are elements of expertise, considered in a broader sense than "predictive track record", that are much more of an art than a science. Nichols mentions doctors and lawyers as examples of experts, but while those disciplines are (or at least should be) informed by science, they are not sciences, they are arts, and much of what they do consists of applying non-repeatable human judgment to non-repeatable unique situations. There are certainly people who are better at that, but recognizing them, I think, is itself an art, as is assigning them their proper role in public discourse, and is outside the scope of what I was discussing in my article. It's probably worth a separate article to itself.

 

[member 656954]

The Nichols article is interesting, but it is using a definition of "expert" that is quite a bit broader than the category "scientist with a strong predictive track record to back up their claims" that I was using as a basis for discussion in my article.

That's true, @PeterDonis, both of you recognize the difficulty in the concept of 'authority', but you are elaborating a more specific case than Nichols via the attribute of predictive power.

(And I agree, social science and public policy is a domain where 'experts' are hard pressed to show a track record of useful and statistically correct predictions, possibly because the underlying theories do not have the embedded repeatability of physics?)

However, I do wonder whether "one’s own common sense should be a good guide in evaluating their [scientists] claims" isn't a disconnected concept for many people, and esp. non-experts. Scientific American has an interesting viewpoint on how such 'common sense' might be practically applied, and there are many other sources with similar ideas, but having read many PF posts with references to peer-reviewed papers, I am often still in the dark about the predictive track record and the uncertainties presented, let alone whether the papers even make sense.

Still, I agree with your gate-keeping idea because we need some basis for interpretation of claims, but I remain unsure whether being an expert in one field necessarily makes it easier to critique the validity of claims made by experts in another field? And if experts struggle, how do laypeople know which 'science' to listen to?

 

[PeterDonis]

possibly because the underlying theories do not have the embedded repeatability of physics?

To the extent they even have underlying theories, yes.

I do wonder whether "one’s own common sense should be a good guide in evaluating their [scientists] claims" isn't a disconnected concept for many people, and esp. non-experts.

Bear in mind that I suggested that specifically for the case where an ordinary lay person, not well versed in the specifics and jargon of the field, is trying to evaluate claims made by experts in the field. Obviously the ordinary lay person can't critique the details of those claims and the theories that lie behind them, since to do that one would have to be well versed in the specifics and the jargon of the field. (Note that this latter is not exactly the same as having academic credentials in the field, though there is of course much overlap.) But it's still possible for the ordinary person to look at the actual predictive track record and apply common sense to it, as well as how the claims are presented (and I gave specific examples to illustrate how particular claims have been presented to the public).

having read many PF posts with references to peer-reviewed papers, I am often still in the dark about the predictive track record and the uncertainties presented, let alone whether the papers even make sense

Peer-reviewed papers, ironically enough given PF's rules about sources, are often not the best places for a lay person to get that information, since they are typically written for other experts, not for the lay person. In many cases that's fine, because what is being discussed in the papers does not have any direct relevance to public policy questions that a lay person, as a citizen, might want to have an opinion on. For cases where the science does have such direct relevance, part of the duty of the scientist, as I've said, is to accurately communicate the current state of knowledge, including all uncertainties; I should have added that this needs to be done in terms the lay public can understand, i.e., by distilling the details and jargon of the field into a predictive track record that a lay person can reasonably evaluate. (The example of astronomers predicting the future trajectories of asteroids is a good one here.)

I agree with your gate-keeping idea

I'm not sure I proposed a gate-keeping idea. Can you be more specific?

I remain unsure whether being an expert in one field necessarily makes it easier to critique the validity of claims made by experts in another field?

I think it depends on the fields; I'm not sure there is any useful general rule.

if experts struggle, how do laypeople know which 'science' to listen to?

Unless there is some reason why laypeople need to know, such as a public policy question that needs to be decided, the laypeople should not have an opinion at all. That's difficult for many lay people to accept, but it's the only rule that makes sense.

If there is a public policy question that needs to be decided, then there are, as far as I can see, three possibilities:

(1) Scientists are able to present a solid predictive track record that stands up to scrutiny. This is the easy case: take the scientists seriously. (An example would be astronomers predicting the trajectories of asteroids.)

(2) Scientists are unable to present any significant predictive track record at all, or if they do present one, it does not stand up to scrutiny. This is a harder case than the first one, but the answer is still pretty clear, though disappointing: science is simply unable to provide any useful guidelines for public policy in this area. So any public policy decision in this area will need to be made on other grounds entirely. (An example would be something like global poverty: nobody really has a good predictive track record on how to address poverty. So whatever public policy decisions we make about it cannot rely on any significant scientific guidelines. Which, unfortunately but unavoidably, means that such decisions tend to be ad hoc and the resulting policies don't work very well.)

(3) There are multiple disputing communities of scientists, none of which has a predictive track record that is compelling enough to overcome the others. This is the hardest case, and I don't think there is a general rule that can be given about it, except that, like the second case, the grounds for whatever public policy decision gets made will end up not being based on the relative scientific merits of the various proposals. (An example of this case would be decisions that various countries have made about funding high energy physics experiments, for example the cancellation of the SSC in the US in the 1990s vs. the European decision to fund the LHC, in the light of the disputes within physics about the status of string theory vs. other approaches to going beyond the Standard Model of particle physics, and also about the relative status of high energy physics vs. other subdisciplines, such as condensed matter physics, that many physicists think are underfunded.)

 

[PeterDonis]

Scientific American has an interesting viewpoint on how such 'common sense' might be practically applied

Yes, this article looks like a good list of suggestions for how to do that.

 

[jack action]

Tom Nichols raised the broader contextual issue of authority in a well-described article, The Death of Expertise, highlighting the challenge of rational engagement when participants feel that their uninformed opinions should carry equal weight to opinions informed by expertise.

What I'm reading in this article is basically: «I believe you can have an opinion, as long as you agree with me.» This is the kind of arrogance that leads to people distrusting someone. And, in my opinion, anyone should be.

Scientific American has an interesting viewpoint on how such 'common sense' might be practically applied,

Here's is the ONLY criteria that matters for scientific credibility found in that article:

Credible scientists can lay out:

• Here's my hypothesis.
• Here's what you'd expect to observe if the hypothesis is true. Here, on the other hand, is what you'd expect to observe if the hypothesis is false.
• Here's what we actually observed (and here are the steps we took to control the other variables).
• Here's what we can say (and with what degree of certainty) about the hypothesis in the light of these results.
• Here's the next study we'd like to do to be even more sure.

The part I highlighted is critical. NO one can claim expertise without that. Repeatability of the observation is also a big one (i.e. degree of certainty). Modelling doesn't count (unless based on past experiences with known outcomes). It might reassure that you are on the right path for further investments on your hypothesis, but it is not a scientific observation.

The biggest problem I don't understand in this debate about expertise, is why the need to convince everyone else that you are right? «I [don't] believe in God.» OK. «I [don't] trust vaccine.» OK. «Because of that, you must do as I do.» Wait, what? Why? Do it. If what you do works better than what others do, there are no reasons why people won't follow. Of course, this is a long process.

Anytime I see someone trying to convince me of something, I wonder what are his/her motivations. Every time I see that behavior, it's only about money - directly or indirectly. And I speculate that people having trust issues with experts - especially the arrogant ones - react the way they do, for the same reasons. Unfortunately, they often go in the opposite direction with the same intent: I must believe in their conspiracy theories.

But, in the end, if someone don't believe you, it's because YOU failed to convince him/her, not that he/she is an idiot or some other derogatory comment of the sort.

 

[PeterDonis]

why the need to convince everyone else that you are right?

In many cases, there isn't one (which does make one skeptical about motivations when people try so hard to convince others anyway in such cases).

However, in cases where there is a significant public policy question at issue, for which only one decision can be made, if not everyone agrees on which decision should be made, there has to be some convincing done one way or the other.

 

[jack action]

However, in cases where there is a significant public policy question at issue, for which only one decision can be made, if not everyone agrees on which decision should be made,

In such a case, no decisions should be made about that particular subject. For anyone who is part of a group, no matter what unite the people in the group, everyone should agree on what they do together. Otherwise, it is still everyone is entitled to his/her way of doing things (on that particular subject).

Why would anyone wants to join a group that forces you to do what you do not want to do? Why would anyone wants to fund an organization that does the opposite of what he/she wants to do? Apparently, you have to do everything in your power to be on the winning side and use everyone money for your goals, no matter what others think. Afterwards, if you're right, you are a hero that saved the opposite side against their will and they should thank you; If you're wrong ... well, don't blame me, everyone makes mistakes. At least I did something, right?

I understand that it is very difficult to have 100% of the people on board. I also understand that when it happens, it is great. But if it doesn't, I don't see any harm in that. If 90% of the people do the same thing as you do, isn't this already pretty great? Let the other 10% live their own way and see where it goes. And if you're wrong, you will be glad they already made progress on their side. If you were right, call it insurance and welcome them back to your group. If it's 50/50 - or even 25/25/25/25 - the argument is even more valid.

there are cases where definite predictions by scientists are reliable enough to be taken as authoritative.

It is putting all our money in a central pot that lead us to argue endlessly on what we should do with it. Set the projects, then sell them to get the necessary funds. Urgency is no excuse either. Democracy is not just a concept for when decisions fit one desires. This way of thinking is what lead to the question «Who has the authority to make the decision for someone?» The answer for any democrat (the philosophy, not the party) should be «the person itself». Any other answer is anti-democratic by definition.

 

[PeterDonis]

In such a case, no decisions should be made about that particular subject.

Sometimes that's not an option. Although I would agree that the times when it's really not an option are much, much rarer than our current political structure admits.

Why would anyone wants to join a group that forces you to do what you do not want to do?

It's impossible for everyone to be able to choose every group they belong to and assent to everything that every group they belong to does. Everyone is born into at least one group of people they didn't choose: their family. Everyone has to live somewhere, everyone has to eat, and unless you're willing to be a hermit in the woods making use of nothing you didn't acquire or make yourself (but nobody who fits that description is reading or posting here anyway), you have to have cooperative relationships with other people. That means sometimes group decisions have to be made that affect everybody in the group, even if not everybody in the group agrees with them.

The real question, to me, is whether, when group decisions do have to be made that affect everybody in the group, the people who have a voice in those decisions are the ones who will be affected by them and will have to live with the consequences, and people who have no skin in the game also have no voice in the decision process. To the extent that is not true (and I would submit it very often isn't in our current political structure), that is a problem.

 

[Bystander]

What I'm reading in this article is basically: «I believe you can have an opinion, as long as you agree with me.» This is the kind of arrogance that leads to people distrusting someone. And, in my opinion, anyone should be.

+10

To the extent that is not true (and I would submit it very often isn't in our current political structure), that is a problem.

+10.

Now, can we close this discussion?

 

[PeterDonis]

can we close this discussion?

Discussion of the Nichols article, or discussion of the Insights article?

Regarding the Nichols article, I think probably enough has been said, yes.

There might still be further comments or questions about the Insights article, so I don't think the thread needs to be closed yet.

 

[Bystander]

Regarding the Nichols article, I think probably enough has been said, yes.

Thank you, that's exactly what I meant.

 

[jack action]

Going back on this quote:

there are cases where definite predictions by scientists are reliable enough to be taken as authoritative.

Reading the article closely seems to define those cases as:

we’re not supposed to accept what scientists say on their authority. [...] We’re supposed to think critically and try to build our own understanding. But there are at least two objections to this.

The first is that nobody has the time or the wherewithal to personally check out everything.

[...]

The second objection is that most people don’t have the expertise to second guess what a scientist says when talking about an area of science.

So if I don't have time and/or don't understand, it can be a good reason to subject myself to another authority than my own. And to make sure we are in the presence of a 'good authority', we need to ask 2 questions:

The first is simple: what kind of predictive track record does this area of science have? What kinds of predictions has it made that have been confirmed, and how precise were the predictions?

[...]

The second question is, how are the scientists presenting their claims?

But analyzing the answers to those questions (and even asking them) requires: 1) having time to do it and 2) having the knowledge to understand what defines a 'good' scientist (i.e understanding what is the scientific method). This brings us back to your two previous objections.

Furthermore, I don't recall hearing the scientists, per say. There are always, journalists, politicians and other people to simplify (or even alter) radically the message between their mouths and my ears because, apparently, "the common man don't understand". People who often don't even have the scientific know-how more than the common man. People who have agendas of their own. I'm baffled by the fact that I have to hear the message about the environment from a 16-year-old girl that can only say "Listen to the science." Everybody knows her name. But who are those scientists? What are they really saying? I never saw a panel of these scientists on the news. I cannot even think of one name of a scientist who actually work in the field (not just a popular scientific journalist who reads lot of papers).

My point is that if you don't define those special cases in a less general way, you are not really answering the question. And I personally wouldn't say that I want to submit myself blindly to a vague definition of who has that authority and a vague definition of the extend of that authority.

 

[PeterDonis]

So if I don't have time and/or don't understand, it can be a good reason to subject myself to another authority than my own.

Suppose astronomers said that they had calculated the orbit of an asteroid, first discovered a few months ago and subjected to detailed telescopic observation since then, and they have found, after detailed analysis and checking and double checking and triple checking to make sure they haven't made a mistake, that it is going to hit the Earth in, say, 2050. Would you refuse to take that statement as authoritative because you aren't personally an expert in orbit calculations and so can't directly review their work?

Keep in mind that the only statement I am saying you might want to take as authoritative is the statement that an asteroid will hit the Earth in 2050. That is not the same as a statement, from someone else other than the astronomers, about what we should do about it.

This also illustrates the important distinction, which you have not mentioned, between "taking a particular statement as authoritative" and "subjecting oneself to another authority". They're not the same. Not all statements are commands.

I don't recall hearing the scientists, per say.

Finding the actual research paper written by the scientists is usually very simple--just look on arxiv. There is no need to rely on second or third hand accounts from journalists or anybody else. When I see a link to a news article, the only thing I even bother looking for in the article is a reference to the actual paper; I never read what second or third hand sources say about what the scientists are saying.

There is one genuine problem in this regard, which is that so much new research is described in papers that are behind paywalls. That is unacceptable, particularly given that most if not all such research was paid for by us, the taxpayers. There ought to be a hard requirement that any public funded research must make all of its results and data available freely to the public.

My point is that if you don't define those special cases in a less general way, you are not really answering the question. And I personally wouldn't say that I want to submit myself blindly to a vague definition of who has that authority and a vague definition of the extend of that authority.

I have made no such claim. I specifically talked about how the scientists present their claims, not about how second or third hand sources present them.

Also, I think you are getting hung up on the word "authority". As I noted above, taking a statement of some fact or prediction as authoritative is not the same as having someone else tell you what to do about it.

 

[member 656954]

Peer-reviewed papers, ironically enough given PF's rules about sources, are often not the best places for a lay person to get that information, since they are typically written for other experts, not for the lay person.

Absolutely, but PF is a microcosm of the issue with 'science as authority'. Many PF members admonish laypeople for posting uninformed views because they are not technically correct. I doubt such responses are localized to the forums. And as you say, PF requests peer reviewed papers to substantiate arguments being made. It creates a tension that is not easily reconcilable and makes me wonder: can an authority inaccessible by most of the population be legitimate?

Unless there is some reason why laypeople need to know, such as a public policy question that needs to be decided, the laypeople should not have an opinion at all.

This seems a dangerously slippery slope. Uninformed opinions are rarely helpful, but I am not sure that I want a technocracy as my governmental model

That aside, can we grade opinions? As QM blurs into classical physics, at what point is an opinion informed enough for it to matter?

I'm not sure I proposed a gate-keeping idea. Can you be more specific?

Sorry, I meant your concluding paragraph in the Insights piece - predictive track record and uncertainties - which you have expanded on in your reply to me in #55.

Your thoughts are challenging and I'm even wondering whether we all have the same meaning of the term 'authority' through this discussion. Common definitions refer to the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. On that basis, surely science is merely an input to authority, and not an authority itself?

 

[PeterDonis]

PF is a microcosm of the issue with 'science as authority'.

Yes. I explicitly discuss this in the article.

Many PF members admonish laypeople for posting uninformed views because they are not technically correct.

We don't admonish people just for posting incorrect views. We correct them.

We do admonish people for stubbornly adhering to incorrect views after they have already been corrected, yes.

The purpose of PF is to help people learn and discuss mainstream science, and the things I've just described are part of doing that.

PF is not "authoritative" in the sense that we don't expect you to believe what we say, just because we say it. That's why PF has rules about references (more on that below). We don't generally require references for statements that should be common knowledge in whatever scientific field is being discussed, at the level of the thread (obviously what would be taken as common knowledge in an "A" level thread is not the same as what would be taken as common knowledge in a "B" level thread). But that's more a matter of being respectful of the reader's time; a big part of the reason for the thread levels is to avoid bogging down advanced discussions with explanations of basic points.

PF requests peer reviewed papers to substantiate arguments being made.

Yes, but even then, we don't expect you to take what those papers say as authoritative. Requests for references generally fall into three categories:

(1) Someone wants to discuss an interesting theoretical claim or an interesting experiment, but they haven't given any specific source. Without a specific source, so that everyone has a common basis for discussion, the thread is not likely to go well. So we request a reference. The reference still doesn't get a free pass; it will be judged on its merits (as will the claims the poster is making that purport to be justified by it). But having it makes it a lot easier to have a productive discussion.

(2) Someone wants to know more about a topic than can reasonably be explained in a discussion thread. These references are usually textbooks or the online equivalent (for example, I often give references to Sean Carroll's online lecture notes on GR). This is not meant as a claim that every single statement in the reference is true or that the reference should be taken as an authority without trying to understand or evaluate what it says. It is just a pointer to a useful place to start further investigation.

(3) Someone is making a claim that, to readers who are familiar with the field, seems obviously false. We need to figure out whether this person has simply misunderstood something they've read, or is misstating in some way some fairly advanced claim, or has some other agenda. (Technically there is a fourth possibility, that the person genuinely has got hold of something new, but I have yet to see an example.) We ask for a reference to help figure out which of those possibilities it is. Often the actual details of what the reference says ends up being immaterial; it's more a way to properly get the discussion into the correct category.

can an authority inaccessible by most of the population be legitimate?

A question about whether authority is "legitimate" really only makes sense if the authority is giving commands. As I pointed out to @jack action, scientific statements, even when they are backed up by a solid enough predictive track record to be taken as authoritative, don't give commands. They just tell you facts or solid predictions. They don't tell you what to do about them.

So a better question might be whether it's fair (if that's the right word) for so much authoritative information to be in a form that is either inaccessible or uncheckable by most of the population (as with the calculations of astronomers about possible future asteroid impacts, which most people are unable to replicate).

My initial response to this is pretty blunt: there is no free pass to knowledge. If most of the population can't be bothered to take the time to learn our best current knowledge, then most of the population has no right to have an opinion about it. We can't help the fact that a lot of that knowledge requires advanced math or laborious computer calculations. We don't decide what it takes to understand Nature; Nature does. We have to take it as it comes.

It is true that much of our best current knowledge was acquired in a way that most people cannot replicate, and is not necessarily expressed in a form that most people can easily access. A big part of the mission of PF is to help with that, by explaining to people as best we can, in terms they can understand, what our best current knowledge actually says. But at the end of the day, it's up to each person, if they're going to have an opinion about anything they care about, to make the effort to make it an informed opinion.

Robert Heinlein has a character in one of his novels remark that the claim of a person to have a "right" to access to whatever knowledge they want, is like the claim of a person to have a "right" to be a concert pianist--but who does not want to practice.

 

[PeterDonis]

surely science is merely an input to authority, and not an authority itself?

As I said, science can only tell you facts or solid predictions (assuming they are properly verified and checked facts, or predictions backed up by enough of a track record to be solid). It can't tell you what to do about them. So no, science is not an "authority" in the sense of giving commands, even when it makes statements that are solid enough to be "authoritative" in the sense of "ignore this at your peril".

The question of who, if anybody, has a right to give other people commands, is not a scientific question, and (fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view) science does not have much to say about the overall subject. (The discipline sometimes called "political science" is not a "science" in the sense we are using the term here--it's only a "science" in the sense of "something some people study".)

 

[member 656954]

A question about whether authority is "legitimate" really only makes sense if the authority is giving commands.

Most definitions of 'authority' I've seen assign the right of command. Which is why I'm not sure we're discussing this from the same baseline, @PeterDonis, and esp. because you've not defined the term in your Insights piece.

Are you really arguing about the correctness of science and our ability to gauge and ascertain that?

 

[jack action]

That is not the same as a statement, from someone else other than the astronomers, about what we should do about it.

Important distinction, but meaningless in the context. Anyone can say anything based on anything and it won't bother me. What if the pope predicts the same thing based on his bible reading? I really don't mind that he says such a statement. Between those two cases, do I think the astronomer has more chances of being right than the pope? Absolutely, without a doubt. In that case, one can say science has "authority" over religion and I'm fine with that statement since "authority" means "A person accepted as a source of reliable information on a subject." ^[1]

But the question "Is science an authority?", asked in 2020, really only matters on the "what we should do about it" part. If an astronomer tells me that the best protection I can have against an asteroid coming in 2050 is to have an underground shelter that will cost me 50 000 $ to build then, yes, I will take this statement seriously into consideration on my future actions as he is "a person accepted as a source of reliable information on a subject."

That being said if the same astronomer tells me that I'm obligated to build a 50 000 $ underground shelter because science is an authority, in the sense that it is "The power to enforce rules or give orders" or "Persons in command" ^[1], then I have a problem and will even begin to question the validity of the fact there will be an asteroid at all.

I have no problem considering basic science (physics, chemistry, etc.) as a reliable source. Especially at a human level. When it comes to other area like biology, meteorology or even geology or astronomy to some level - basically the study of extremely big, extremely small or extremely complex - I keep my skepticism a little bit more apparent. It is good that we study those fields, but the reliability of the findings at the moment is often weak because of the impossibility of controlling all variables or repeating the experiments multiple times (sometimes not even once). But we do have to start somewhere.

^[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/authority

 

[PeterDonis]

Most definitions of 'authority' I've seen assign the right of command.

I've seen the term used both ways: as having the right to command, and as having the right to have one's statements of fact taken as authoritative.

esp. because you've not defined the term in your Insights piece

I didn't explicitly, but I think it's pretty clear from the article taken as a whole that I meant the second of the two meanings above.

Are you really arguing about the correctness of science and our ability to gauge and ascertain that?

I think you need to read the article again.

 

[PeterDonis]

the question "Is science an authority?", asked in 2020, really only matters on the "what we should do about it" part

I understand this might be your opinion, but I don't think you can expect everyone to agree with it as a blanket statement. For one thing, many people come here to PF to ask about science not because they want to do anything about anything, but simply to satisfy their curiosity.

If an astronomer tells me that the best protection I can have against an asteroid coming in 2050 is to have an underground shelter

No astronomer will tell you any such thing, nor did I say they would. I explicitly said astronomers would not tell you what to do about it. Please respond to what I actually said, not to things I didn't say.

if the same astronomer tells me that I'm obligated to build a 50 000 $ underground shelter because science is an authority

Apply my comment just above, squared, to this.

 

[member 656954]

but I think it's pretty clear from the article taken as a whole that I meant the second of the two meanings above

I like that you've provoked discussion and thought with the article, @PeterDonis, but presumptive interpretations of key terms on the part of a reader for this type of opinion piece leads to miscommunication.

I've read your article three times, and it appears to be a recipe for assessment of claims with two action statements - track record and uncertainty - leading to a 'common sense' outcome of whether a claim is worth taking seriously or not.

The action statements are potentially universally applicable in that they do not need to just apply to scientific claims, and I agree with them wholeheartedly. But common sense is variable, situational, educational, etc., and that's where the wicked problem of this topic kicks in for me.

 

[BillTre]

To me, it is pretty clear that @PeterDonis was using "authority" in the sense of an "authoritative source" rather than an administrative or governmental authority to boss people around.
Words can have several meanings.
At least you guys seem to understand what each is saying now.

 

[PeterDonis]

whether a claim is worth taking seriously or not.

Yes, whether a claim is worth taking seriously. Not whether the person making the claim has the authority to command you.

Can you seriously not see the difference between the two? I never mentioned anyone commanding anyone else in the entire article.

 

[PeterDonis]

two action statements

I'm not sure what you mean by "action statements". I suggested predictive track record and whether due attention is being paid to uncertainties as two ways to assess whether the claims are worth taking seriously. Deciding whether to take the claims seriously is an action on your part, I suppose, but it's not something anyone else tells you to do. It's a decision you make yourself.

 

[member 656954]

English is so imprecise

Can you seriously not see the difference between the two?

I can, my being pedantic with definitions is not to have to infer your intent for the words you use, which can lead to confusion and miscommunication. And 'action statements' is as you saw them, I think, it's just how someone can apply the methodology you describe, as an action. Not as a command, and always as an individual decision to make.

Anyway, I appreciate your Insights piece because the topic is thought provoking, esp. given our 'fake news' environment, and I also feel I've cleared up my misunderstand sufficiently well, thank you for bearing with me, @PeterDonis.

 

[PeterDonis]

thank you for bearing with me

You're welcome!

 

[jack2020]

First - I think this is such an important topic I should say thank you for raising it.

One thing I've always felt should be more generally understood is that science is not engineering.

Engineering expects its outcomes to be predictable within reasonable limits every time using pre-defined
tools and data. An engineer never wants anything unexpected to happen.
Science works differently - its job is to make assertions and then use engineering (i.e. things already believed to be facts - formulas, and other physical tools) to attempt to define the truth or falsehood of the assertion.

This in simple terms of course is "the scientific method"
The flow chart for this is very simple but seems to be seldom passed on in modern schools.

One problem we currently suffer is very basic lack of education that has now filtered its way up
the generations: a simple example I noticed related to Covid - on UK TV

At the start of the UK outbreak a medical professional was interviewed (On C4 I think) who has spent
his life studying virus pandemics in africa. At this time he was asked about face masks.
his response was that paper and cloth masks (expecially when used by the untrained) are a very bad idea
because the virus is very small and can easily penetrate the fabric and will be attracted to and follow the path of dampness created by breathing. This (he said ) was not a good thing to wear.
I have yet to see a second "pandemic specialist" interviewed. I expect they must be far too busy.

Recently since then UK tv "journalists" have been clearly agitating and attacking politicians for not ordering
people to wear face masks - my point in this thread is - a few days ago a female presenter (the one on ITV that used to be on BBC - I don't know her name) was attacking someone for not promoting face masks for general public use and stated that he should "look at news footage of china showing people wearing masks because that was 'evidence' that masks work"

There is a clear and I suggest dangerous dissconnect when a national broadcaster not only commenting but actively agitating a scientific course of action that could concievably kill many people when she doesn't understand even a basic concept of what might constitute evidence. Rightly or wrongly regarding the masks she has I suggest - no business behaving like that. But this behavious by "journalists" is not only accepted it is openly applauded as good "journalism." How is this not "fake news?"

I've also noticed a tendency for these media people to present anyone medically trained as an "expert" suitable for comment on all sorts of issues. The media (and indeed political lobbyists) have much to answer for with respect to the subject of this thread.

These fundamental failures of education seem to also happen with climate science (including affecting many scientists who seem to loose perspective and have very aggressive agendas on all sides of the various fences)
The simple scientific method should be drummed into the heads of schoolchildren along with the concept of evidence and perhaps we'd all be better able to judge the issues.

On the other hand the notion that only a practicing scientist can create a good theory is patently (sic) wrong
for which I refer you to a patent clerk who produced e-mc2 - an intriguing notion I'd hate to have seen dismissed because its creator wasn't working in a lab and didnt hold a degree in cosmology. Should we also have ignored Feynmans interest in biology or materials science because he wasnt expert in those fields?

A trite example perhaps but many amateurs can produce far more important concepts or data by
sidestepping accepted practice. I seem to recal the astronomer Patrick Moore was an amateur and few
would doubt his skills.

I suggest listen to anyone - if you yourself have understanding you may reject notions - but never reject out of hand. To do so would be to display a closed mind - and the world has far too many of those.

Sorry - a much longer post than I intended. I hope it's vaguely coherent!

 

[BWV]

First - I think this is such an important topic I should say thank you for raising it.

One thing I've always felt should be more generally understood is that science is not engineering.

Engineering expects its outcomes to be predictable within reasonable limits every time using pre-defined
tools and data. An engineer never wants anything unexpected to happen.
Science works differently - its job is to make assertions and then use engineering (i.e. things already believed to be facts - formulas, and other physical tools) to attempt to define the truth or falsehood of the assertion.

Some scientific disciplines study relatively simple and predictable phenomena (like physics for the most part). Here you can make highly accurate predictions (which is why engineering works). Very complex systems like you find in biology and particularly medicine, are much more difficult to study, and only crude statistical methods may be available. These, of course, lead to much less reliable predictions and dissenting views among scientists in that discipline. The real misunderstanding by the general public is that all phenomena should be as easy to prove and predict as physics - you see this with skeptics of evolution, vaccines, AGW and many other areas

 

[hutchphd]

Engineering expects its outcomes to be predictable within reasonable limits every time using pre-defined
tools and data. An engineer never wants anything unexpected to happen.

Bad engineers expect outcomes to be always predictable. (The space shuttle will have a failure rate of 1 in 100000 according to them). Good engineers understand that there are no guarantees in anything and good engineering design (particularly design for manufacture) must actively include such considerations. It is the basis for W. Edwards Demming's work on process control.

How is this not "fake news?"

Just because you misinterpret something about masks does not allow you spout about "fake news" The primary purpose for wearing a mask is to protect other people. And so this is not "fake news" but lack of understanding by the guy on this soapbox...

 

[PeterDonis]

the notion that only a practicing scientist can create a good theory is patently (sic) wrong
for which I refer you to a patent clerk who produced e-mc2

This is a very bad example since Einstein was a practicing scientist at the time; he already had a degree, was working towards a Ph. D. (patent clerk was just his day job), and had numerous connections with the leading scientists of the time, with whom he constantly exchanged letters and scientific information.

The correct notion is that only someone who thoroughly understands the existing scientific theories and their limitations can create a good theory. I know of no counterexamples to that rule; certain Einstein is not one. The most common way to get such a thorough understanding is by getting a traditional scientific education, but that is by no means the only way. Einstein actually didn't get much from his traditional scientific education; he built his own thorough understanding of Newtonian physics and Maxwell's Equations, the best existing scientific theories of the time, through his own reading and working of problems, outside of his classes. To the extent he is an outlier, it is because of that, not because he was somehow a complete outsider with no scientific knowledge or experience who came up with a brilliant idea. The latter pop science story is a myth.

 

[BillTre]

One thing I've always felt should be more generally understood is that science is not engineering.

This may be true, but I find many strong intersections between science and engineering.

There are many engineers at universities (and probably other places I am less aware of) who do experiments to determine the parameters they will use for their (or other's) subsequent "normal" engineering projects. This would be when they can't find needed (for their work or field) scientifically confirmed concepts already laying around from previous scientific work.

In addition, I think of successful engineering as providing a very strong confirmation of the scientific concepts underlying what ever it is that is being engineered. Each engineering event is like an additional experiment testing the correctness of the underlying concept in the real world.
To me, this is a very powerful form of confirmation and should also be obvious to "layman" types, since they can see it in the "real" world.
It's the "well, it works" type of argument.

 

[symbolipoint]

Good engineers understand that there are no guarantees in anything and good engineering design (particularly design for manufacture) must actively include such considerations. It is the basis for W. Edwards Demming's work on process control.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You might be interested in the work of Charles Manski, who studies what he called "incredible certitude". He argues that:

1. Assumptions may be incorrect, even when there is consensus
2. Political decision-makers want certainty not ranges
3. The most successful scientist-advocates are the ones who give the decision-makers the certainty that they desire

 

[bhobba]

Einstein actually didn't get much from his traditional scientific education

After reading biographies of Einstein, Fermi and Feynman I suspect many of the greats were like that. I would love to read one on Landau, who I suspect was the same. Why - I don't really know. I do know Gell-Mann got a lot out of his education, liking the varied education he got at Yale, but then again he started university at 14. Even then it left him a bit unsatisfied:


This suggests a possible answer - those in that league already know from their own reading/study much of what they are taught undergrad. Many say Einstein failed math at school - that's wrong. While not in the class of say Hilbert or Hilbert's assistent Von-Neumann, he was a more than competent mathematician. Einstein was sick of the 'conformity' of education in German schools (called Gymnasiums) and left to self study himself. But before doing so obtained a letter from his math teacher that his math, even then, was already of University caliber. After a carefree year he sat for his entrance exams to university, and failed. But like Feynman, who failed miserably the humanities part of his entrance exam to Princeton for his PhD, did spectacularly well in physics and math, so well it attracted the attention of Weber who allowed him to sit in on his lectures. Anyway to actually get admitted he was urged to study at a school not as 'conformist' as German Gymnasiums and gained entrance that way. But, just like Fermi and Feynman, when he finally was admitted he likey knew more than he would be taught anyway. Because of that he was categorised by his teachers as a very smart but lazy sod who, when he completed his degree, could not find an academic job. So he became a Patent Clerk while self studying even further, corresponding with scientists like Weber (who already recognised his ability), wrote some papers, and worked on his PhD. He finally got it, and because of that got promoted I think from Patent Clerk third class to second class. He published papers, and in the magic year of 1905, papers of such quality and importance, it attracted the attention of even more famous Physicists such as Plank. He visited him at the Patent office, expecting to find him in charge, but was shocked to find him just one of many Patent Clerks. Now recognised for what he was, academic positions opened up.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Vanadium 50]

There is an article "https://arcdigital.media/how-science-best-serves-society-493e3bfad0b4" by a postdoc named Walter Harrington.

What I am arguing is that for science to thrive in uncovering the deep secrets of our complex world, we have to be willing to be wrong, and be given the space to be wrong.

Distorting factors — like political values and points of pride — can easily take away this vital aspect of the scientific endeavor, relaxing scientific rigor, encouraging confirmation bias, and ultimately leading to less public trust of scientific claims. Even (or perhaps especially) in times of intense pressure and public scrutiny, we need to strive for intellectual honesty and the humility to admit when we may be wrong.

 

[PeterDonis]

There is an article "https://arcdigital.media/how-science-best-serves-society-493e3bfad0b4" by a postdoc named Walter Harrington.

To me the issue isn't so much giving scientists the room to be wrong, as scientists making clear up front what the actual level of confidence is in what is being told to the public. If the level of confidence is low, because it's an area where we simply don't (yet) know very much or have very good data or have very good models, they should say so. If they are unwilling to hedge to that extent in an area where the level of confidence is that low, then they should refrain from making any public pronouncements at all. If people keep insisting on public pronoucements when scientists are simply unable to say anything with confidence, scientists should keep replying, "Sorry, we know you want scientific guidance on this issue, but we simply don't have any to give you; the science is simply not that good yet."

 

[anorlunda]

From the article:

The second objection is that most people don’t have the expertise to second guess what a scientist says when talking about an area of science.
...
If the scientists have a good predictive track record, and if they are presenting their information with due attention to whatever uncertainties are present, then one’s own common sense should be a good guide in evaluating their claims,

IMO the public is no better equipped to evaluate track records than they are to evaluate claims. Most news reports cite scientific sources by names never heard before, nor will they be heard of again in the future. It is rare when a scientific name in physics becomes recognizable to the public. Stephen Hawking may be the most recent case, and without his disability even he may not have become famous. Without Hawking, we may have to revert to Feynman and Sagan to find a names with a sterling public reputation.

All these issues come down to trust. Trust is sorely lacking in the modern world. Even journalists say, "The era of trust-me has long gone. We are in the show-me era."

 

[PeterDonis]

IMO the public is no better equipped to evaluate track records than they are to evaluate claims.

I agree that you still need information to evaluate track records. But the kind of information you need is much easier for an ordinary member of the public to understand: it's just predictions vs. actual results. You don't need to understand the esoteric details of how the theory made the predictions, or how the theory explains what is going on, or why the theory's proponents think it's a good theory and its claims should be believed.

Of course, if those who claim that their job is to inform the public are not even providing the simple "predictions vs. actual results" kind of information reliably, then yes, we have a bigger problem than just how to evaluate, whether it's track records or claims.

 

[PeterDonis]

Even journalists say, "The era of trust-me has long gone. We are in the show-me era."

IMO journalists have no one to blame but themselves if the public does not trust them.

That said, I don't think journalism should be a "trust-me" profession. It should be a "show-me" profession. As in, show me your past track record of accurate reporting, and of scrupulous attention to detail in distinguishing the different kinds of things you're reporting, not to mention in distinguishing reporting from editorializing.

Of course there is a basic level of trust involved whenever someone is reporting things they have witnessed that the reader has not. If a reporter gives an eyewitness account of an important event they personally observed, I have to trust that they are honestly reporting what they witnessed. But I don't have to trust their opinions about what they witnessed or how it fits into some larger context, and they should be doing their best not to let such opinions color their straight reporting of what they witnessed.

But in any case that kind of reporting is extremely rare in science journalism. Most journalists just repeat what scientists say about their research, so to me the journalist is not really adding any value. Just give me the link to the paper on arxiv. I don't need the reporter's take on it. It would be nice if journalists would try to keep score on predictions by scientists, but I have not seen any signs that they are trying to do so.

 

[anorlunda]

I don't think journalism should be a "trust-me" profession.

My post wasn't clear. Even though a journalist said it, my meaning was that "the trust-me era is over" applies to all of society in all contexts. It is a rejection of leadership. It is the cynicism that all news is fake news.

Of course it is not black and white, there are degrees of grey, but science is not immune to these trends.

 

[anorlunda]

Why can’t we agree on what’s true any more?

That is an article from The Guardian, that is many ways is a dual to @PeterDonis ' Insights article. Rather than treating science as a special case considered in isolation, it treats distrust of authority more generally.

From the article:

This is not as simple as distrust. The appearance of digital platforms, smartphones and the ubiquitous surveillance they enable has ushered in a new public mood that is instinctively suspicious of anyone claiming to describe reality in a fair and objective fashion. It is a mindset that begins with legitimate curiosity about what motivates a given media story, but which ends in a [bleep] refusal to accept any mainstream or official account of the world. We can all probably locate ourselves somewhere on this spectrum, between the curiosity of the engaged citizen and the corrosive cynicism of the climate denier. The question is whether this mentality is doing us any good, either individually or collectively.

We may squirm with discomfort at having a scientific truth lumped with political issues like Brexit, but that is the trend, and it is not confined to the USA. Science is part of that mainstream being rejected.

 

[PeterDonis]

it treats distrust of authority more generally

There is an interesting use of language in what you quote: "any mainstream or official account of the world". The Guardian appears to think these two terms, "mainstream" and "official", mean the same thing. But they don't. "Mainstream" just means "what most people believe". "Official" means "what some authority tells you to believe". If journalists confuse those two things, it's no wonder the public distrusts them.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I think the big issue here is confounding the authority of science (which is a method with a good track record in the long run) with the authority of small groups of scientists or individual scientists in the shorter term.

For a few decades there, too many folks accepted scientific "truth" on the authority of small groups of scientists. Real science has always been about "show me." But the shorter, easier road is usually "tell me."

 

[Vanadium 50]

We may squirm with discomfort at having a scientific truth lumped with political issues like Brexit

Part of the problem is that value judgements are getting lumped in with scientific judgements. Two recent examples:

"Climate change is such a threat to humanity that we all have to give up our wealth and freedoms to combat it, but not such a threat to humanity to increase our use of nuclear power."

"Anti-lockdown protests must be stopped because of risk of the spreading of disease, but BLM protests should not, because of the importance of the issue".

Both statements might even be true (although getting people to agree on what "true" means in this case may be difficult) but they are not scientific statements. Yet both are being presented as such.