Those sciences are also the least reliable ones in general, I think.
(Economy is a social science, so not sure why they're mentioned separately).
TaleWorlds News: New News Necessary for the OT Neophytes
- Thread starter Úlfheðinn
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
(Economy is a social science, so not sure why they're mentioned separately).
That is also a product of the age we live in and the publish or perish mentality. You can not go forward in your academic career by reproducing someone else's study, therefore not many people do it, therefore you can get away with not being reproducible. Plus many try to go for sensationalism in hope of being identified as "high impact".
I find it somewhat unnerving, that economics ranks so well on that list.
There's plenty of historic data and they thrive on it. It's almost like real science!
Yes, we don't even care about psychology, but medicine? That's not good.
Luckily all Covid stuff was high impact and people rushed to do similar studies. But other stuff? Your doctor may give you unreliable advice because of one-time studies that made the journals.
That has occurred to the top elite scientific mind from the very beginning actually. It is just not done as much as it should be for the reasons that I mentioned before. But everyone knows that that's the way it should be. Also it's not like all science has to be thrown out, this is a problem for some of the works being published, and they are so narrow in scope that they are unlikely to actually affect people too much.
In the specific case of medicine, to go into what @MadVader was saying, before something becomes part of clinical practice there needs to be much more robust evidence than one paper that some person published.
Still this isn't great and I wish it wouldn't happen. It will keep happening though as long as the only metric for success in academia is publishing.
I agree with you, almost.
But even long-standing conclusions can be wrong, such as this one about omega 3 fatty acids. Nurses still swear on it.
Why did it take so long to reverse the findings?
It's gratifying that science had self-corrected after decades, but what else that we believe now would be proven wrong eventually? This is about credibility of science, or at least particular branches that are prone to low-quality studies, but interesting to the general populace.
But even long-standing conclusions can be wrong, such as this one about omega 3 fatty acids. Nurses still swear on it.
Why did it take so long to reverse the findings?
It's gratifying that science had self-corrected after decades, but what else that we believe now would be proven wrong eventually? This is about credibility of science, or at least particular branches that are prone to low-quality studies, but interesting to the general populace.
That's not on scientists though. That's on the people who wanted to sell those supplements and did fantastic marketing on it. I am sure there's a lot of things that we are wrong on currently, but on the bright side we no longer use leeches for bloodletting.
Edited because I really shouldn't be posting here from my phone
.
Edited because I really shouldn't be posting here from my phone
.
Last edited:
“We’ve all believed it for quite a long while,” she said. “But none of the trials since have shown these results. We somehow haven’t adjusted to that data.”
This **** just keeps on giving.
@eddiemccandless sure, it's not a problem that opinions change, people change, knowledge changes. All good. But "the scientific community" needs to stop being perplexed that people refuse to act in any demanded manner and bear any political, economic or social cost based on "well, we think x, but we're probably going to change our minds 180 degrees in a couple years, but that's the beauty of it, innit". Yes I'm still mostly about the lockdowns
but it applies to many more things.
Last edited:
Nutrition research is especially difficult though. You have to intervene quite invasively in people's lives to do nutrition experiments and observe people for a long time. You try to feed people a certain food for 90 days, but you never get full compliance and people keep lying about themselves. Since nutrition research is more interested in long term(more than 5 years) impacts, you got another difficulty as well.
Social science is also difficult in general because it's more difficult to predict human behaviour rather than rain or electricity. The problem is not with the people doing social sciences but the object of studies.
But it's right that given these difficulties people should be speaking much more modestly in social sciences and nutrition.
Social science is also difficult in general because it's more difficult to predict human behaviour rather than rain or electricity. The problem is not with the people doing social sciences but the object of studies.
But it's right that given these difficulties people should be speaking much more modestly in social sciences and nutrition.
It's not just their inherently more complex nature. From what Vader posted, the level of negligence and sloppiness is nothing short of willful.
It's also not just nutrition or social sciences. Remember when astrophysicists realized their models and predictions stemming therefrom are actually empirically wrong, so they just came up with the cope of century and jammed gigamega ****tons of magical, invisible, but totally realgirlfirend, who just goes to another high school ok matter and energy into the model, just so that their math still kinda works out.
Inb4 muh graviational lensing. Don't care, didn't ask, one hypothetical "proves" another hypothetical, wow great. I actually don't know **** about astrophysics, don't try to argue with me, but the dark matter/energy still sounds like proper bull****.
It's also not just nutrition or social sciences. Remember when astrophysicists realized their models and predictions stemming therefrom are actually empirically wrong, so they just came up with the cope of century and jammed gigamega ****tons of magical, invisible, but totally real
You're mean
As long as we don't have the magical unifying theory of everything there will be gaps.
But we can still use what we have: send out spaceships and the calculations work.
Or theorise black holes, and later find out they're actually there.
Or observe celestial bodies with astronomical spectroscopy. It works.
Many theories - like dark matter - were just ideas to fill the gaps.
As long as we don't have the magical unifying theory of everything there will be gaps.
But we can still use what we have: send out spaceships and the calculations work.
Or theorise black holes, and later find out they're actually there.
Or observe celestial bodies with astronomical spectroscopy. It works.
Many theories - like dark matter - were just ideas to fill the gaps.
I agree with K on the speculative dark stuff. It's eerily similar to people saying "oh, the lightnings? that's Zeus... the big ass waves? that's Poseidon".
It just looks too speculative and convenient to take it seriously, although I'm sure astrophysicists have indirect evidence of dark matter at least.
Maybe I expected more elegant theories that don't involve inventing forces and invisible dust.
It just looks too speculative and convenient to take it seriously, although I'm sure astrophysicists have indirect evidence of dark matter at least.
Maybe I expected more elegant theories that don't involve inventing forces and invisible dust.
Astrophysics is mostly speculative by design, I don't think anyone in the scientific community would bet their life or even their funko pop collection on the existence of dark matter. It's just the only explanation they have for why gravity seems to emanate from stuff that doesn't emit light, and in something as speculative as astrophysics where the theory almost always predates the evidence, a crappy theory is better than nothing because it can be built on. Quantum physics right now is purely that, nobody knows how the hell it works or why, but the essentially magic speculation will probably lead to working quantum computers in a decade or two.
Every time you talk about lockdowns you sound as if you think that the scientific community was monolithically in favor of them. That was the case at the beginning, when it all started. But there were plenty of people who were in disagreement with that strategy as a long term solution. That was not the scientific consensus, that was a government/management choice (and I personally think that as with most things it was a matter of balance, lockdowns were needed to buy time for the vaccines, but at the same time you can't just keep everything closed for months and months and months to no end).@eddiemccandless sure, it's not a problem that opinions change, people change, knowledge changes. All good. But "the scientific community" needs to stop being perplexed that people refuse to act in any demanded manner and bear any political, economic or social cost based on "well, we think x, but we're probably going to change our minds 180 degrees in a couple years, but that's the beauty of it, innit". Yes I'm still mostly about the lockdowns
I am also not sure what would be your solution to the problem. Let's say for the sake of conversation that you are right and experts and academia suck and we are all a bunch of baboons who don't know what they are doing. What's the alternative? Are we going to start listening to people who suggest replacing mouthwash with bleach instead?
Also regarding astrophysics, and physics in general, there is a ton of extremely complicated math behind those theories, combined with experimental observations. I have a pretty math heavy background myself and I do not understand a lick of it. So I don't think that I am really in the position of saying if what they are theorizing makes sense or not, but maybe y'all know better, if that's the case this should be an easy read and perhaps you can explain it to me
.
Status of the scalar singlet dark matter model - The European Physical Journal C
One of the simplest viable models for dark matter is an additional neutral scalar, stabilised by a $$\mathbb {Z}_2$$ Z 2 symmetry. Using the GAMBIT package and combining results from four independent samplers, we present Bayesian and frequentist global fits of this model. We vary the singlet...
link.springer.com
The progress is already well under way; the first quantum computer, the D-Wave one, was sold to universities and labs around the late 2000s and it had a 128-qubit processor. Nowadays, they're talking about 5000 qubits.
The quantum forefathers with Einstein as the most iloustrious example left us with a gift and a curse in the very theory of relativity. It does poses many mathematical gaps that since the time of its discovery prevented us from moving beyond its borders. Even Einstein shortly before his death mentioned something about his mistakes... I remmember my university quantum chemistry teacher (we later become friends) who would deny every theory attempting to alter existing constants, and what is behind them. He would say nothing can travel faster than light therfore nothing can escape the black holes. We know today that b. h. can emit electromagnetic radiation beyond the horizon of events... Black matter defying electromagnetic radiation, however not experimentally confirmed is in my opinion step in good direction. Math loves it but known theory not so much... Searching for one ubiquitus and elegant "equation" that would conect all, may not be possible and for sure should not be a goal on itself.
Belarus 'diverts Ryanair flight to arrest journalist', opposition says
Nations demand the dissident's release, after a MiG-29 escorts the Greece-Lithuania flight to Minsk.
www.bbc.com
The senators are good men, but the Senate is a vicious beast. And many doctors of theology and priests were quite open-minded, well-meaning people who discussed the finer points of Tomist metaphysics as crazed crowds burned through things and people in the streets below them, because God willed so.
My problem is not with science itself, but how it is presented by - yes, often but not only by non-scientits like journalists or politicians - and the implied technocracy. That politics is reduced to
A microbiologist or and epidemiologist may be the most qualified to answer what covid is and how it spreads etc, but they are not uniquely qualified to determine what political action ought to be taken. A doctor may be qualified to tell you your arteries are clogged and the way to undo it is diet and exercise, but he shouldn't have the right to make you do that. You still have your moral and legal autonomy and you decide. Yes, technically the restrictions were enacted by political bodies, but they did so by just blindly appealing to the scientific authority. Though formally decided by political bodies, the idea that there is only one possible course of action - the one suggested and sanctioned by science - was widely spread and inserted into people's heads.
And this is still the best case scenario where
1) you have the faith and trust that the scientists truly gave their best effort, good faith opinion, which is a huge leap of faith, especially when untold amounts of money and power are involved. sure, there is probably zero corrupting pressure, or outright bribery, blackmail or any combination on a scientist researching how often a ladybug ****s.
2) the most qualified opinion is actually pretty qualified. This too is often not the case. Suppose there is a group of preteens. All but one are old order Amish and one is a "normal" kid. In this group, the normal kid is clearly the most qualified to drive a car. He's never driven one, he doesn't really understand ho a combustion engine works, but he understands the basic idea that you have to put the key in the starter, that the pedals are somehow involved. But I'm still not getting in that car, if he's driving.
You are overstating that point as always, because you don't like to be told what to do.
I'll try to make my conceptual understanding as concise as possible.
1. Public health > individual liberties. Or next you'll protest about the freedom to smoke everywhere.
2. Experts advise, politicians decide - that is as it should be, for better or worse, or we might be ruled by real technocracy and told to do only rational stuff (gasp!). It's the politicians that have the responsibility and they know it, always half-listening to vox populi.
3. The Covid experts gave increasingly better advice as more studies were done. You can't discredit them as not being competent enough, you are siding with the barbarians here.
I'll try to make my conceptual understanding as concise as possible.
1. Public health > individual liberties. Or next you'll protest about the freedom to smoke everywhere.
2. Experts advise, politicians decide - that is as it should be, for better or worse, or we might be ruled by real technocracy and told to do only rational stuff (gasp!). It's the politicians that have the responsibility and they know it, always half-listening to vox populi.
3. The Covid experts gave increasingly better advice as more studies were done. You can't discredit them as not being competent enough, you are siding with the barbarians here.
