[pdupiano]

A few weeks ago I chimed in on a proscience/cable debate and well since the last post I made, i've pretty much stayed away from the science forums because of something I read. The quote I read from Rroseperry was:
 
 
Quote:

What is this fixation on the notion of truth? No one that I ever worked with or studied under ever thought that the work was about the or a truth, it was about the best understanding possible at this moment in time. And yes, data are highly interpreted, how can they not be? There's no way that explanations simply leap out of collected data. Are the interpretations accurate or not? That's the important point.

 
From what I can garner from his previous posts, he is a scientists performing research in biological sciences (not sure if there is a specific area) and so I would take his claim as a truly credible view from a practicing scientist. 
 
With that in mind, I would now like to ask anyone who visits the science forums, do you believe science is about the search for truth or is it the search for what is good for now? And if science is just a search for what is good for now, then how much consideration should we give scientists/science, knowing that it is not absolutely true. 
 
Additionally, as he states, and I agree wholeheartedly, that scientific data is highly interpreted because no measurements or numbers ever just grab you by the collar and tell you "Hey, I'm the Up Quark!" And knowing this, do you still believe that science is objective? If you think about the development of science, in particular physics, you will notice that we practice science as a social construct (please disregard all baggage related to social constructionism, I'm simply stating it as something that is practiced in groups and make no reference to its credibility/truth values as a social construction. No need to lecture me on post modern, Derrida based arguments). By this I simply mean that science is a group activity that like all group activities such as games, are based on certain set of rules/codes. In the case of science, these rules are assumptions that we make, take for example the constant speed of light. From these assumptions, we then derive certain theories, and perform experiments based on those theories and inherent assumptions. Now, what if those assumptions are in fact biased? What if those assumptions are colored by the views of the person who brought out the theory, for example Newton and his strict requirement of a Clockwork universe due to his religious beliefs and God as the clock maker? Or to make an even more disturbing example, what about Dr. Lysenko and institutionalizing Lemarkian genetics rather than Mendelian genetics to promote the idea that if a man and women were communists, then their children would be communists as well (certainly a politically charged assumption). 
 
And the last statement he made should also bother anyone who truly believes in science, "Are the interpretations accurate or not, That's the important point." If you admit that what is sought for is not truth but rather what is true for now, then how can interpretations be accurate if they are compared to something that you do not know is true? I can say that this fake banana tastes like the real thing, but if I've never tasted a real banana, just some genetically modified banana sold in my super market, what do I know?
 
I'm sorry to single out Rroseperry, but I dont think I could ever find a more perfect quote from anyone working on science, admitting the faults/flaws in science that those who do not practice science seem to applaud and cite time and time again as gospel. As someone who does scientific research as well, I know of the faults and difficulties with science and as a consequence have learned more about its faults and foibles, and the more I learn, the more I've realized that most young scientists (phd students/post docs) feel the same way I do, and also old scientists (read: have tenure) but oddly not the case for those without tenure and are still trying to make their way to the top. And these individuals do not, in general, make truth claims or ultimate truth statements. But the individuals who do, are those who are far removed from the "scientific process," individuals who by in large are well informed and very much involved with technology, but not involved in the research aspect. 
 
Now I ask, knowing all this, is science objective? Is it a search for truth? And if it is not a search for truth (absolute truth with a capital T), how much faith can you put into science? 
 
For further reading, I recommend Karl Popper, Paul Feyerabend, Plato, and the series of lectures from Dr. Goldman called "Science Wars: What Scientists Know and how they know it"
 
If you do practice science, please read any of the suggested authors above, its quite illuminating but it may also make you view your colleages/students and yourself in a very different and critical light. 
 
 
 

 

[gregorio]

Obviously a can of worms here. My take on it is that science is simply the best technique we have for understanding the universe around us. Sometimes the search for understanding means searching for the truth and sometimes it means creating an imperfect model to aid our understanding. In general there are very few absolute truths (laws) in science. Science is aware of this and provides a set of terms which allow us to make an informed judgement on the likely accuracy of a scientific idea. For example, hypotheses, theory, theorem, law, etc. So in my opinion, science in general is about increasing the accuracy of our understanding much more than it is about absolutes of truth. Different shades of grey if you will, rather than black or white. The best I can do as a member of the public is to blindly accept scientific laws and to accept theories and theorems with the understanding that there is a variable possibility that it is inaccurate.

I think it's important to make a distinction though, especially as this distinction applies directly to this forum's area of interest, sound. Many hypotheses and theories are created to provide understanding of our observations of the universe around us. As our ability to observe the universe improves we discover new things which either substantiate the theories (reduce the likelihood of them being inaccurate) or require the theory to be modified or even discarded. But this scenario isn't always the case, digital audio is an example of the other type of scenario: In the 1920s a telecoms engineer hypothesised and further developed and published the Nyquist theory, 20 years later Claude Shannon (an electronic and mathematical genius) mathematically proved Nyquist's theory, turning it into a theorem. Based on this theorem, digital audio was developed in the 1960s. The theory wasn't developed to provide an understanding of how digital audio works instead, digital audio exists because the theorem is accurate, a big difference. In other words, if the Nyquist/Shannon sampling theorem had not been developed or is wrong, digital audio would not exist. There are many assertions made here on HeadFi which if true would disprove the theorem. I've even seen some who publicly state they do not believe in the Nyquist/Shannon Theorem. These people either: 1. Cannot therefore believe in the existence of digital audio AND must be amongst the greatest mathematicians of the C21st (to be able to disprove the theorem) or are 2. Ignorant.

G

 

[nikp]

Science is divided into laws and theories. Laws are 99% true while theories are just, well theories (0% - 5% fact). Theories were like faith, one can either believe it or not. Theories such as evolution and the black hole are highly controversial and is subjective. Even scientists have conflicting views on many areas. Some people witnessed miracles, some witnessed aliens, but their sightings are doubted although it may be true. It's sad that science theories are misinterpreted as science facts or laws.

 

[rroseperry]

Hey, pdupiano, I think this is nice use of a post that I made in frustration in one of these interminable threads on science. Although I work for a non-profit now, my training (Ph.D.) was as an evolutionary biologist and I was lucky to work with some very good people, including the originator of the keystone species hypotheses.

Science is our best way of knowing the physical world that we live in. As our tools and understanding gets better, our knowledge gets better and builds. One large problem with discussions here (and elsewhere on the internet and off) is that many people have a poor understanding of how science works. Here's a decent explanation from answers.com on the relationship between theories, laws, and hypotheses. Perhaps because these worlds move between general usage and specific meaning, they're misunderstood, but theories are a lot more than speculative hand-waving when you're talking about scientific theories and so far there's nothing that has thrown (scientific) doubt on either evolution or black holes, neither of which are matters of faith.

 

[pdupiano]

 
Quote:

Hey, pdupiano, I think this is nice use of a post that I made in frustration in one of these interminable threads on science. Although I work for a non-profit now, my training (Ph.D.) was as an evolutionary biologist and I was lucky to work with some very good people, including the originator of the keystone species hypotheses.

Science is our best way of knowing the physical world that we live in. As our tools and understanding gets better, our knowledge gets better and builds. One large problem with discussions here (and elsewhere on the internet and off) is that many people have a poor understanding of how science works. Here's a decent explanation from answers.com on the relationship between theories, laws, and hypotheses. Perhaps because these worlds move between general usage and specific meaning, they're misunderstood, but theories are a lot more than speculative hand-waving when you're talking about scientific theories and so far there's nothing that has thrown (scientific) doubt on either evolution or black holes, neither of which are matters of faith.

Thank you for replying to the thread. Whether the quote was taken out of frustration or not, I agree completely with what you stated in the post and I figure it would be best if the quote came from you rather than from someone like myself. I think the only difference between us is our conclusions after coming to the realization that science does not search for "absolute truth." I think that the real key issue I'm trying to bring up is that most people who discuss science here and else where, know very little of the scientific process. And ultimately, it is not the scientists who goes on and really champion ideas such as pure objectivity and truth with a capital T, rather it is the lay man who reads up on the wonderful things to come out of science and upholds its findings as gospel. 
 
While I agree that science has been an amazing tool and has allowed us to prosper and grow to learn more about he universe than we knew previously, I am uncertain as to whether it is the best tool to obtain new knowledge. And whats worse, is that I am growing more concerned with its approach to Dogma.  As someone who practiced in the field and drudged through a PhD, I'm quite certain you know how difficult it must be to really change an accepted theory in science. When we are in stages of turmoil and there are dozens of theories to choose from and test, I believe that science is the tool that many believe it to be. No one takes any theory to be dogma (read: law) and scientists truly question each and every facet of a theory. But at more docile periods in our intellectual development, overturning certain theories can take the course of an individual's lifetime. What's worse is the alienation of scientists because of their "unpopular" theories. Its almost as if scientists are back in grade school and cliques and camps form around theories. Unfortunately, outspoken scientists are often ostracized and even professionally demoralized/reprimanded for such theories only to be exalted years later when the evidence they presented can no longer be dismissed. 
 
I suppose my motives are clear at this point that I am simply trying to inject that small bit of doubt with regards to science for those in the general public. Hopefully some good will come out of it and more people will realize that science is not the be all and end all to discovering the Truth but rather is a tool to help us understand and the ultimate conclusions of truth are well, I dont know. I don't know what the truth is or if it even exists. I keep trying to find it but I know that I can't find it in science. I tried to search for it in Mathematics, but when I got up to reading about Poincare and his interpretation of the euclidean and non-euclidean geometry problems I realized too that Mathematics is simply a tool to search for the truth and unfortunately cannot ever produce truth of its own. To sum up, perhaps a good majority of my posts can simply state "I dont' know" What's worse is that I can't even know if I don't know. 
 
But thank you again for responding, I do believe our experiences are fairly similar, perhaps I'm taking the more pessimistic route between the two of us. I'm just hoping that it will lead to something constructive. 

 

[rroseperry]

 


Thank you for replying to the thread. Whether the quote was taken out of frustration or not, I agree completely with what you stated in the post and I figure it would be best if the quote came from you rather than from someone like myself. I think the only difference between us is our conclusions after coming to the realization that science does not search for "absolute truth." I think that the real key issue I'm trying to bring up is that most people who discuss science here and else where, know very little of the scientific process. And ultimately, it is not the scientists who goes on and really champion ideas such as pure objectivity and truth with a capital T, rather it is the lay man who reads up on the wonderful things to come out of science and upholds its findings as gospel. 
 
While I agree that science has been an amazing tool and has allowed us to prosper and grow to learn more about he universe than we knew previously, I am uncertain as to whether it is the best tool to obtain new knowledge. And whats worse, is that I am growing more concerned with its approach to Dogma.  As someone who practiced in the field and drudged through a PhD, I'm quite certain you know how difficult it must be to really change an accepted theory in science. When we are in stages of turmoil and there are dozens of theories to choose from and test, I believe that science is the tool that many believe it to be. No one takes any theory to be dogma (read: law) and scientists truly question each and every facet of a theory. But at more docile periods in our intellectual development, overturning certain theories can take the course of an individual's lifetime. What's worse is the alienation of scientists because of their "unpopular" theories. Its almost as if scientists are back in grade school and cliques and camps form around theories. Unfortunately, outspoken scientists are often ostracized and even professionally demoralized/reprimanded for such theories only to be exalted years later when the evidence they presented can no longer be dismissed. 
 
I suppose my motives are clear at this point that I am simply trying to inject that small bit of doubt with regards to science for those in the general public. Hopefully some good will come out of it and more people will realize that science is not the be all and end all to discovering the Truth but rather is a tool to help us understand and the ultimate conclusions of truth are well, I dont know. I don't know what the truth is or if it even exists. I keep trying to find it but I know that I can't find it in science. I tried to search for it in Mathematics, but when I got up to reading about Poincare and his interpretation of the euclidean and non-euclidean geometry problems I realized too that Mathematics is simply a tool to search for the truth and unfortunately cannot ever produce truth of its own. To sum up, perhaps a good majority of my posts can simply state "I dont' know" What's worse is that I can't even know if I don't know. 
 
But thank you again for responding, I do believe our experiences are fairly similar, perhaps I'm taking the more pessimistic route between the two of us. I'm just hoping that it will lead to something constructive. 

Changing accepted theories is very hard and I think it should be, imo. It's like the saying (which I'm sure I'm mangling) "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Think about the Copernican Revolution as a paradigm. People had been going along with this earth-centric theory about cosmology and along comes this guy who says it's all wrong. It was and extraordinary claim at the time,. though it seems completely obvious in retrospect. He did have the proofs, though it took forever to change people's minds for reasons that are cultural and emotional rather than scientific. Unfortunately the scientific community, like other packs of humans, also act on culture and emotion, not to mention habit and competition when it comes to challenges of received knowledge.

There was a thread awhile ago about science and faith, that ended up in another train wreck, but I think it pointed up an important fact. Many, if not most, laypeople treat science the same way the treat religious doctrine, with faith rather than knowledge. Consequently, when they decide to challenge it, they toss the whole thing into question, the way that simplistic atheists (not meaning a slam at my fellow atheists) do. That is something to be pessimistic about.

I don't think I'm interested in truth, too much of a moving target. But I am interested in knowledge, ideas, and this incredible world we all share. And I like the chance to think about these things out loud, so thanks.

 

[nikp]

Quote:

Hey, pdupiano, I think this is nice use of a post that I made in frustration in one of these interminable threads on science. Although I work for a non-profit now, my training (Ph.D.) was as an evolutionary biologist and I was lucky to work with some very good people, including the originator of the keystone species hypotheses.

Science is our best way of knowing the physical world that we live in. As our tools and understanding gets better, our knowledge gets better and builds. One large problem with discussions here (and elsewhere on the internet and off) is that many people have a poor understanding of how science works. Here's a decent explanation from answers.com on the relationship between theories, laws, and hypotheses. Perhaps because these worlds move between general usage and specific meaning, they're misunderstood, but theories are a lot more than speculative hand-waving when you're talking about scientific theories and so far there's nothing that has thrown (scientific) doubt on either evolution or black holes, neither of which are matters of faith.

Evolution is still highly controversial. Scientists thought the coelacanths were extinct, they have evolved into amphibians. They claimed they have died millions of years ago! But are they dead? No, so there has to be some missing links. Millions of scientists do not blindly believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. And that includes great scientists such as Einstein. Evolution is in every text book, yet the discoveries that might defy it were hidden. So is science the truth? No, it's just trying to understand the universe. 
 

 

[rroseperry]

^ Evolution is not controversial in the biological community. When people say that coelacanths had evolved into amphibians, that doesn't mean that all coelacanths were transformed. People were delighted when they were rediscovered, as they're an example of one of the oldest fish lineages. The whole missing links thing suggests that you haven't read much contemporary evolutionary theory.

I don't believe Einstein ever had much to say about evolution, as he was a physicist and all, though if you can find a link other than the "God doesn't play dice" quote (which was about quantum physics and not evolution), I'd like to see it.

 

[nikp]

I know a scientist who teaches evo but doesn't believe in evo science. And no, he is not a creationist or that sort of thing. He just doesn't believe in it.

 

[nikp]

I will stop discussing these because it will never end. And by the way, I think this subject is not relevant to sound science. 

 

[umvue]

Another problem is: how do you know the "truth" is constant over time? Can the laws of physics change with time also? I think it is very hard to prove or disprove whether the laws of physics is the same at different space-time.

 

[umvue]

Quote:

I know a scientist who teaches evo but doesn't believe in evo science. And no, he is not a creationist or that sort of thing. He just doesn't believe in it.

Well, if he had ever compared the genomes of different organisms, he would just have to believe in it or reject the validity of terabytes of genomic data.

 

[fubar3]

I am not a scientist but have a general idea about the scientific approach. Peer review is all important and I don't see it in the strange product reviews found on head-fi.  Subjective experience trumps objective measurement.  A headphone review based on objective measurement would be extremely boring but subjective experience is very misleading.  We need more of the former and less of the subjective in order to make predictions about "will I enjoy headphone X"?

 

[Uncle Erik]

I don't know about this "science" stuff.

My stereo sounds better after I light some candles and walk in a circle backwards while chanting.

 

[Willakan]

Quote:

I don't know about this "science" stuff.

My stereo sounds better after I light some candles and walk in a circle backwards while chanting.

I would like to further add that the above improvement cannot possibly be placebo/bias, because I HEARD it.