The article referenced in that blog post turns out to be open access and pretty pertinent, too.
http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/9/160384 The natural selection of bad science, Paul E. Smaldino, Richard McElreath, -- rec -- On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Roger Critchlow <[email protected]> wrote: > Here's a spin on Eric's question about how is trusting a scientist > different from trusting an authority or a scholar. > > http://sometimesimwrong.typepad.com/wrong/2017/03/ > looking-under-the-hood.html > > concludes > > but, you might say, scientists *are *more trustworthy than used car >> dealers! sure,****** but we are also supposed to be more committed to >> transparency. indeed, transparency is a hallmark of science - it's >> basically what makes science different from other ways of knowing (e.g., >> authority, intuition, etc.). in other words, it's what makes us better >> than used car dealers. > > > The proposal is that authors of papers need to share more about the > context of the paper so journals and readers get stuck with fewer lemons. > > -- rec -- > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Vladimyr Burachynsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Eric, >> >> >> >> I doubt an idea before I ever apply for a grant. Then I deceptively claim >> to be trying to replicate an authorities claims. But the devil within me >> recalls that at least once maybe more often , I have noticed >> >> that the authority’s prediction failed. That knowledge is my group’s >> secret until publication. Then it becomes everyone’s knowledge. >> >> >> >> I have in my memory a perfect “Black Swan” event. I suppose that I have >> more faith in water birds than in statisticians. Perhaps we often hide >> behind obscure math to shield our superstitious insights. >> >> Some times using the math first reveals an outcome that is used as a >> gloss to hide the unknown. For instance the Griffith’s Crack Theory widely >> held in Classic Mechanics. Exactly what is the use of a singularity zone >> >> when a crack propagates in wild directions? The material does not use it >> but then at that scale the material uses Quantum Mechanics but the engineer >> favours The Classic Mechanics. So indeed certain materials do emit light >> >> from crack tips. At the edges of any discipline anomalies will define >> limits or boundaries for paradigms. Without doubt and secret devilish >> memories Science would not evolve so quickly. >> >> >> >> At this point I am reminded of an eminent chemist , Polanyi? who received >> the Nobel Prize and afterward became a philosopher who suspected something >> like superstition, drives many scientists much like >> >> Isaac Newton. >> >> I think as civilized people we prefer to stick with conduct rules knowing >> perfectly well how to violate them and the consequences of doing so. >> >> vib >> >> I guess we should never believe the whole of PR. >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Eric >> Charles >> *Sent:* March-02-17 1:04 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] IS: Rhetoric in scientific arguments WAS: FW: >> Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs >> >> >> >> Glen, >> >> To "Peirce-up" the discussion of doubt a touch. To doubt something is to >> be unable to act as-if-it-were-true without reservation. So, for example, >> you do not doubt Newtonian mechanics under a wide range of conditions (you >> are willing to act as if it is true under many circumstances), however, >> there are conditions under which you would be nervous acting as if they >> were true. Your doubt is not absolute, and the "caveats" you refer to, >> could be expressed as a description of the circumstances under which you >> start to get nervous. >> >> >> >> Your description of replication is good, but non-typical (particularly >> among the chemists, which are Peirce's favorite scientist). We now think of >> replication as part of the falsification process, but that is actually a >> weird way to think about (a symptom of the degenerate state of many current >> fields). The most natural reasons to replicate a research report is a) >> because the outcome is itself useful or b) because you intend to build upon >> it. For example, if someone publishes a novel synthesis for artificial >> rubber, I would probably try to replicate it because I need artificial >> rubber, or because I intended to start with that artificial rubber and try >> to synthesize something new. Under those conditions, anyone trying to >> replicate would be very frustrated by a failure (given some tolerance for >> first attempts). >> >> >> >> Nick, >> >> I think Glen is prodding, in his second part at an extremely important >> point, and one that I have been wrestling with quite a bit lately. It is >> quite unclear why "trusting the work of other scientists" - as currently >> practiced - is not simply another deference to authority. The current >> resurgence of assertions that people shouldn't argue with scientists (e.g., >> that we should care what an astrophysicists thinks about vaccines, or what >> a geneticist thinks about psychology) is bad, and "science-skeptics" are >> not wrong when they attach a negative valence to such examples. Let us >> ignore those flagrant examples, however. How do I determine how much weight >> to give to a report in a "top journal" in psychology? Does it matter that I >> know full well most articles in top journals turn out to have problems (as >> flashy reports of unexpected results are prone to do)? And if I am >> suspicious of that, what do I make of the opinion of a Harvard full >> professor of psychology vs. a bartender who has been helping people with >> their problem for 5 decades? Etc. etc. etc. I think there is a very deep >> issue here, which I'm not sure I've ever seen explained well. I think, in >> part, it is a challenge that was not as prevalent even 50 years ago, but >> that may just be imagined nostalgia. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----------- >> Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. >> Supervisory Survey Statistician >> >> U.S. Marine Corps >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 4:13 PM, glen ☣ <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Heh, your lack of social salve has left me unclear on whether I should >> respond or which parts to respond to. >8^D So, I'll just respond to what I >> think is the most important point. >> >> > That implies that what you say below supports arguments from >> authority. [NST==>I don’t think we can EVER escape arguments from >> authority. Science is locked in a matrix of trust. Doubt in science is >> really important, but it has to be relatively rare, or we would never know >> which of a million doubts to take seriously. <==nst] >> >> I think you use "doubt" differently than I do. Even if we replace >> "doubt" with "falsified", it's not a binary thing. When I doubt something >> an authority says, I'm not refuting, denying, or rejecting it. I'm simply >> expressing that the saying probably has caveats, some of which I might know >> about, some of which I might not. The same is true of (critical >> rationalist) falsification. Even though we know Newtonian physics isn't >> end-all, be-all True with a capital T. It's satisficing in most >> circumstances. To (When I) say it's been falsified simply means it has >> caveats. >> >> And, in this sense of the two terms, doubt and falsification are >> _rampant_ in science. When you try to replicate some other lab's >> experiment, you must doubt, say, the methods section in their paper, >> usually because you don't have the exact same equipment and the exact same >> people ... doubt is what promotes reproducibility to replicability. ... at >> least in this non-scientist's opinion. >> >> > I.e. we can't treat a lack of salve as an assertion of objectivity >> without implicitly asserting that every statement without such salve is >> fallacious. [NST==>Yep. All statements are more or less fallacious. So >> does that render all statements the same? If I flip the coin once and it >> comes up heads, what evidence do I have that the coin is biased. None. >> If I flip it twice, a little. If I get a hundred heads, the probability >> that the coin flips represent a population of fair coin-flips is finite, >> but vanishingly small. I’ld bet on it, wouldn’t you? All statements of >> certainly of that character. <==nst] >> >> No, not all fallacies are the same. Different statements are fallacious >> in different ways. And the argument from authority fallacy, in my opinion, >> is the worst one because it's opaque. You can't learn from it. At least >> with, say, assuming the conclusion, it encourages us to understand the >> relationship between premises and conclusion... it helps us grok deduction >> as well as the host of concepts surrounding languages, formal systems, >> algebras, etc. >> >> Your inductive argument, by the way, isn't obviously an argument from >> authority (obvious to me, anyway -- see how annoying it is), particularly >> with (as someone recently phrased it) interpersonally assessable things >> like coin flipping. Anyone with the usual complement of sensorimotor >> manifolds (!) can put in place the kernel and carry out the iteration. The >> only authorities involved are whatever physical structures are required for >> coin flipping and counting. >> >> But, more importantly, self-consistency (local coherence) is the governor >> of induction. Can you imagine if "successor" were redefined at each >> iteration? So, it helps make my larger point that it's irrelevant what you >> or I believe or state with authority. What matters is whether the >> method(s) hang(s) together. >> >> -- >> ☣ glen >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> > >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
