116. The War on Science | THUNK 

Dem likes tho. Thanks! :)

This was something I didn't get around to - I think that media sensationalism of scientific findings is annoying & harmful, but possibly necessary in the absence of more Tysons & Nyes. Without a battalion of knowledgeable science communicators, the only way to convey the importance of the scientific enterprise to people is to inflate relatively minor findings to absurd proportions. Demonstrating conclusively that the sun is cheese would be a huge deal! But the reality of a tentative helio-caesul measurement, & all the (totally un-sexy) qualifications that come with it, just don't grab anyone's imagination without some amazing storytelling. Soooo we get the "SCIENTISTS DISCOVER SUN IS A BALL OF CHEESE!!!!111" nonsense to try and convey the potential importance of that discovery to laymen. The enthusiasm is correct, but the factual information is wrong. :/ It also sets an expectation that this is the sort of thing scientists are supposed to do, which is also harmful. But until we can get a culture of critical-thinking scientifically-minded people to appreciate tentative findings for what they are, it might be the only way we can get anyone excited enough to keep funding more research. Obviously "Y SO STUPID SCIENCE." based on a misunderstanding of some research is frustratingly counterproductive. >.

Unfortunately, money is a big part problem here, in my opinion. Media isn't sensationalizing these scientific because they did it for the LOLZ, but because it generates revenue. Then you have those "scientific" papers that produce carefully guided results, such as those sugar studies funded by major industries that rely on its addictive qualities to maintain their profits. These papers contradict, on purpose, those which say the opposite further adding stigma to the scientific community.

Hm. Just wrote about this. Probably should have checked the comments first. Short version is that the media often misreports these things not necessarily because of ratings, but because the people reporting tend not to know much about science or how to actually interpret data. To use the OP example, it might not be that the scientists say the sun is made of cheese, but that a lactose-like substance was detected. Joe or Jill Journalist reads it, thinks of cheese (I know, most cheese is relatively low in lactose, but Joe/Jill doesn't do their homework) and comes up with "The Sun Is a Ball of Cheese?"

RIGHT? HOW IS THIS NOT A THING?!

I did a teency bit on postmodernism in the previous episode WRT Shackel's "The Vacuity of Postmodernist Methodology" paper, but I was basically just parroting him in the interest of describing the Motte & Bailey fallacy - I didn't really get into it in any serious way, because I don't think I know enough to have a well-reasoned opinion about it. (TBH, I get a little lost in the whole modern/postmodern/structuralist/deconstructionist/etc. movements. I'm sure I've been influenced by their ideas, but I'm a big wimp when it comes to leaving the comfort zone of my little desert landscape. T_T) Also, whenever anyone brings up Wittgenstein, I always reach the conclusion that I haven't read enough Wittgenstein, either - which work of his are you referring to regarding "a pronounced hierarchy of discourses?" AFAIK he took philosophy to task for wanting to be like science, but I didn't get the impression that he went after all hierarchies of knowledge! Or are you referencing some portrayal of "*absolute* truth" as one of his empty word-games that only philosophers are concerned with? I'd totally buy that. Man. The more "real" philosophers I talk to, the more I'm convinced that I'm a frickin' idiot when it comes to philosophy.

Haha, I think most people are always in the process of reading Wittgenstein and never quite finished, myself included. On the note of postmodernism, I think there are massive misconceptions in mainstream philosophy about postmodernism and 'postmodernists'. I resent the term 'post-modern philosopher' tbh, it's such a loaded term; I reccommend Lyotard's dissection of 'Postmodernity' if you want a decent understanding of the cultural phenomenon. Most of the philosophers that get called 'postmodern' never refer to themselves as such, and many of them even express worry about what state western culture was generally in at the time. I guess what I'm really harping on about has more to do with the post-structuralists than Wittgenstein, although he more than definitely opened the door for them. 'Language games' was definitely the concept of his that I was getting at in respect to this video, post-structuralists and firebrands such as Feyerabend and Derrida are the ones that take this idea to it's extreme. When Derrida says 'there is nothing but the text', he conflates all kinds of discourse, maintaining that scientific discourse and philosophic discourse are both flawed in the same way as they both depend on the fragile system of signifiers and signified, science is thereby a language in itself with it's own way of playing the game, and it's bloody well good at it. (I dreaded mentioning Derrida over Wittgenstein with my first comment because of the shit he gets, although even I believe he deserved some of it). I know that sounds a lot like the social constructionist theories you talk about in the previous video but there are a lot of subtle differences that aren't relevant enough to be getting into. All in all, I'd love to see a video taking on Feyerabend. I recommend 'Against Method', it's like a really sophisticated version of the arguments you talk about in this video.

Isn't the Derrida quote "There's nothing outside of context?" I remember something from skimming SEP about a very common mistranslation.

Looked it up, apparently it's 'There is no outside-text'. I haven't read 'of grammatologie' (I'm not that into deconstruction) and got the misquote from Foucault, who I thought was pretty reliable when it comes to French theory. My bad, lmao.

I don't believe the anti-science attitude & rhetoric which dominates the public viewpoint right now is based on any of the things you're worried about. Yes, there are some systemic problems with publication & research funding that are complicating the practice of science. Yes, there are some reasons to exercise a healthy skepticism over certain findings. We can & should fix those problems. But even with all the hand-wringing we might do about the effects of corruption & fraud & etc., there's no conceivable rational justification to doubt the efficacy of vaccinations. And here we are with an increasing body count due to preventable diseases - is it because of positive publication bias & some dodgy FDA decisions? Of course not. That's a ridiculous assertion. The amount of scientific evidence for vaccination is *staggering,* far beyond any objection of bias or skewed results, yet (apparently) irrelevant to those who don't adequately value science as an organ for truth. I think your passion for fixing the mechanisms of science are commendable & important, but if you believe they're the primary cause for the devaluing of rigorous evidence-backed research in our culture, I think you're hanging out with too many scientists. ;)

I feel your pain - the number of RU-vid channels that I recognize as being immensely useful for my personal enrichment that I haven't gotten around to watching yet is almost as immense as the number of books I still have to read. >.< Glad that this one made the cut! :D

I couldn't ask for a better response. Thank you. :)

The cultural resistance in the US to robustly demonstrated scientific phenomena (vaccines, climate science, etc.) is not based on different-but-valid interpretations of all experimental data or on a philosophical objection to induction or anything of the sort, it's based on sentiment fueled by wishful thinking. I think it's a false equivalence to suggest that a scientific theory (one which agrees with the balance of experimental evidence) is "just one intuition among many" when compared to hopeful speculation decoupled from data. There *are* interesting academic problems with science as a mechanism for knowledge, but I'd argue it's certainly good enough for the vast majority of practical pursuits! (Also, it's good to hear from you; what ever happened to that collab, dude?!)

First off, the collab falling through is totally my fault. I would be completely down to trying again. I'll send you an email. I agree that in some cases the popular resistance to science is not based on any kind of objection to the methodology of science or another equally valid interpretation of the data. It think that this applies to unjustified theories like "vaccines cause autism" or theories which are completely out of sink with the data, like the global climate is not changing. I also agree that, in the end, we should use science. Regardless of whether it is true, or justified, as a method it generally appears to work to get things done. And while we can suspend belief we cannot suspend action. As you note, one of the great strengths of science is that it is willing to change if new data is presented. But to me that makes the case much more for it being something useful, than something True. However, where I think I may disagree, is on the claim that there are not some trends which drive the popular objections to science which if interpreted charitably are based in real problems for science. Take, what many would classify as the most famously contested scientific claim, the theory of evolution. Imagine we have two theories, the theory of evolution, and a sophisticated version of the theory of intelligent design. Both theories account for all of the current data we have, but predict that we will uncover different things in the future. Now using ampliative principles like occam's razor or a preference for theories that predict instead of accommodate, could resolve the issue, but whether such principles are fair game is exactly what is at stake with the problem of underdetermination. In another vein, imagine while someone agrees with the empirical data that the climate is changing, but claims that it is due to a change in the tilt of the earth's axis, as opposed to human action, or a combinations of the tilt, human action and other factors. Climate science is very complicated and there are so many variables to take into account, it does not seem unreasonable that someone could present a theory which accommodated all of the data, but minimized or eliminated the influence of humans in the change. Once again it would seem that we are underdetermined as to which theory is correct. Unfortunately, the opponents of particular scientific theories often do not state their viewpoints so clearly, but it seems to me that a charitable interpretation of positions like intelligent design can make their case exactly because of the real problem of underdetermination for scientific realism.

It depends on what you mean by "science". I don't believe science makes ontology claims, but I think the majority of scientists do.

Nutrition science is really, really, absurdly hard to do well, & there have been obvious political pressures from various food lobbies to distort the picture even further. That being said, I don't think many of us choose to eat even close to healthily, & if the only thing the food pyramid does is compel people to eat less sugar/fast food & more vegetables, it's probably fine, even if it's probably inaccurate in many ways.

Wow! Thanks for your feedback! I appreciate your concern that my little hobby isn't getting the attention it deserves, but (as you suspected!) I have many reservations about potentially changing my approach. I have a strong preference for making videos in a particular way I feel is "authentic" to my personal presentation style. (I'm sorry if you find it boring or a chore to engage with!) Also, saying my audience is "nice" is vastly understating matters, IMO - they're delightful. I am a delicate flower, & I *absolutely could not* handle a mainstream audience, with all the alienation & abuse that entails. I don't rely on RU-vid to make a living, so I'm quite content making things the way I like to make them for the folks who enjoy that sort of thing. :) I hope you're not too put out by my stodginess - I do sincerely appreciate you looking out for me & my interests, & I'm flattered that you think I'm "influencing people for the better." Thanks again!

@@THUNKShow It's your channel and your choice. Either way I'm sure you'll be happy. I find in your reply a tacit acceptance that following my advice would grow your channel, right? But you say you don't want that because of 4 reservations, correct? (Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I'm getting from your reply.) 1. I don't have a financial incentive to grow. 2. If I followed your suggestions, I might alienate the audience I'm currently catering to. (I got this one from your last paragraph, but it is rather interpretive.) 3. If I had a larger audience, I would get attention and abuse that I could not handle. 4. I have a strong preference for making my videos authentic to my style over growth of my channel. I just want to check your thinking on these reasons. If you're anything like me, you might be holding yourself back for bad reasons. You might be self-limiting out of fear which is often at odd with your other goals. 1. Whether or not you have financial incentive to grow, would you not like more money? You could save for your children's education or get better books, or just donate it to charity. I mean, it's plausible that you don't want more money- like a Marius from Les Mis kind of thing... But even he was conflicted about that. 2. I doubt your alienate your current audience. As much fun as your intro jokes are and numbers on your videos are, I don't think people are watching you for that. In fact, most of your subscribers don't actually watch your new videos, and your videos vary widely in the number of views they get. It makes me think that you constantly get new audience members that don't come back (like me). And even the people that subscribe don't watch (probably because of your low clickthrough rate). Your audience might not be as homogenous as you think. But I could be wrong. Maybe if you make your thumbnails more interesting, like a band that finally gains traction, your early fans will... quit listening to you because they are hipsters. No I can't see that happening. Usually the early fans are invested in the channel growth that they've supported since the beginning. Maybe I'm overestimating the 1.5k that watch yours when they come out. 3. Ah yes. It's true that larger audiences are more stressful. But at what point have you gotten too large? Clearly your channel started out small, like all channels do. But if you haven't reached a point that it's gotten uncomfortable, then why do you suppose that you will? Do you dislike it when your videos get more views or are you proud of those videos? Do the comments in your more watched videos get more aggressive and worse, or is it more of the same? If they are more of the same, I don't think you have much to worry about. But maybe if you make it more "clickbait-y" then you'll attract the scum of the earth, like me, who will leave long comments. It's possible. But I think that people who area already interested in science and philosophy will watch your videos. I'm a philosophy/mmbio double major who watches RU-vid at double speed for too many hours each day. Yet in all my philosophy research for classes, etc, I've never come across your channel. IN 5 YEARS, I have only barely come across it. Maybe I'm a bad example, and you don't want people like me here. Sure sure. But, what kind of RU-vid videos do you watch? Do you watch Crash Course? SciShow? Wireless Phil? In a Nutshell? CGP Grey? Veritasium, Smarter Every Day? If you do, then I think that you wouldn't have seen your own channel. Imagine if those channels didn't make their thumbnails pleasing or easier to click on. You probably wouldn't have even known about them. You've grown up so far handling some haters- and your target audience is still the same kind of reasonable people- but you'd just have more of them. 4. Okay. I'm just curious about your "strong preference" for your "authentic" presentation style. Do you feel like you'd be betraying your authentic self if you changed the few things that I mentioned? I think your channel is great, but the marketing is bad. The only actual content I suggested changing is to move the joke to the back of the video. Is the thumbnail the content? Or is it just the package? If you change the package, are you betraying your real authentic presentation style? Why would you be posting on RU-vid unless you wanted to educate or share what you love? Why not just share that with more people? As a middle school math teacher, the most satisfying experience is to get a bored child to be interested in math. It makes me feel like I'm a good teacher. I'm helping him/her, and opening up all kinds of possibilities in their future. If I had a shit psychology teacher in high school, or a terrible philosophy teacher in college, I wouldn't be helping people the way that I am today. I wouldn't be applying to graduate school for molecular biology if it wasn't for my 6th grade biology teacher. I don't think you're being stodgy, but I do think you're self limiting. Look at the top comment on this video. I guarantee that you'd only get more of those. Maybe I misunderstood you-- but either way, please examine why you don't want to change. Make sure that you have a good reason. Is it pride? Is it fear? Don't avoid doing something you believe in for bad reasons. Either way, thanks for you channel. I'll try and ignore my monkey brain and actually click on your videos because I know I'll like them. I just wish knowledge was a treat to both the monkey and the wizard. waitbutwhy.com/2019/08/fire-light.html

tl;dr - Science is much better than human intuition for figuring out how the universe works, but because it gives different (better) answers than intuition, people find it unintuitive & doubt it.

Well: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xu6kkLJ58Z0.html

If you look very closely, you can see my dignity expiring mid-sentence.

I don't know that I agree - do you have an example of "dangerous results" caused by trusting the scientific method to mitigate bias?

I have to admit that I don't have any hard sources right now - I'll get back to you (even if it turns out I can't find any). But, for instance, sampling bias is a real thing, and can occur without people noticing. My point is when one interprets the data that one has collected, the biases can creep back in, and the idea that "it's science, so it must be objectively bias-free" will make it harder to point out incorrect interpretations.

Awesome, looking forward to it! There are definitely degrees of cleaving to the scientific method (sometimes defined by what sort of experiments are even possible), which are more or less prone to the effects of bias, but I think that's borne out in how scientific consensus is shaped. Some drug trials aren't double-blind - medical experts don't discount them by any means, but their confidence in those findings are shaped significantly by the space for experimenter bias. That's why I cited the inherent statistical nature of science in here - it's *objectively* true that there's only a 1 in some-odd-billion chance that the Higgs Boson "discovery" was an error. No amount of researcher-squinting can controvert that data, and it'd be a mistake to suggest that those CERN physicists' findings should be suspect because they *really really* wanted to find the Higgs!

Hey, I've so far found two articles (at least, two free ones) that discuss gender bias in (medical) research. For instance, historically women have been underrepresented in clinical trials, which might result in prescribed dosage being too high or low for women. But, it's also worth noting that the second article points out that these forms of bias 'may be corrected by adhering more strictly to the existing methodological norms of scientific inquiry'. So my point is really that yes, the scientific method as an ideal rules out bias, but our biases can also sometimes cause us to stray from it without us noticing. articles: journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/014107680710000102 jech.bmj.com/content/61/Suppl_2/ii46.short

Fair point, great articles! I'm going to put them in the description, do you mind if I cite you there?

I've only seen his TED talk & read some criticism of his work. It's a fair point that existing paradigms frequently define the direction of scientific thought in ways that can't always be justified by the data (Kuhn said as much), but it sounds an awful lot like his assertions are mainly motivated by the scientific consensus is that *his* work is pseudoscientific nonsense. I'd be more inclined to trust the consensus. ;)

At least, contrary to the scientific consensus, Rupert Sheldrake has had the courage to admit that genetic determinism, the assumption that underlies all contemporary biology, has never been validated so far and has become an unquestionable dogma. Try and ask any biologist "how does your genome determine your morphology?" and "how does your genome determine your instinctual behaviors?" and "how does your genome determine your conscience?" You'll receive no honest answers, simply because the only thing that your genome actually does is synthesize proteins and enzymes. Nothing more! Then Rupert Sheldrake has tried to give alternative weird explanations to how morphology and instincts are determined, but that's another matter... Anyway, the first step to change and progress is always admitting failure and...demistifying the "scientific consensus"...

I'm glad there are some philosophers in the mix here! The demarcation problem is definitely alive & well, & it's definitely arguable that "science" (whatever that is) can't be categorically separated from other sources of knowledge, but I think that even a qualitative difference in rigor can be argued to be significant enough to dismiss certain attitudes (e.g. anti-vax) as inherently foolish. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8dmOmprI0v4.html

***** Thomas Kuhn analysis of how science develops takes a historical perspective not a methodological one. They're not opposed. The method (no-method maybe jaja) can be anarchic and the history still can be one of paradigm shifts and kuhn-losses.

_"Modern science is intrinsically infested with ideological axioms and assumptions [...] that have subtly replaced religious dogmas."_ Yeah, that sound exactly like the conspiracy theories used to back up creationism, climate science denial, and the flat earth.

Yes, the example he gives at 9:09 totally shows that science is not willing to "psychoanalyze" the problem... Why would a rational mind use cancer as a proof of failure of dietary recommendations? No logical reason, apparently... But in psychoanalysis, we know that the mind often operates by "condensation" and "displacement", so that the real motivations behind one's thoughts and actions are not always apparent. In this specific case, there may be a problem with dietary recommendations and a problem with cancer, these two problems would actually be totally distinct, but the mind could express them as related to one another. In any case, dismissing the critique altogether is always an intellectually dishonest attitude.

Well, you clearly don't even know the meaning of conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory is when you impute someone's fault to his evil intent, an intent to pursue one's own interests at the detriment of the others' interests. It's not what I said, assuptions and axioms are inherently necessary in the scientific inquiry, but the process that transforms them into dogmas is totally unconscious, involuntary and ultimately irrational. And by the way, I don't believe in God, I don't deny climate change and I don't think the Earth is flat...

I think you are confusing a "logical reason" and just a reason. A logical reason would be a reason that uses deductive reasoning and/or formal logic. It may make sense from a psychological perspective why someone would or would not accept a study as valid evidence, but if the reason they are doing it is because of their subconscious, or an emotional reason, that it is not a "logical reason".

yeah, that's exactly what I said: "No logical reason, apparently..."