Bugmaster comments on How to Not Lose an Argument - Less Wrong

109 Post author: Yvain 19 March 2009 01:07AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (409)

Tags: argument

Comments (409)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Bugmaster 14 December 2011 01:13:04AM 1 point [-]

1-that as an institution and a belief-sysetm "science" does not live up to the scientific method.

I'm not sure what it would mean for science to "live up" to the scientific method. The scientific method is, well, a method; it's not an ideology.

Sure, scientists are humans with power and discourse and all kinds of cognitive biases, and thus they don't practice the scientific method with absolute perfection. And yes, I bet that there are quite a few traditions and institutions within the scientific community that could be improved. But, even with all its imperfections, science has been devastatingly effective as far as "belief systems" are concerned. As it was said upthread, science actually predict which planes will fly and which will fall; so far, no other methodology has been able to even come close.

Comment author: Boyi comment score below threshold [+] (57 children)

Comment author: Bugmaster 14 December 2011 02:37:46PM 2 points [-]

You are measuring success by material transformation of the world.

I would argue that our ability to "materially transform the world" (which is material) is a direct consequence of our ability to acquire progressively more accurate models of the world.

Has flight made humans happier and safer?

Yes. Do you disagree ? I am somewhat surprised by your question, because the answer seems obvious, but I could be wrong. Still, you say,

I am by no means trying to say that flight was a bad thing.

So... it sounds like you agree, maybe ?

What I am trying to question in the majority of my posts is the assumption that a greater capacity to dominate material reality equals a greater benefit to humanity...

This is, at best, an argument against technology, but not against science.

Comment author: Boyi 14 December 2011 02:50:04PM 0 points [-]

... you conviently do not address some of the examples I provide of the negatives of flight. I am not against either techology or science in moderation, which I do not think exists in the current state of things.

This is, at best, an argument against technology, but not against science.

No, it is an argument against the ideology that endless minipulation/dominance of the material world is purely benefical. Science is as much an attempt to dominate/minpulate reality as technological development.

Comment author: Bugmaster 14 December 2011 06:21:15PM 2 points [-]

you conviently do not address some of the examples I provide of the negatives of flight.

Oh, I agree that there are negatives, I just think that the positives outweigh them. I can defend my position, but first, let's clear up this next point:

Science is as much an attempt to dominate/minpulate reality as technological development.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "dominate/manipulate". As I see it, science is an attempt to understand reality, and technology is an attempt to manipulate it. Do you have different definitions of "science" and "technology" in mind ? Obviously, a certain amount of technology is required in order for science to progress -- microscopes and telescopes don't pop out of thin air ex nihilo -- but I think the distinction I'm making is still valid.

Comment author: TimS 14 December 2011 06:40:43PM * 0 points [-]

Science doesn't motivate itself. The social purpose of learning to make better predictions (science) is to be better at controlling the environment.

The fact that we can control an environment doesn't imply that we should control it that way, and Boyi seems to be conflating those points. But that doesn't change the social purpose of science.

ETA: Understanding reality is what science says it does. But from a functional point of view, it is irrelevant whether the model is "true" because all that matters is whether the model makes accurate predictions.

Comment author: Bugmaster 14 December 2011 07:02:26PM 1 point [-]

I agree with what dlthomas said. In fact, most scientists I know are pursuing science out of intrinsic interest, like he said -- though that's just my personal experience, which may not be representative.

But from a functional point of view, it is irrelevant whether the model is "true" because all that matters is whether the model makes accurate predictions.

What's your definition of "true", then, besides "makes accurate predictions" ?

Comment author: TimS 14 December 2011 07:20:15PM * 0 points [-]

What's your definition of "true", then, besides "makes accurate predictions" ?

I did say that I was doing a functional analysis. The social purpose of labeling a scientific statement as true is to differentiate statements that are useful in making accurate predictions from those that are not useful for making predictions. Also, see my response to dlthomas.

If we stop using functional analysis, the question of truth remains. Personally, I have a lot of trouble coming to a satisfying conclusion about the concept, because I think the hypothesis of the incommensurability of scientific theories is strongly supported by the evidence. Notwithstanding that incommensurability, I think that the ability of science to make accurate predictions is based on the regularity of phenomena. I wrote this earlier, which is a slightly more detailed version of the same point.

Comment author: Bugmaster 14 December 2011 09:36:29PM 1 point [-]

The social purpose of labeling a scientific statement as true is to differentiate statements that are useful in making accurate predictions from those that are not useful for making predictions

I may be exposing my ignorance here, but I don't understand what you mean by a "social purpose". The purpose you describe sounds like an entirely pragmatic purpose to me; i.e., it's the one that makes sense if you want to discover more about the world -- but perhaps this is also what you meant ?

I wrote this earlier, which is a slightly more detailed version of the same point

I read that comment, and I disagree with its premise: "It's like Aristotle [and Newton] wasn't looking at the same reality". Both Newton and Aristotle (ok, Aristotle not as much) explain not only their conclusions, but the evidence and reasoning they used to arrive at these conclusions, and it's rather obvious why they made the mistakes they made... it's because they were, in fact, looking at the same reality we now inhabit. You'd make the same mistakes too, today, if you knew nothing of modern science but tried to figure out how the world worked.

Furthermore, Newton wasn't even all that terribly wrong (again, Aristotle was a ways off). If I want to predict the orbit of our Moon with a reasonable degree of certainty, or if I simply want to lob a rock across the top of an enemy fortress's walls with my trebuchet, I don't need relativity.

If different scientists are looking at a different reality, how on earth did we keep making better predictions? Thus the appeal to the regularity of phenomena, which rescues the concept of scientific progress...

You make it sound as though the "regularity of phenomena" is some kind of a trick that people invented so they could keep getting tenure, or something. I, on the other hand, would claim that it's simply the most parsimonious assumption, given our observations.

Comment author: TimS 15 December 2011 01:50:42AM 0 points [-]

I don't understand what you mean by a "social purpose"

It's not a big deal. I was trying to be precise to avoid the appearance of a naive claim like "purpose is an objective property of things," which is clearly false. Purpose is only meaningful as a reference to something, and I'm referencing society.

I read that comment, and I disagree with its premise.

The Aristotle / Newton comparison is meant to be evidence for the hypothesis of incommensurability of scientific theories. If it doesn't convince you, then I regret that I'm not a good enough historian of science to present additional evidence. (For example, the issues about phlogiston do not seem like compelling evidence for the theory to me, although experts in Philosophy of Science apparently disagree). The only other point in favor of incommensurability of scientific theories is something like "It's awfully lucky that scientific theories are commensurable, because theories of everything that are not scientific (i.e. moral theories) are definitely incommensurable."

Anyway, disbelieving the scientific incommensurability hypothesis (SIH) means that the point about phenomena is not all that interesting or insightful. But if you believe SIH, then the scientific nihilism (i.e. there is no objective reality at all) is very tempting. But scientific nihilism must be rejected because science keeps making accurate predictions. Not only that, the predictions keep getting better <i.e. once we didn't know how to build computers. Now, we do>
So even if we reject the idea of accurate scientific models based on the SIH, we still are committed to some sort of regularity, because otherwise accurate prediction is extremely unlikely. That's phenomena. Sort of the middle ground between scientific nihilism and a belief in the accuracy of scientific models.

continue this thread »

Comment author: dlthomas 14 December 2011 06:55:50PM 0 points [-]

Some people do seem to pursue science out of intrinsic interest, however.

Comment author: TimS 14 December 2011 07:08:14PM 0 points [-]

I'm sure many people do intrinsically enjoy science. Nonetheless, the reason society pays for science research is because it leads to being able to make more accurate predictions.

Comment author: dlthomas 14 December 2011 07:14:37PM * 0 points [-]

I think that's pretty clearly the case, yes.

Edited to add: On reflection, I think this is not at all clear. Surely some science funding is so directly motivated, but a lot seems to be more related to signaling.

Comment author: Boyi comment score below threshold [+] (5 children)

Comment author: TimS 14 December 2011 03:29:26PM * 1 point [-]

I'll concede that the Enlightenment did more to relieve human suffering (or whatever measure you prefer) than the advance of science. <Again, I don't think this a a majority position in this community.>
Will you concede that the Enlightenment's continued viability is reliant on the increase in wealth it caused, including the increase in wealth from scientific progress?

No, it is an argument against the ideology that endless minipulation/dominance of the material world is purely beneficial.

You don't need to believe post-modern thought to be an environmentalist. Nor does being post-modern guarantee that you are an environmentalist. (or any other critique of human application of "scientific" domination of nature).
In short, you are overstating the usefulness of post-modern analysis. Economists (whether or not they think Kuhn was saying something useful) already have language for the types of problems you identify with the social application of scientific prediction.

Comment author: Nornagest 14 December 2011 07:14:00PM * 0 points [-]

But [flight technologies] have also (along with shipping technologies) been the primary cause of ecological devastation.

This might be a bit of a digression, but I'm going to have to ask for a cite on that. My understanding is that power generation and industry are responsible for the majority of carbon emissions; Wikipedia describes transport fuels (road, rail, air and sea inclusive) as representing about 20% of carbon output and 15% of total greenhouse emissions.

Now, you said "ecological devastation", not "carbon", and air and sea transport's more general ecological footprint is of course harder to measure; but given their fuel-intensive nature I'd expect carbon emissions to represent most of it. There's also noise pollution, non-greenhouse emissions, bird and propeller strikes, pollution associated with manufacture and dismantling, and the odd oil spill, but although those photos of Chittagong shipbreakers are certainly striking I'd be surprised if all of that put together approached the ecological impact of transport's CO2 output, never mind representing an additional overhead large enough to dominate humanity's ecological effects.

Comment author: Boyi 14 December 2011 07:33:47PM 0 points [-]

Sorry I was again assuming a common basis of knowledge. Carbon emissions would be environmental damage (damaging to the biosphere as a whole). Ecological damages more commonly refers to damages to ecosystems (smaller communities within the biosphere). When people talk about ecological damages they are primarily talking about invasive species. Invasive species are plants, animal, bacteria, and fungi that have been artificially transported from one ecosystem to another and have no natural predator within it. Huge portions of American forest are being eradicated as we speak by Asian beetles, plants, etc.

The primary cause of invasive species is trans-Atlantic/ trans-pacific shipping and flights. We try to regulate what gets on and off ships and boats, but it is really really hard. If you ever take a class in ecology this fact will probably be beaten into you. I work with an ecologist so I hear all the time about the devastation of invasive species and the growing frailty of the worlds ecosystems.

Comment author: Nornagest 14 December 2011 07:45:54PM 0 points [-]

Thank you; that makes sense.

Comment author: TimS 14 December 2011 02:28:11PM 0 points [-]

That's not a debate about science.

Bugmaster comments on How to Not Lose an Argument - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (409)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (409)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login