5 ms·

One good heuristic to use when evaluating scientific research is the Lindy Effect. Essentially, the longer a finding has stood without being falsified, the lon

One good heuristic to use when evaluating scientific research is the Lindy Effect. Essentially, the longer a finding has stood without being falsified, the longer you can expect it to continue to stand without falsification. This runs contrary to what I was taught in high school science classes, which was that newer science is more reliable than older science. The truth is that the old stuff that still stands is really where it's at. Most "novel" scientific findings are not true. A smaller portion will be thought true for a while, then discarded. Only a very small amount of research will stand for a long period of time. Another thing to consider is that the scientific method and its modern, institutionalized implementation is not very old at all. You cannot exclude the possibility that some of our fundamental scientific understanding is totally flawed, and we've yet to discover how.

brianberns 9y ago
> You cannot exclude the possibility that some of our fundamental scientific understanding is totally flawed, and we've yet to discover how. Much of modern technology is built on modern scientific findings. Since that technology unarguably works, the findings on which it is based cannot be "totally flawed".
- pureGuano 9y ago
  It can work, but for reasons different to our positive scientific understanding, no?
  - brianberns 9y ago
    No. The odds of, say, the GPS in your mobile phone working by accident are effectively zero.
    - pureGuano 9y ago
      How large is the preimage of conclusions that would lead to the mathematics of relativity? Is it improbable in light of that? I should also say that physics has a better track record than softer sciences. But even in physics, things change.
      - brianberns 9y ago
        There's no member of that preimage in which modern science is totally flawed.
        pureGuano 9y ago
        Yet we're posting in a thread relating to a massive replication crisis. The geocentric model of the universe was equally obvious and functional to our ancestors in the context in which they used it. We are the same creatures as them and are subject to the same basic epistemological limitations -- just because we have seen further does not mean that we have seen everything. The whole concept of science is exactly to that point. It is implausible under currently available information that we could be missing some fact that would fundamentally change our understanding, but that is not the same thing as saying that there is no possible fact that could cause such a rupture.
    - x1798DE 9y ago
      It's not that it would work by accident, it would be more like it works by a principle to which our physics is a good enough approximation.
      - brianberns 9y ago
        Yes, but then our physics wouldn't be "totally flawed". It would just be incomplete in some ways.
- jdoliner 9y ago
  This is wrong in a few levels. Much of modern technology is built on modern scientific findings but few modern scientific findings have technologies built on them. There are entire fields, such as social sciences, which couldn't really be said to have any technology based on them. More importantly though, technology working isn't the same as an experiment, fire worked as a technology well before we truly understood underlying physics.
  - brianberns 9y ago
    I agree that soft sciences are much more likely to be seriously flawed. That said, working technology absolutely is experimental validation of the underlying science on which it is based (if any).
    - jdoliner 9y ago
      It's very tricky to pinpoint what "the underlying science is." For example my phone is a piece of technology, you could argue it provides experimental evidence for any number of scientific theories. However, the hallmark of an experiment is that it can fail and in so doing disprove your theory. Can my phone fail? It can certainly fail as a phone and most phones do eventually fail for some reason or another. Does that mean that the experiment has failed and the underlying scientific theories need to be thrown out? Probably not, because it's failing as a phone, not as an experiment. What failure means when you try to consider your phone as an experiment is very unclear to me and without a clear failure case that would invalidate the theory it's useless as an experiment.
      - tbrownaw 9y ago
        Transistors (semiconductors) work because of quantum mechanics. If it didn't work the way we expect, the CPU would be a useless piece of rock. The GPS receiver only works properly because we understand and account for general relativity. The radio relies on a lot of stuff related to information theory. Which might be science, depending on how you think of applied math. The screen and battery are built on a lot of materials science, which I don't know much of anything about. . What failure means when you try to consider your phone as an experiment is very unclear to me A phone is far to complex and intertwingled to be a proper experiment; if it works it proves a lot of things, but because of that if it doesn't work it doesn't disprove much of anything. If the phone works, it says "all of these things are true", which is a lot of information. If the phone doesn't work, it says "at least one of these things is not true", which is correspondingly less information. Those things are tied together. Someone who knows more about statistics and information theory could probably explain how a lot better than I can.
- KGIII 9y ago
  In regards to your last paragraph, I'd like to mention that we made use of electricity while still having erroneous ideas about the electron. We even made use of it before the electron was theorized. I'd also like to mention that I am a scientist, albeit retired. I'm wrong more times, by 09:00, than most people are all day. I have no reason to believe we are at some sort of apex of knowledge. The other day, they released findings that showed they can mathematically predict quantum chaos. I'm still pondering the implications. There is so much we don't know, and that's a great thing.
  - xelxebar 9y ago
    Off topic, but mind linking the paper you mention?
    - KGIII 9y ago
      Start here: https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-have-managed-to-fit-quantum-chaos-into-a-maths-equation https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-have-managed-to-fit... I'm going to give it a serious investigation over the winter. I don't have the time to devote to it until then.
  - brianberns 9y ago
    To me, this is the difference between a "good enough" theory vs. a "totally flawed" theory. Obviously, there's a gray area between the two, but I think the distinction is valid. We had a working model of electricity that was good enough for some initial applications. Contrast with, say, Lysenkoism in Russia, which was totally flawed. BTW, I never said we were at an apex of knowledge. I'm trying to quell the concern that what little we do know is somehow going to turn to mud one day. That's very unlikely.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jaredklewis 9y ago
  I guess it just depends on the definition of "totally." It is very much possible to develop something based on the insights from Newtonian physics for example. Newtonian physics is flawed, but often good enough.
  - brianberns 9y ago
    Right. Newtonian physics is an example of a good enough theory. Although it's been proven "wrong", it's still taught in schools and will suffice to get a rocket from Florida to Mare Tranquillitatis. No mean feat.
jackmott 9y ago
>which was that newer science is more reliable than older science. who taught that? I notice a lot of people seem to think this is true. Seems obviously crazy to me! People sure aren't any smarter now.

brianberns 9y ago

> You cannot exclude the possibility that some of our fundamental scientific understanding is totally flawed, and we've yet to discover how. Much of modern technology is built on modern scientific findings. Since that technology unarguably works, the findings on which it is based cannot be "totally flawed".

pureGuano 9y ago
It can work, but for reasons different to our positive scientific understanding, no?
- brianberns 9y ago
  No. The odds of, say, the GPS in your mobile phone working by accident are effectively zero.
  - pureGuano 9y ago
    How large is the preimage of conclusions that would lead to the mathematics of relativity? Is it improbable in light of that? I should also say that physics has a better track record than softer sciences. But even in physics, things change.
    - brianberns 9y ago
      There's no member of that preimage in which modern science is totally flawed.
      - pureGuano 9y ago
        Yet we're posting in a thread relating to a massive replication crisis. The geocentric model of the universe was equally obvious and functional to our ancestors in the context in which they used it. We are the same creatures as them and are subject to the same basic epistemological limitations -- just because we have seen further does not mean that we have seen everything. The whole concept of science is exactly to that point. It is implausible under currently available information that we could be missing some fact that would fundamentally change our understanding, but that is not the same thing as saying that there is no possible fact that could cause such a rupture.
  - x1798DE 9y ago
    It's not that it would work by accident, it would be more like it works by a principle to which our physics is a good enough approximation.
    - brianberns 9y ago
      Yes, but then our physics wouldn't be "totally flawed". It would just be incomplete in some ways.
jdoliner 9y ago
This is wrong in a few levels. Much of modern technology is built on modern scientific findings but few modern scientific findings have technologies built on them. There are entire fields, such as social sciences, which couldn't really be said to have any technology based on them. More importantly though, technology working isn't the same as an experiment, fire worked as a technology well before we truly understood underlying physics.
- brianberns 9y ago
  I agree that soft sciences are much more likely to be seriously flawed. That said, working technology absolutely is experimental validation of the underlying science on which it is based (if any).
  - jdoliner 9y ago
    It's very tricky to pinpoint what "the underlying science is." For example my phone is a piece of technology, you could argue it provides experimental evidence for any number of scientific theories. However, the hallmark of an experiment is that it can fail and in so doing disprove your theory. Can my phone fail? It can certainly fail as a phone and most phones do eventually fail for some reason or another. Does that mean that the experiment has failed and the underlying scientific theories need to be thrown out? Probably not, because it's failing as a phone, not as an experiment. What failure means when you try to consider your phone as an experiment is very unclear to me and without a clear failure case that would invalidate the theory it's useless as an experiment.
    - tbrownaw 9y ago
      Transistors (semiconductors) work because of quantum mechanics. If it didn't work the way we expect, the CPU would be a useless piece of rock. The GPS receiver only works properly because we understand and account for general relativity. The radio relies on a lot of stuff related to information theory. Which might be science, depending on how you think of applied math. The screen and battery are built on a lot of materials science, which I don't know much of anything about. . What failure means when you try to consider your phone as an experiment is very unclear to me A phone is far to complex and intertwingled to be a proper experiment; if it works it proves a lot of things, but because of that if it doesn't work it doesn't disprove much of anything. If the phone works, it says "all of these things are true", which is a lot of information. If the phone doesn't work, it says "at least one of these things is not true", which is correspondingly less information. Those things are tied together. Someone who knows more about statistics and information theory could probably explain how a lot better than I can.
KGIII 9y ago
In regards to your last paragraph, I'd like to mention that we made use of electricity while still having erroneous ideas about the electron. We even made use of it before the electron was theorized. I'd also like to mention that I am a scientist, albeit retired. I'm wrong more times, by 09:00, than most people are all day. I have no reason to believe we are at some sort of apex of knowledge. The other day, they released findings that showed they can mathematically predict quantum chaos. I'm still pondering the implications. There is so much we don't know, and that's a great thing.
- xelxebar 9y ago
  Off topic, but mind linking the paper you mention?
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Start here: https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-have-managed-to-fit-quantum-chaos-into-a-maths-equation https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-have-managed-to-fit... I'm going to give it a serious investigation over the winter. I don't have the time to devote to it until then.
- brianberns 9y ago
  To me, this is the difference between a "good enough" theory vs. a "totally flawed" theory. Obviously, there's a gray area between the two, but I think the distinction is valid. We had a working model of electricity that was good enough for some initial applications. Contrast with, say, Lysenkoism in Russia, which was totally flawed. BTW, I never said we were at an apex of knowledge. I'm trying to quell the concern that what little we do know is somehow going to turn to mud one day. That's very unlikely.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jaredklewis 9y ago
I guess it just depends on the definition of "totally." It is very much possible to develop something based on the insights from Newtonian physics for example. Newtonian physics is flawed, but often good enough.
- brianberns 9y ago
  Right. Newtonian physics is an example of a good enough theory. Although it's been proven "wrong", it's still taught in schools and will suffice to get a rocket from Florida to Mare Tranquillitatis. No mean feat.

jackmott 9y ago

>which was that newer science is more reliable than older science. who taught that? I notice a lot of people seem to think this is true. Seems obviously crazy to me! People sure aren't any smarter now.