Actually, this illustrates scientific thinking; the doctor forms a hypothesis based on observation and then experimentally tests that hypothesis.
Most interactions in the world are of the form “I have an idea of what will happen, so I do X, and later I get some evidence about how correct I was”. So, taking that as a binary categorization of scientific thinking is not so interesting, though I endorse promoting reflection on the fact that this is what is happening.
I think the author intends to point out some of the degrees of scientiificism by which things vary: how formal is the hypothesis, how formal is the evidence gathering, are analytical techniques being applied, etc. Normal interactions with doctors are low on scientificism in this sense, though they are heavily utilizing the output of previous scientificism to generate a judgement.
Most interactions in the world are of the form “I have an idea of what will happen, so I do X, and later I get some evidence about how correct I was”.
Perhaps, but a the doctor in the OP did not just happen to later get some evidence about how correct he/she was; instead, after formulating a hypothesis, the doctor ran a test specifically to test the hypothesis. That is practically a textbook example (albeit a fairly short/simple one) of the scientific method at work.
though I endorse promoting reflection on the fact that this is what is happening
And that was really my point. It is worth noting that the scientific method is really just a very rigorous formalization of common sense reasoning. I think that demystifying science among the non scientifically sophisticated population is actually a step in the direction in which the OP gestures.
Normal interactions with doctors are low on scientificism in this sense, though they are heavily utilizing the output of previous scientificism to generate a judgement.
This also is true; even if one can’t expect the full-on House M.D. treatment each time one goes in with a sinus infection or strep throat, many of the protocols that the doctor follows and the medicines that he/she prescribes were developed/tested with a high degree of scientific rigor.
Being to vague to be wrong is bad. Especially when you want to speak in favor of science.
I agree, it’s good to pump against entropy with things that could be “Go Science!” cheers. I think the author’s topic is not too vague to discuss, but his argument isn’t strong or specific enough that you should leap to action based solely on it. I think it’s a fine thing to post to Discussion though; maybe this indicate we have ideal different standards for Discussion posts?
There no reason to say “well maybe the author meant to say X” when he didn’t say X.
Sure there is! Principle of charity, interpreting what they said in different language to motivate further discussion, rephrasing for your own understanding (and opening yourself to being corrected). Sometimes someone waves their hands in a direction, and you say “Aha, you mean...”
Above the author says “I think query worded it better”, which is the sort of thing I was aiming to accomplish.
Above the author says “I think query worded it better”, which is the sort of thing I was aiming to accomplish.
That result didn’t include a discussion about the value of including formalism in the definition of science.
The question about whether “formalism” is a central part of science is one that’s to be had on LW.
Instead of saying: “I think you meant to include formalism.” it’s better to say: “I think formalism should be part of the our definition of science because of X, Y and Z.”
That would make the discussion less vague and more concrete. Maybe someone agrees with your reasons. Maybe people disagree. In both cases there’s productive discussion.
I think it’s a fine thing to post to Discussion though
Criticizing an argument is not the same as objecting to it being posted. If vague ideas are posted in discussion then, it makes sense to have a discussion with the goal of getting the ideas less vague.
In addition to the question of “formalism” the OP’s definition of science also lacks public challenge of ideas. Is that a conscious decision? I don’t know.
As it stands the post is not address any of the concerns in the topic that exist in LW culture.
To teach Bayesian statistics well you need calculus. Most statistics 101 classes teach frequentists statistics with p-values. Commonly they are taught in a memorize the teacher password way, that doesn’t leave students with real understanding. Doctors have their statistics 101 classes but they mostly just memorize it and then forget it afterwards.
Does statistics 101 teaches students to expose themselves to empiric feedback? I don’t think it does.
Simply saying: We need to teach more students statistics 101 ignores all that previous discussion.
He claims that LW is mainly about logical consistency and biases. I don’t think that’s the case.
Rationality!CFAR2015 seems to be: Your system I and system II are aligned in a way that if it’s rational to get up at 7 o’clock your brain wakes you up at 7 o’clock without you needing an alarm clock. Then you work on the most important thing in your life. We are not planning of publishing papers because academia with it’s ethical review boards is too bureaucratic.
The post ends up with the sentence “It’s disappointing that most people don’t seem to understand even the basics of science.”
There are two ways to think about this. The “Go Science” way is to think that it’s somehow obvious what those basics are. The author and the readers who what they are and as it’s about statistics a statistics 101 course should solve the issue.
The other is to say, that actually it’s not obvious what the basics are. It doesn’t seem obvious for the author that systematization or formalization is an essential part of science that has to be in the definition. It’s not obvious to the author that public criticism of ideas is an essential part of science and belongs into the core definition.
Including those criteria is not a matter of “wording it better” but a matter of substance.
If you see science as sacred and want team science to spread the gospel, then admitting questioning whether you actually are clear about the basics is emotionally very hard. It’s hard enough that the question doesn’t get asked much.
I don’t bring this up to make FrameBenignly feel bad or to say that the post has no place (I upvoted it) but at the same time I find it important to actually engage with the issue.
Most interactions in the world are of the form “I have an idea of what will happen, so I do X, and later I get some evidence about how correct I was”. So, taking that as a binary categorization of scientific thinking is not so interesting, though I endorse promoting reflection on the fact that this is what is happening.
I think the author intends to point out some of the degrees of scientiificism by which things vary: how formal is the hypothesis, how formal is the evidence gathering, are analytical techniques being applied, etc. Normal interactions with doctors are low on scientificism in this sense, though they are heavily utilizing the output of previous scientificism to generate a judgement.
Perhaps, but a the doctor in the OP did not just happen to later get some evidence about how correct he/she was; instead, after formulating a hypothesis, the doctor ran a test specifically to test the hypothesis. That is practically a textbook example (albeit a fairly short/simple one) of the scientific method at work.
And that was really my point. It is worth noting that the scientific method is really just a very rigorous formalization of common sense reasoning. I think that demystifying science among the non scientifically sophisticated population is actually a step in the direction in which the OP gestures.
This also is true; even if one can’t expect the full-on House M.D. treatment each time one goes in with a sinus infection or strep throat, many of the protocols that the doctor follows and the medicines that he/she prescribes were developed/tested with a high degree of scientific rigor.
Being to vague to be wrong is bad. Especially when you want to speak in favor of science.
I don’t see any mention of formalism in the OP. There no reason to say “well maybe the author meant to say X” when he didn’t say X.
I agree, it’s good to pump against entropy with things that could be “Go Science!” cheers. I think the author’s topic is not too vague to discuss, but his argument isn’t strong or specific enough that you should leap to action based solely on it. I think it’s a fine thing to post to Discussion though; maybe this indicate we have ideal different standards for Discussion posts?
Sure there is! Principle of charity, interpreting what they said in different language to motivate further discussion, rephrasing for your own understanding (and opening yourself to being corrected). Sometimes someone waves their hands in a direction, and you say “Aha, you mean...”
Above the author says “I think query worded it better”, which is the sort of thing I was aiming to accomplish.
That result didn’t include a discussion about the value of including formalism in the definition of science. The question about whether “formalism” is a central part of science is one that’s to be had on LW.
Instead of saying: “I think you meant to include formalism.” it’s better to say: “I think formalism should be part of the our definition of science because of X, Y and Z.”
That would make the discussion less vague and more concrete. Maybe someone agrees with your reasons. Maybe people disagree. In both cases there’s productive discussion.
Criticizing an argument is not the same as objecting to it being posted. If vague ideas are posted in discussion then, it makes sense to have a discussion with the goal of getting the ideas less vague.
In addition to the question of “formalism” the OP’s definition of science also lacks public challenge of ideas. Is that a conscious decision? I don’t know.
As it stands the post is not address any of the concerns in the topic that exist in LW culture. To teach Bayesian statistics well you need calculus. Most statistics 101 classes teach frequentists statistics with p-values. Commonly they are taught in a memorize the teacher password way, that doesn’t leave students with real understanding. Doctors have their statistics 101 classes but they mostly just memorize it and then forget it afterwards.
Does statistics 101 teaches students to expose themselves to empiric feedback? I don’t think it does.
Simply saying: We need to teach more students statistics 101 ignores all that previous discussion.
He claims that LW is mainly about logical consistency and biases. I don’t think that’s the case.
Rationality!CFAR2015 seems to be: Your system I and system II are aligned in a way that if it’s rational to get up at 7 o’clock your brain wakes you up at 7 o’clock without you needing an alarm clock. Then you work on the most important thing in your life.
We are not planning of publishing papers because academia with it’s ethical review boards is too bureaucratic.
The post ends up with the sentence “It’s disappointing that most people don’t seem to understand even the basics of science.” There are two ways to think about this. The “Go Science” way is to think that it’s somehow obvious what those basics are. The author and the readers who what they are and as it’s about statistics a statistics 101 course should solve the issue.
The other is to say, that actually it’s not obvious what the basics are. It doesn’t seem obvious for the author that systematization or formalization is an essential part of science that has to be in the definition. It’s not obvious to the author that public criticism of ideas is an essential part of science and belongs into the core definition.
Including those criteria is not a matter of “wording it better” but a matter of substance.
If you see science as sacred and want team science to spread the gospel, then admitting questioning whether you actually are clear about the basics is emotionally very hard. It’s hard enough that the question doesn’t get asked much.
I don’t bring this up to make FrameBenignly feel bad or to say that the post has no place (I upvoted it) but at the same time I find it important to actually engage with the issue.