Falsifiability and Messy Science - Sixty Symbols
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- A chat with Professor Phil Moriarty on The Scientific Method, inspired by a Sean Carroll paper.
More links and info below ↓ ↓ ↓
Sean Carroll on Sixty Symbols: bit.ly/seancarr...
Sean Carroll's paper: bit.ly/falsifia...
Social Physics by Alex Pentland
Amazon UK: amzn.to/2KwaYcS
Amazon US: amzn.to/2JKhtaO
More Phil Moriarty videos: bit.ly/Prof_Mor...
Visit our website at www.sixtysymbol...
We're on Facebook at / sixtysymbols
And Twitter at / sixtysymbols
This project features scientists from The University of Nottingham
bit.ly/NottsPhy...
Patreon: / sixtysymbols
Sixty Symbols videos by Brady Haran
www.bradyharanb...
Email list: eepurl.com/YdjL9
File footage courtesy of AP Archive:
www.aparchive.com/
/ aparchive
Sean Carroll on Sixty Symbols: bit.ly/seancarrollvideos
Sean Carroll's paper: bit.ly/falsifiability_paper
More Phil Moriarty videos: bit.ly/Prof_Moriarty
Scientific method is only about falsifiability of theories, but it doesn't cover the development of those theories... a theory, with associated hypotheses, HAS to be developed independently BEFORE the scientific method of testing those hypotheses can come into play... and this is where the "messiness" comes in, because a theory can be produced by an AI, or by magical thinking, or a random word generator, it doesn't matter... what matters is the ability to perform tests on it. So, it's not that science is messy, it's that the process of exploration and discovery are messy... science is the bit that comes later, that lets us get rid of ideas that don't match the observations gained during exploration/discovery. IOW, we are using "science" as an umbrella term that is applying to far more stuff than what the "scientific method" applies to.
Hope I explained that in a helpful way!
Sixty Symbols, hi I have some great experiments. They are awesome :). Waves and clouds all figured out...and so much more. Wanna talk?
Sixty Symbols
Sounds to me that these people haven't heard of sharing. You need to verify that people are replicating your work if another team makes a mistake or if they discover one of your mistakes then you can both now update the tests to verify the accuracy of the results.
Why is this s••• so f••••• hard for theoretical scientists to figure out? Aren't you guys supposed to be smart??? But getting other teams on board... That costs money. It's called the "Internet" - a tool created for research purposes at a university for the US Government...
*DID YOU FORGET THAT?*
It sounds like you did.
Thanks 😊 again !!!!
You think science is messy now? In 1771, what astronomy had was even Messier.
gottem
love it!! :)
💜
Some people are obviously born without the shame gene.
Yes, yes, take your upvote.
I think we need to distinguish clearly between the messy creative process of coming up with scientific theories, a process which depends a lot on social factors and chance, versus the more structured and systematic process of testing them, which doesn't. The latter is what we normally mean by 'the scientific method'. The discovery of graphene is no exception. No one would have believed that graphene existed without a systematic followup to that messy cellotape business.
I think you're right on the money
You are right. I would just, like expected, would point out the misuse of the word theory, instead of hypotheses.
@CCC Scientists and philosophers from Einstein to Popper used the word 'theory' as I have. You're using a hypercorrected definition of the word.
You forgot capital T, capital S, capital M lol
Couldn't have said it better
"I go play" is so true. I was a research scientist in biochemistry and molecular biology and in all honesty I did it to play around. It was very satisfying for some years.
This is fascinating to me as a Bio/Psych student. In Psychology (sciency UK connotations), even at the research level, *everything* that is done has to be checked and pre-defined and verified because so much of it *can't* be, such that (as far as I can tell) the entire field is trying to deconstruct and reconstruct itself while still providing useful information. It's a medicine-supporting field so it can't just take a year out to work out what it knows, so it has to make sure everything new is as ethically polished and scientifically certain as possible (because, it often isn't).
Biology is... well, Biology is obviously too huge and too mobile in every direction to make any broad statements as a relatively young student, but it really fascinates me that so many fields get to "go play" while, to others, the concept is alien. The idea of going off-script is *hilariously* unethical in Psych, for example, and I'd imagine that more testing-based biology has a similar attitude. I got into science because I love that dream of experimental exploration; I've always viewed rigorous testing as a key component of that, though certainly not to the extent of the throw-out-the-science attitude that massive pharmaceutical industry has to adopt.
Did you notice this dichotomy when you worked in the field?
I think his conclusion at the end could have been more clear. In fact in general this seems like a fun conversation but not necessarily a well structured or thought out video. I'd say falsifiability doesn't necessarily happen on a large scale, but it should on the scale of individual experiments, especially when you're "poking and prodding" as he said. You poke and prod until something interesting happens, you come up with a theory about what is causing it to happen, and then you do everything you can to prove that it actually isn't happening at all and it's just random chance or you messed something up. So maybe we could just add the poking and prodding bit to the beginning of the scientific method. This is worth noting because most science doesn't start with a theory, and even the theories we have all come from previous experiments.
100% this. It’s obvious, idk know why it wasn’t concluded like this in the video. There is no contradiction here. And yea, social consensus is always messy. At the same time it allows climate scientists to influence global policy w/o everybody having to recheck the data or even recollect the data.
An it is even in line with Popper: He said that scientists should be really creative when coming up with new hypotheses. The falsification doesn't happen in the beginning of the scientific process. And of course there is always subjectiveness in science! It seems a bit like a straw-man argument to me, to be totally honest.
I mean, isn't "poking and prodding" just making observations? I was taught that making an observation is the first part of science, the hypothesis is second. There is little reason you can't have more than 1 hypothesis, too.
The reality is that deep down, science can be a bit "hand wavy" at times. As much as we would like it not to be. I think thats what Professor Moriarty was trying to dance around. You don't honestly want to come out and say that because as he said, there are many shades of gray. My saying is always "There are infinite shades of gray."
Perhaps the lack of structure in this video is a comment on the lack of structure in the way science is actually done????!?
One of the most mind bending classes I took in my Surveying major was Error Analysis, and coming to grips with the idea that we can't actually measure anything "very well", and the noble pursuit is to work to understand, identify, and quantify the errors in our measurements.
I respect his point of view. But when viewed by people with little to no scientific education, this video could be massively misinterpreted. It would be truly sad if this video was ever used by anti-vaxers or climate change deniers.
If their proposed modifications lead to the land of real world impracticality, they are getting nowhere.
If you look at the history of science and you don't even have to go too far back in time to see that evidence isn't everything. The prevailing consensus has a lot to do what passes and what doesn't.
My thoughts exactly. I can just imagine some eve angelical christian or flat earther misinterpreting this and using it as an argument.
Everything valuable is vulnerable.
There's a distinction to be made between scientific dissent from the mainstream and scientific incompetence. Promoters of antivax and climate denial always present themselves as the former, and people are taken in by it.
It's a fascinating topic to discuss, but I'd rather see people helped towards making that distinction for themselves than see the line blurred further
I'm a neuroscientist and the passion that this professor shows for his field inspires me to do better at mine. Thank you.
One of the most enjoyable science dialogue I've seen in a while. Thanks! It's refreshing to see something as candid as this.
This should be the start of a whole new series on the philosophy of science, with a new cast of characters. I read Popper's books as an undergraduate, and a stack of literature on this debate since then. We even had a seminar course on the topic in grad school. The question here is not the playing and exploration in the lab or out in the field, but rather the structure of the thought process. Are you thinking in terms of a tautology, or is it possible to unroll the question or observation into a form that could even be false or even measurable at all? In one case, Popper declared evolution a pseudo science because the survival of the fittest reduces to the survival of the survivors, an untestable tautology. A research group took up the challenge and defined the measurable and testable approach of inclusive fitness. This becomes the relative number of descends or relatives, not the strength of an individual. Popper recanted after that was published.
Much more could be, and should be, said about this topic. This goes far beyond physics into all other forms of science and logic.
On natural selection: is it now still tautological as an explanation? Survival is survival.
The updates to it we actually use aren't though- current theory is not "darwins natural selection" but a modern evolutionary theory with various actual predictive processes identified.
I love how he had a primus t shirt
I was so happy, when I saw that!
wait who did?
@@cucumber_999 13:32
Pork sodaaa!!!
Those damn blue collar tweekers are runnin this here lab
Falsifiability is not about whether a) you carry out an experiment to disprove a hypothesis or b) progress in science is messy. It is about whether your hypothesis is immune to refutation. Simplified, psychoanalysis: if you get better, it is confirmed; if not, it is because you show resistance, which psychoanalysis predicts, and it again is confirmed. A bit like the arguments of climate change sceptics. The commentators are correct; the professor is not clear about what he wishes to express. This is the first video from Numberphile or Sixty Symbols below par
I really enjoy Prof Phil’s presentations. I’m just a bit concerned that a lot of people who don’t follow the nuances and detail of what he says will make mischief out of it.
The Prof specifically said that he's not going to talk about the paper. He was using the paper to jump off on the subject of The Scientific Method.
To complain that the video isn't about the paper when it wasn't intended to be is a bit odd.
We need more informative and long videos like these! Especially the one discussing a paper.
I'm so glad that this video has been made!!! It's spot on. Falsifiability is very seldom the motivation behind actively doing science. Now, what gets in the textbooks in experimental sciences has survived experimental scrutiny. But the fact that it has not (yet) been falsified is always noted after the fact.
Laypersons interested in the sciences must realise that there are at least three levels where scientific ideas live. First, there are the textbooks. These tend to represent the consensus at the time when they were written. Then there's the recent literature (recently published papers) - that's the material that is either confirming what's in the textbooks or is on the waiting list for getting into the textbooks. Finally there's the realm of active research. There, anything goes. Active researchers can do anything they find interesting or expedient. It doesn't have to be with a particular hypothesis in mind or with the intention of falsifying a theory.
There are restrictions of course. Usually researchers will do either what they have outlined in a research proposal that has been approved, or follow the instructions of the principal investigator, or work along the general direction that the research group they belong to. But the intention of falsifying a hypothesis is optional - and usually absent.
It's about time to leave popperism behind and admit that research is more flexible and a great deal freer and messier.
Nah. Popperism got them there, as opposed to the ideas of irrefutable positivism.
-ility is the key part of the word. Methodological Falsificationism attempts to say more about the pseudo-science ultimately.
For those making certain pseudoscientific theories they aren't even hypotheses because they believe certainty and falsification isn't optional- its not an option.
I'd question whether those constructions these researchers do will solve any major problems of scientific theory though.
I don't think Popper claimed falsification to be easy or that other forms of creating more conjectural process was irrelevant. In the hypothesis that's fine!
Observations require falsifiability criteria- they aren't inductions but use theory to determine how data/phenomena gets created into a premise we call "observation".
Observations rely on testable theories, for example to make the instruments required which ultimately cause the major changes in science don't they? Increased perspective, data, accuracy.
Such a great video! I think this applies to anything in life, and underlines what might be the source of all misunderstandings in the world - people have different perceptions of the world.
This might just be my favourite video you've ever done.
This discussion is important, but this video is incomprehensibly structured. It also seems to me (as someone trained in philosophy) that in this case the presenter is reaching beyond their expertise a little too much.
Most of what he says has nothing to do with what he purports to be able to argue. What's messy here is not science, it's his argumentation/train of thoughts.
Yeah, but that's like ripping on a skilled doctor that he also doesn't know how to juggle properly.
Mihai-Ciprian Ghilinta but of course science and philosophy are very close together. Most scientists on the other hand are not thaught more then popper when it come to epistemology. This is very outdated, even ridiculously outdated. Also the conclusion of that paper is rather Kuhnian. Again, nothing new.
I think you may have missed the irony oh your comments.
Oh you should see his personal videos. This dude is a full on marxist social constructionist. Complete loonbag.
The scientific method should be taught with understanding that it can be distorted by social and cultural context.. and that bias needs to be actively checked
Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" seems incredibly relevant here. Moriarty seems to be painting a picture that is very inline with Kuhn's key points (or at least my reading of it). I recommend the book to those who are curious. It isn't an easy read, but it explores a rich, subtle story of scientific truth and epistemology.
This conversation is still just so beautiful to me.
People need to learn how to say, "I don't know." rather than simply believing in things they don't understand or even worse, disparaging people who don't believe in that thing that you yourself don't understand. Just say you don't know. The ultimate scientific statement. It's where science starts. Just repeat after me: "I don't know."
Love Moriarty's passion. Skepticism is a key component of truth, or at least the journey to it.
I totally agree with Prof. Moriarty.
One important aspect that should also be mentioned is that different scientific groups who support different hypothesis constantly try to prove each other wrong.
Greetings, a neuroscientist
PS: I'm also mostly playing at work. My favorite toy: Matlab.
Try R. Its free and doesnt take 5 mins to load the workspace. You can also deploy the backend to a cluster.
I think the point to be made here is that "The Scientific Method" is one of many subsets in which an opinion/hypothesis/idea can be rationalised and expressed.
Proving or falsifying that opinion/hypothesis/idea, whether or not a purely objective method is used, relies on humanistic and personal judgement, which I would argue is a product of social and exogenic factors for the individual(s) who are undertaking the work. What follows on from the "The Scientific Method", already having been "contaminated" , is a series of socially dominated outlets where the information is recieved and processed by the majority (public or scientist) who ultimately form the consensus. The pathway of objective and scientific rationale is one of only many pathways which the information (hypothesis/idea/opinion and the provability/falsability of such) is carried across. This effect of "opionated dilution" is responsibile for both how the information is percieved, and how science is undertaken.
Love videos with Prof.Moriarty, more please!!
You really should do a more in depth video about this topic in order to avoid confusion! Love it!
Agreed this needs a follow up
Because Isn't this why we rely on different labs, different universities to do the research and try to find the weaknesses. And then combine those studies and form meta-analysis?
The only thing that can be proved - or rather disproved - is the statement “X never happens”. For every result where X doesn’t happen, your hypothesis gets stronger, but it is never definitively proved. On the other hand, it only takes _one_ occurrence of X actually happening to disprove the hypothesis, though even then you have to make sure that the circumstances where X happened were actually the ones where you assumed X would never happen.
i really enjoyed this.
too often people say that philosophy and science don't mix but the two extreme ends of the continuum are the only things that don't mix.
a wonderful, enlightening and charming video
Against Method by Fayerband made this argument against popper a long time ago; it's nice it's being picked up and recognised by working scientists
Disable audio, and imagine him saying "Miss Stevenson, my dog ate my homework" at 0:32
N OMEGALUL
The graphene example is wrong. When he talks about "we're not looking for how this doesn't work, we're looking for how it works", he's talking about the context of discovery. Falsification comes in in the context of justification. Still messy, but the graphene example is not a counter example to falsifyability.
I think that the messiness is due to our understanding/perception about probability - how our mind assign probabilities, in particular the prior probabilities to a particular theory. E.T. Jaynes explains this in more detail.
Playing (or poking and prodding) method actually makes our prior probabilities near to zero, thus that helps subconsciously to reach a better conclusion and probably converging ideas. But the hard thing is that since we are not ideal humans (and that is why Jaynes brought forward the notion of a "common sense"), we hardly find ourselves in total agreement.
Although falsifiability makes sense in testing a hypothesis after we have a threshold prior set using "playing" method, it definitely should not be used as starting out any vague idea since that would affect our prior probability and the further likelihood from remaining unbiased.
I gave a lecture about this yesterday. Students looked at me with a WTF face. For them, science is science and science is truth. Black or white. I liked when Phil said that there are many shades of grey in between, and the "society pressure" or consensus clearly play a big role here.
This is basically saying that there is a philosophical limit to the scientific method. There is always a human limit and sometimes we are operating at this limit within this ignorance that may plague our theories for a long time. It is saying that as our scientific methods go further to principles like the multi-verse that seem some what untestable within the established framework of what actually classifies as having passed a test or failed one. Therefore , the focus is placed on the people reviewing papers instead of those writing them. However, this impacts how people will write papers over time, but highlight is placed on the reviewers.
I'm teaching science to middle school and high school and getting through the scientific method is so much harder than when I was a kid. Very tempting to just teach it to them incorrectly ...
I think prof. Moriarty and I don't quite agree on the idea of falsifiability... The point that science is messy and not precise and exact as it might be seen from the outside stands, and it is the fundamental aspect of science, but that's not the point of using fasifiability as a standard. It is not true that it blurs the line between science and non-science: falsifiability is that line. In the negative sence: if a theory is constructed so that it is unfasifiable, then it's a flag that the theory itself is NOT a scientific theory.
All scientific theories should be falsifiable, in a sense that it is their core property that they can be tested. If they cannot be tested (now or in the conceivable future) then they aren't science. It doesn't have to do anything with the messiness of the testing process, that's completely separate argument.
I agree with your assessment. Another issue is that without falsifiability there can’t possibly be repeatability. It’s a slippery slope.
I really appreciate the honesty and humility of this video. I've always been skeptical when someone tries to use "consensus" as an argument. Historically, consensuses have existed until they were over-turned, and not without much stubborn reluctance to do so. Socially, it's safe to defend the consensus and risky to challenge it. The main reason for that is because it's easy for challenges to be wrong, but one should note that that's not that the same thing as saying the consensus is right. One ought to be suspicious of a scientist who does not welcome the critical eye.
Scientists who have this level of humility will engender much more trust.
So, even though you only mention one by name, this whole thing boils down to the old three way cage match of Philosophy of Science: Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend
...all the while tiptoeing around my personal favourite, the perpetually ignored Peirce.
There's a (philosophical + 'mechanical/mechanistic') difference between 'exploratory science' and 'hypothesis testing'; in the latter paradigm/framework, the confirmatory or falsifiability of a hypothesis being tested is very much required; in the former, not so much.
Another way to look at this would be frequentist vs non-frequentist (Bayesian, subjective etc) statistics/probability, because this is the tool which scientists use to 'prove' or 'disprove' (or test) their hypothesis -- in either framework! One might use either probability/probabilistic/statistical approach in the 'hypothesis testing' framework, but usually in the 'exploratory' framework, usually a non-frequentist approach works best/better...
Yes, "unsa Koal" (our Karl [Popper]) was very strict in his thoughts.
Greetings from Vienna!
A change of pace and an EXCELLENT video. You can do more abstract things I feel and it would still be pretty great. It all depends on the topic you choose......and here you chose a wonderful one. I hope to see more videos like this one.
Popper's idea of falsifiability takes all of Professor Moriarty's objections into account. Falsifiability is a way to strengthen the veracity of a theory's claim to explain an observed phenomenon and more general the context the better. Popper does not claim that there is such a thing as an absolute theory, only that the process of falsifiability is a process to find the best available theory.
After reading Dr. Carroll's paper I am more skeptical of this video. Dr. Carroll's whole argument is an appeal to ignorance. From the paper "The best reason for classifying the multiverse as a straightforwardly scientific theory is that
we don’t have any choice." That is possibly the least scientific position, capital or lower case 's', one could make.
Robert Daniel Pickard .. how do you get from resistance to falsifiability to verifiability and if you do why is the scientific method not simply trying to verify a theory? These questions are never answered by popper
There is an argument over whether climate change is real, but this misses the actual uncertainty over the level of warming, how problematic it is, and what to do about it.
Truly great video. I am going to show this in my social psychology class. I wish he had time to discuss Tnomas Kuhn as well.
Feynman describes the scientific method beautifully
that's how I explain science to people, my job is to play around all day until something interesting falls out, then we all gather around and poke it with a stick. my favorite method is kick it till it breaks.
It's been raining every day for most of the year. Last year was heat wave. The year before monster snow and ice winter. The climate is dramatically changing before our eyes.
i feel like Brady's line of questioning is inb4ing all the comments
remembering my study of the philosophy of science (here goes) imre lakatos 1976(?) i think made an excellent advance on both popper and kuhn essentially making the point that no theorem is definitive, all are subject to adjustment and improvement and the test of one over the other is whether they explain the evidence better or, failing that difference , the number of subsequent research programmes they produce (leading to further discoveries). ironically (?) in a way popper sort of set the paradigm which has been tweaked and improved upon by others...
on reflection i think this is largely a a debate based upon thomas khun the structure of scientific revolutions vs popper. i love this stuff all great reading.
I have read Popper, and I'll say this, take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt. Now my understanding of how "Falsifiability" **should** be interpreted is NOT that you go out and specifically design experiments to FALSIFY! your OWN hypothesis, rather, and I think this is quite important, is that your hypothesis **must** have **some** 'aspect', for lack of a better term, built in and identified, that CAN be falsified, such that, at **some** indeterminate time in the future, it MAY be possible to construct a situation that can DO that, not that you have to pull your hair out trying to do it yourself, rather that you design your hypothesis such that at least critics, at their own expense, and in their own time, can try to break it. Write a hypothesis that makes bold claims, prove it out, and make money on it, but don't call it infallible, that reeks of something that was (or should be) taken as axiomatic. It's a slippery slope... The Theory of Evolution? I'd be hard pressed to think of anything more axiomatic. And yet I can't throw out an alternative hypothesis where, let's say, in 1,000,000,000 AD, we discover a planet where the obviously intelligent beings there create new life forms by snapping their fingers. And even that would ONLY prove that there are OTHER WAYS that creatures can 'come about'. It wouldn't disprove the fact that on Planet Earth, things that live seem to have evolved. From whatever...
That we do not always try to falsify a hypothesis does not mean that it is not better for a hypothesis do be in principle falsifiable. IF there is no way to falsify it, it offers no knowledge at all. It would not predict anything.
You know what's a really beautiful thing about the internet? It never forgets...
This is a very important video. But the conversation format makes it hard to follow.
The method of science is taught in schools, what's missing in the classroom is the philosophy of science that ties it all together
You poke around until get something get going. Then keep experimenting and refining what you've got. Then when you think it's ready, theorize it. And while theorizing, do the needful to check the falsifiablity box on your theory. That's the way I think it is.
I would say all science is not messy, but requires extreme specifics in definitions and must take in account of as many variables as possible. What's messy is testing each possible variable and discovering variables not yet known and what impact they may have on the results of an experiment.
Excellent video. Great thought-provoking push back by Brady.
Whoa! Was thinking about how questionable the idea of falsifiability is myself for a long time! Glad that real scientists do not take it for granted.
I feel like perhaps the message he was trying to convey is that the ideal of "The Scientific Method" as this paragon of objectivity and undeniable truth is harmful because when people are then confronted with the truth of how messy it is in practice they can become disillusioned to the whole process entirely. Despite its flaws the scientific method DOES produce results and we don't want people to lose faith in it entirely when it doesn't live up to the ideal.
Thank you so much for saying these things, professor.
A scientist is applying the scientific method when they play - it's an online stochastic search algorithm that forms mini hypothesis', experiments, selects the most promising hypothesis and repeats to form a larger hypothesis. As the hypothesis is generated supporting evidence is accumulated, but it's the scientist's job at the end to try and disprove the theory if they hope to discover anything interesting.
Such a wonderful video. I love professor Moriarty
As a layman I have to trust the scientific consensus, I don't have the financial resources or intellectual know-how to conduct experiments in certain fields.
Isn't this why we rely on different labs, different universities to do the research and try to find the weaknesses. And then combine those studies and form meta-analysis?
One can disprove things using science, and this in turn proves the falseness of the hypothesis. Phil misspoke when he said "How do you know if someone on the other side of the world repeats the experiment in the way you did, that they will get the same result?" It doesn't matter whether they do, because as long as you've disproven an hypothesis once, however many times other experiments affirm the hypothesis doesn't prove it to be true.
Yeah I remember doing Milikan's oil drop experiment at school and the take out was that you jiggle it around until you get the number you were looking for in the first place. Let's face it, GPS is rubbish unless you know where you're going!
I love Philip Moriarty's videos, and clicked as soon as I saw this. Phil, please put up your blog articles back up, I really wanted to read many of them but the account was removed before I could. And as always, thanks Brady!!!
I also love his videos.
I had an exchange with Phil via email (he's a fantastic man). I won't go into details but essentially the toxicity of online exchanges was something he didn't want to participate in.
No that's not actually it at all and, as a biologist, I haven't found him outright wrong on any topic (although, I thought he used the same ham-fisted description of heritability that pretty much everyone online uses). I would talk to him about it.
I don't know about him "getting schooled" but he certainly holds the "difference = discrimination = problem" stance regarding biological differences, as evidenced by his exchange with Noelplum and others.
That said being wrong and being victim to toxic behavior online isn't mutually exclusive. I can understand wanting to get back to my real job and not dealing with people online
got schooled by the internet troll experts. I loled
So HISTORY (what some individual or group of people did)
and POLITICAL OPINION (e.g. about somebody being "racist" or "sexist")
are INFINITELY LESS CERTAIN than statements about evolution, manmade global warming, any other statement about science.
For the nothing whatsoever it's worth, I just thought I'd mention that Sellotape and Scotch Tape are _culturally_ equivalent, but the products are dissimilar. Sellotape uses cellulose for the backing, hence the name, and is a transparent yellow, but Scotch Tape uses an oil-based plastic, and is a translucent white. The adhesives are different, too.
Thomas S. Kuhn address this issue in his book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".
No. He doesn't.
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” said Winston Churchill. I feel the same way about "The Scientific Method", as opposed to other ways of gathering knowledge.
I am sort of glad this is out there.
In summary, experimental physics is just capturing a bunch of data. Then everyone tries to make sense of it, often in the way people usually do with things.
Things should be scrutinized thoroughly, but not to the point of obsession. You should never LOOK FOR a result, that's the problem of people doubting science
Maybe falsification is best understood as a practice. We know we could be wrong and so we should let fall what can't stand criticism in our discourse. The principle of falsification is in current practice to disprove a hypothesis but the concept also means knowlegde through elimination and that is exactly why critcism of dogmatism is necessary. If dogmatic belief in The Scientific Method stands undisturbed, it is because it is truest. However, If science is messy we ought to know, because we want to eliminate over simplifications in science. We should welcome any nuanced criticism regardless of public misinterpretations, because the truest explanation is better than clinging to an easier one.
Once again an excellent, fascinating video with Prof Moriarty. Looking forward to the next!
This is one mess of a video, I'd say.
Of course, science is about exploration, finding yet unknown phenomena. And of course if you present such results to different people, every one of them will come with a different interpretation. That's where the science method comes in, because then they should ask themselves if the interpretation is correct. Make a model of the phenomenon and try to prove that model wrong, and if you fail, present it to others to try to prove it wrong too.
Quite often, we hear in media "scientists don't have explanation for xyz". That's a great example I think. Because it does not mean they have no idea what it could be. More often than not, they have many ideas what it could be but they could not prove one right and others wrong. And that counts as 'no explanation' in science.
The science ends where proving or disproving ideas and models is replaced by personal preference, opinion, belief, and politics.
kasuha so basically, you just restated everything he said, so in a sense you have one mess of a comment
The follow up questions are brilliant , it put the abstract conversation into perspective
Interesting how it relates to software development. Especially "test driven" methods where we should think of bugs and write tests before we even start coding. The reality is much messier, and I believe it is similar in most professions.
I REALLY appreciate Dr. Moriarty's honesty.
I have a lot of respect for Prof Moriarty and I typically agree with his well thought through viewpoints. I cannot get behind his statements and comments in this video however. They are definitely true and factual i.e. "science is messy" but it is very dangerous to be communicating this to a wider audience. The world needs science to be concrete and robust, and all scientists (indeed everyone) should be working towards that, and not allow any doubt to creep in to the methods used by science.
"Science should lie to make itself trustworthy"
Galactic brain over here
Yay! Moriarty's videos are my favorite!
I really like this topic. It delves deep into what science actually is.
I like your statement on 'at some point the evidence becomes inescapable conclusion' I'd argue that at this point the nuances in the science become more important (though not to say that the entire paradigm can't be upended) science is more likely to advance by saying 'under certain conditions these understood mechanisms don't behave quite as expected'. Those seem the best way to advance these ideas.
I wish that the term "climate change" would never be used without the unspoken qualifier "... caused by the release of CO2 through human fossil fuel consumption". Which is really what is meant. There are probably zero "climate change deniers" if you remove that qualification.
Also, I love the sentiment of this episode.
Dear Brady and staff of SS - thank you so much for your incredible contributions to us .. uhm.. less educated. I'd love to see a video on "research gone wrong", who blew themselves up? Or irradiated their village? What are the "worst case" stories in the academic community, that lead to guidelines and principles that govern research today?
Tying the lead-in to the topic proper: I think the multiverse is a great way to view the scientific method. What we're doing in science is trying to find where in the multiverse we are. Starting with "no idea", as in "we might be in any possible universe", every observation further limits the range of possible universes we might be in. A hypothesis or theory is a guess or extrapolation from the observations thus far about where, even more specifically, within that range of possibilities we are, which guides the search for further observations to see whether alternatives to that guess really are outside the realm of possibility or not.
I love that this helps elaborate the epistemology of science.
Sounds like he's saying that the first thing a scientist should assume is that (s)he has screwed up the experiment rather than assume (s)he had disproved the hypothesis. Maybe there's an unaccounted variable hiding in the experiment. Maybe your random samples aren't exactly random in some non-obvious way. Maybe your Geiger counter itself is radioactive. Maybe someone's stuffed a giant wad of chewing gum on the bottom of your balance beam. Maybe your stopwatch needs a new battery. A good scientist should look at that both first and exhaustively before going after the thumbs-up/thumbs-down on the hypothesis.
'Bending over backward to prove yourself wrong' is translated to layman from "Finding new ways to disprove the null hypothesis".
Modus Tolens Logic.
It's refreshing to hear about what science is and what it is not from an actual scientist.
The public perception is always a joke.
Lots of people criticizing things that they aren't familiar with at all. Not sure why.
Cool video guys! I always learn something from you!
If "uncertainty is built in to the fabric of experimental science", doens't that introduce uncertainty?
Or is it that uncertainty is real whether you acknowledge it or not?
And if you don't acknowledge it, how can it be real?
Experiments can disprove. Nothing is ever proven, but evidence should influence our opinions.
It's interesting how many of the seasoned and experienced scientists in the STEM field seem to develop quite the interest in what's often laughed at as soft science when they get older and turn into a hobby philosopher.
As always great video, Brady and Prof. Moriarty!
I see an interesting "split" in the idea of Science. Almost a two-phase sort of system, from what has been presented here. It would seem that "Discovery" and "Confirmation" are different bits of Science.
Discovery is that hypothesis-free, diving into the unknown and exploring. As was so well put, "poke and prod until you find something". Who knows what you'll find. Some things aren't worth replicating, but help build a greater understanding. They may not change the evidence before us, rather, change the way we look at it and interact with it. I think this is what most science done every day is, wandering down a path until something catches your eye. Maybe it is with stopping to examine further, maybe it is just kinda neat.
For those interested, there are videos from BobbyBroccoli that display, precisely, what falsiability in science can look like. One I really enjoyed was talking about a scientist that almost won a Nobel prize by faking his results.
I think Phil is walking on eggs here: the Scientific Method is a _necessary_ condition for science to get done - it's what makes everything systematic and so on. Also 'falsifiability' does not mean 'testability' - IMO, it merely means 'experimental conditionability': many definitions of multiverse aren't testable, but the results they imply do not disagree with the current body of data; therefore, it can't be falsified, but that's OK
Iago Silva
They can not be falsified YET - but anything that is inherently not falsifiable is an empty assertion.
That's not OK if you want to prove it.
Fortunately I was never taught about Popper when I went to school and university - the concept of falsifiability is, while not irrelevant, certainly scientifically inert. It leads to no theories.
To gain understanding, you need to experiment, observe - most of the work, and the core of the *real* scientific method(TM) is simply figuring out how to do those two things reliably - and try to figure out how it all fits together, and crucially what more it tells you than what you already knew. And that last bit can then be used to falsify your theory, if any, as a bonus - but that's really just a side effect of the theory, if any, having the potential to be of greater use than a simple listing of your existing empirical knowledge would be.
In most cases of course, scientists don't make new theories, they're busy finding out how things work within the frameworks of already existing theories. While they might accidentally come across results that could falsify those theories, that's not the purpose in most cases, and the result in even fewer.
It is indeed a messy process, and Popper's falsifiability fits neatly in between the matches in a matchbox in the corner of the giant assembly hall.
Hey, Phil: do you know about the Principle (Law) of Explosion in Logic?
I completely agree with the Professor!