in psychology, there is, or at least has been, a tendency to accept things as true if a single study showed it, thus causing the replication crisis, duh.
this runs contrary to what other branches of science do, which is to wait until a bunch of studies have been carried out and peer-reviewed, and cumulate the data from these studies to produce meta-analyses:
> A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies. Meta-analysis can be performed when there are multiple scientific studies addressing the same question, with each individual study reporting measurements that are expected to have some degree of error. The aim then is to use approaches from statistics to derive a pooled estimate closest to the unknown common truth based on how this error is perceived.
you're basically trying to gather as much data from as many different studies as possible in order to reach a conclusion, instead of relying on a single study. ideally, scientific consensus should be based on such analyses.
most of the reporting on scientific study results in the media are from individual studies, not meta-analyses. they might have reached correct conclusions, but they might also be flawed.
this runs contrary to what other branches of science do, which is to wait until a bunch of studies have been carried out and peer-reviewed, and cumulate the data from these studies to produce meta-analyses:
> A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies. Meta-analysis can be performed when there are multiple scientific studies addressing the same question, with each individual study reporting measurements that are expected to have some degree of error. The aim then is to use approaches from statistics to derive a pooled estimate closest to the unknown common truth based on how this error is perceived.
you're basically trying to gather as much data from as many different studies as possible in order to reach a conclusion, instead of relying on a single study. ideally, scientific consensus should be based on such analyses.
most of the reporting on scientific study results in the media are from individual studies, not meta-analyses. they might have reached correct conclusions, but they might also be flawed.
thus, in branches of science where the studies are few and the sample sizes are small, there are going to be more wrong theories.
when it comes to branches of science, my feeling is that they rank roughly like this in terms of how hard (scientific) they actually are:
1. physics
2. medicine
3. psychiatry
4. psychology
5. social anthropology
6. sociology
7. gender studies
1. physics
2. medicine
3. psychiatry
4. psychology
5. social anthropology
6. sociology
7. gender studies
This is Mur 
@mur2501 mathematics isn't a science. not even mathematicians consider it a science. it's a set of interconnected systems for the logical manipulation of symbols. it just so *happens* that this system has properties that make it good for modelling physics.
@thor
That depends upon what you define science has, but I see it good lot part of it to be called a science
@mur2501 according to this article from Berkeley, the answer actually seems to depend on the kind of philosophy you subscribe to:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/mathematics
some say that nature itself is mathematics on a fundamental level. others say that mathematics is merely a tool for describing nature.
so i guess i'm saying it's the latter because this agrees with my philosophical beliefs.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/mathematics
some say that nature itself is mathematics on a fundamental level. others say that mathematics is merely a tool for describing nature.
so i guess i'm saying it's the latter because this agrees with my philosophical beliefs.
@thor @mur2501 In english speaking countries the word "science" has an extremely weird meaning, where it only refers to certain kind of empirical endeavors.
The latin root is "scientia", knowledge and that is reflected e.g. in german where the word for science is "Wissenschaft", literally "creation of knowledge" and it is as such a very inclusive term, which includes everything between mathematics and literature.
>it just so *happens* that this system has properties that make it good for modelling physics.
No. That is just false.
There is a very deep connection between nature and certain mathematical concepts.
Basic definitions, such as that of a metric or norm are essentially based on empirical knowledge about the universe.
And science definitely is not a democracy. Firstly it doesn't involve "the demos" at all, but even if you just consider scientist the best thing you can hope for is that a field converges to truth, but that isn't a democratic process.
The latin root is "scientia", knowledge and that is reflected e.g. in german where the word for science is "Wissenschaft", literally "creation of knowledge" and it is as such a very inclusive term, which includes everything between mathematics and literature.
>it just so *happens* that this system has properties that make it good for modelling physics.
No. That is just false.
There is a very deep connection between nature and certain mathematical concepts.
Basic definitions, such as that of a metric or norm are essentially based on empirical knowledge about the universe.
And science definitely is not a democracy. Firstly it doesn't involve "the demos" at all, but even if you just consider scientist the best thing you can hope for is that a field converges to truth, but that isn't a democratic process.
@servant_of_the_anime_avatars @mur2501 the word is "vitenskap" in Norwegian but i still don't count mathematics as such. mathematics is a subject, a field, but not a science. however, see the post i made elsewhere i the thread that touches upon how your views on this touch upon philosophy.
@servant_of_the_anime_avatars @mur2501 while science does not involve an explicit vote, not the voices of the general public, it's broadly true that if very few scientists conclude in a certain way, it's less likely to be true, especially in the long run, as more evidence to the contrary accumulates, further strengthening consensus.
@mur2501 @servant_of_the_anime_avatars i could rephrase it if you want: science as a field can be analysed using statistics. while widespread beliefs among scientists can later turn out to be untrue, it's more useful as a predictor of the actual truth than not.
@servant_of_the_anime_avatars @mur2501 there is a joke among computer scientists
computer science isn't about computers and it isn't a science.
the first part is easy to argue. you can apply the principles of computer science to any form of computation. in other languages than English the field is called informatics, which more accurately describes what it's about.
the latter part hinges on mathematics not being a science either.
computer science isn't about computers and it isn't a science.
the first part is easy to argue. you can apply the principles of computer science to any form of computation. in other languages than English the field is called informatics, which more accurately describes what it's about.
the latter part hinges on mathematics not being a science either.
@servant_of_the_anime_avatars @mur2501 not being a science doesn't necessarily make it "unscientific", but rather, studies of logic rather than empirical facts.
@mur2501 @servant_of_the_anime_avatars i would reserve the word "unscientific" for poor science or pseudo-science.
@mur2501 @servant_of_the_anime_avatars my gut feeling is telling me that our disagreement is primarily about semantics.
@thor @mur2501 @servant_of_the_anime_avatars you have the cart ass-backwards. science is a branch of logic/philosophy. computer "science" is the study of computer logic and scientific because it is testable and reproducible.
@ew @mur2501 @servant_of_the_anime_avatars there are bona fide scientists and mathematicians who disagree with that viewpoint. see Berkeley article i linked elsewhere in the thread.
@ew @mur2501 @servant_of_the_anime_avatars congratulations. we have a philosophical disagreement, and there are good arguments for both viewpoints.
|
@servant_of_the_anime_avatars @thor @mur2501 I disagree with your German ethymology but ok the English speakers will not understand anyway if we start to discuss. I am wondering what you can say about the word that was used in Ancient Greek for "science" (yes, the English word comes from Latin), that would be interesting to analyse, if you have the time.
@wikifarms @mur2501 @thor >I disagree with your German ethymology
How so?
>I am wondering what you can say about the word that was used in Ancient Greek for "science" (yes, the English word comes from Latin), that would be interesting to analyse, if you have the time.
It's where we get "epistemology" from.
But so what?
How so?
>I am wondering what you can say about the word that was used in Ancient Greek for "science" (yes, the English word comes from Latin), that would be interesting to analyse, if you have the time.
It's where we get "epistemology" from.
But so what?
@servant_of_the_anime_avatars @mur2501 @thor so nothing, I can't look rn for the Ancient Greek for "science", I thought it would have been interesting if you could. If you also can't then don't. I disagree because I don't see the suffix as meaning creation, really very quickly here is from Wiki - yes it's not a journal -
Das deutsche Wort Wissenschaft ist ein Kompositum, das sich aus dem Wort Wissen (von indogermanisch *u̯e(i)d bzw. *weid- für erblicken, sehen)[6] und dem althochdeutschen Substantiv scaf(t) bzw. skaf(t) (Beschaffenheit, Ordnung, Plan, Rang) zusammensetzt. Wie viele andere deutsche Komposita mit der Endung „-schaft“ auch, ist es im Zuge der substantivischen Wortbildung des Althochdeutschen im Mittelalter entstanden. Dabei wurde das früher selbstständige Substantiv scaf(t) bzw. skaf(t) zur Nachsilbe[7]. In diesem Sinne bezeichnet es die Beschaffenheit bzw. Ordnung des Wissens.
Das deutsche Wort Wissenschaft ist ein Kompositum, das sich aus dem Wort Wissen (von indogermanisch *u̯e(i)d bzw. *weid- für erblicken, sehen)[6] und dem althochdeutschen Substantiv scaf(t) bzw. skaf(t) (Beschaffenheit, Ordnung, Plan, Rang) zusammensetzt. Wie viele andere deutsche Komposita mit der Endung „-schaft“ auch, ist es im Zuge der substantivischen Wortbildung des Althochdeutschen im Mittelalter entstanden. Dabei wurde das früher selbstständige Substantiv scaf(t) bzw. skaf(t) zur Nachsilbe[7]. In diesem Sinne bezeichnet es die Beschaffenheit bzw. Ordnung des Wissens.
@wikifarms @mur2501 @thor
>o nothing, I can't look rn for the Ancient Greek for "science", I thought it would have been interesting if you could.
It's "episteme", where we get epistemology from.
Granted, my etymology might have been wrong, the correct meaning might have been "how knowledge is shaped", but it's quite irrelevant to my point.
>o nothing, I can't look rn for the Ancient Greek for "science", I thought it would have been interesting if you could.
It's "episteme", where we get epistemology from.
Granted, my etymology might have been wrong, the correct meaning might have been "how knowledge is shaped", but it's quite irrelevant to my point.
@servant_of_the_anime_avatars @wikifarms @mur2501 i could just as easily argue that science is the study of shit, because it shares the same indo-european root skei-*
@servant_of_the_anime_avatars @mur2501 @wikifarms i happen to like this line of argument because science is the shit
@thor @mur2501 @wikifarms Is that actually it's etymological root? My etymological dictionary says otherwise, it comes from the info european *u̯eid-, *u̯id- "seeing".
@servant_of_the_anime_avatars @mur2501 @wikifarms should've picked the noun "shit" but the root is still the same.
@mur2501 @servant_of_the_anime_avatars @wikifarms with that said, etymologists disagreeing is hardly an uncommon thing...
@thor @mur2501 @wikifarms Oh, for the English word, sure. But maybe that is just because the english are using words which are a bit "*skei".
@thor @servant_of_the_anime_avatars @wikifarms @mur2501
The root of science: looking through the dung to see what the beast ate.
PERFECT
@servant_of_the_anime_avatars @mur2501 @thor I agree, that's why I was avoiding the subject and just said I disagreed by since you asked how so I said why. I see that Mr Norway is also chipping in now. Hope you get spring soon, the days are already quite long now.
@wikifarms @mur2501 @thor
>Hope you get spring soon
It's already here! And the days will only get longer and longer...
>Hope you get spring soon
It's already here! And the days will only get longer and longer...
