This is not really the kind of problem it seems to be made to be in the article.
Science is model building, nothing more, nothing less.
Models to predict outcomes with. As long as the outcomes are predictable it's established as a fact.
But these predictions are always temporary that is the very basic principle of the scientific method as put forward by Popper. In other words you can never do enough testing to establish something to be universally true.
The problem with Poppers method is his tendency to see the scientific method as something with a direction. I.e. we build knowledge to gain better and better and increasingly more true understanding of our world.
The article shows exactly the limits of testing. You can even for a very long time and repeatedly have the same outcomes just until you don't have them anymore. We have no way of knowing whether our observations of various phenomena are universal or simply just some patterns that happen to be true for a limited time (even if we talk millions of years)
And that is ok. Just as we make assumptions in our personal lives that are true for some time until they fall apart. (housing market, pension funds, that death sure job, marriage)
Life's complicated and we never know what it will turn up with. I find that part of why it's great to live.
I don't think this is what the article is about. At least for physical and biological phenomena, there is some objective truth. For example, Seroquel does or does not reduce schizophrenic symptoms---the reason an original finding is "temporary" and wears off is not because the efficacy has changed over time---it's because it was never efficacious in the first place (and we were mistaken because of bad research practices).
But that is my point. Whether we call it objective or not is solely based on our practices, our observations. And these can never be completely satisfactory. The scientific method no matter how rigor is not telling us whether something is objectively true but rather that as far as we have tested something to be true it is.
More specifically I was commenting on this:
...For many scientists, the effect is especially troubling because of what it exposes about the scientific process. If replication is what separates the rigor of science from the squishiness of pseudoscience, where do we put all these rigorously validated findings that can no longer be proved?...
I see your point---my point is that this article is not a good jumping off point for discussions about philosophy of science or epistemology (bold title notwithstanding). It's about bad statistical practice. More importantly, it's about a bad practice that is well-known (at least among statisticians) and has remedies.
Comments
This is not really the kind of problem it seems to be made to be in the article.
Science is model building, nothing more, nothing less.
Models to predict outcomes with. As long as the outcomes are predictable it's established as a fact.
But these predictions are always temporary that is the very basic principle of the scientific method as put forward by Popper. In other words you can never do enough testing to establish something to be universally true.
The problem with Poppers method is his tendency to see the scientific method as something with a direction. I.e. we build knowledge to gain better and better and increasingly more true understanding of our world.
The article shows exactly the limits of testing. You can even for a very long time and repeatedly have the same outcomes just until you don't have them anymore. We have no way of knowing whether our observations of various phenomena are universal or simply just some patterns that happen to be true for a limited time (even if we talk millions of years)
And that is ok. Just as we make assumptions in our personal lives that are true for some time until they fall apart. (housing market, pension funds, that death sure job, marriage)
Life's complicated and we never know what it will turn up with. I find that part of why it's great to live.
I don't think this is what the article is about. At least for physical and biological phenomena, there is some objective truth. For example, Seroquel does or does not reduce schizophrenic symptoms---the reason an original finding is "temporary" and wears off is not because the efficacy has changed over time---it's because it was never efficacious in the first place (and we were mistaken because of bad research practices).
But that is my point. Whether we call it objective or not is solely based on our practices, our observations. And these can never be completely satisfactory. The scientific method no matter how rigor is not telling us whether something is objectively true but rather that as far as we have tested something to be true it is.
More specifically I was commenting on this:
...For many scientists, the effect is especially troubling because of what it exposes about the scientific process. If replication is what separates the rigor of science from the squishiness of pseudoscience, where do we put all these rigorously validated findings that can no longer be proved?...
I see your point---my point is that this article is not a good jumping off point for discussions about philosophy of science or epistemology (bold title notwithstanding). It's about bad statistical practice. More importantly, it's about a bad practice that is well-known (at least among statisticians) and has remedies.
Fair enough.