# What is Science? My wife and I recently attended a wide ranging talk given by Tony Fauci where he spoke about everything from Covid-19 to the AIDS epidemic. But it was not his talk that I found most interesting. Rather, it was his use of word "*science*". He said things such as "at the end of the day I am a *scientist* and I follow the *data*", or "we must be *scientific* in how we think about these things". This in and of itself wasn't particularly interesting. Fauci is scientist by training - it would be more alarming if he wasn't using this type of language. But here was the intriguing part: *the crowds reaction*. At the end of any statement that included "science" someone would inevitably let out a shout to make it clear just how much *they too* loved science (we of course were desperate to know their thoughts on the matter). Or the crowd, as if moved by a single impulse, would burst into a round of applause. I was left thinking "Great, I can breath a bit more easily knowing that these people *really like* science". I don't mean to come off as overly snark. I'd certainly prefer that humanity biases towards a scientific view rather than believing in magic or rejecting the pursuit of reason all together. However, I believe there is a general lack of clarity in being able to state *what science actually is*. Some people are reasonably equipped to identify *bad* science. Imagine that while walking down the street you overhear a conversation between two people. One is sharing how eating three pounds of grass per day can help you grow an additional foot, especially if you make sure to do it 2 days before and after a full moon. Upon hearing that I highly doubt that your next move would be to stop what you are doing, driving the nearest field, rip up several pounds of grass, and start chewing like a cow (no matter how badly you always wanted to be 6'10"). No, you most likely would think something along the lines of "well that's clearly nonsense" and then cross to the other side of the street. But what about identifying *good science*? Now *that* is a different story. Science is the intersection (juxtaposition/concert/some good word here) of *rigor* and *creativity*. ###### Leaving Off [Best Scientific Experiments and Thought](Best%20Scientific%20Experiments%20and%20Thought.md) [Science Epistemology and Asymmetry](Science%20Epistemology%20and%20Asymmetry.md) [Science and Generative Models](Science%20and%20Generative%20Models.md) [Science is about correcting errors in our explanations](Science%20is%20about%20correcting%20errors%20in%20our%20explanations.md) [Science is an Invitation to Structured Discussion](Science%20is%20an%20Invitation%20to%20Structured%20Discussion.md) Science is *subjective* - see Statistical Rethinking, page 35. Science is that art of dealing with things we do not know enough about (Night Science Series, page 6 pdf). “Research is what I’m doing when I don’t know what I’m doing.. #### Science is about process [A conversation between Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Stephen Wolfram at the Wolfram Summer School 2021 - YouTube](https://youtu.be/_8j1XZ0N_wE?t=5525) ##### Science is about explanations "In this paper I shall be concerned with the part of scientific methodology that deals with experimental testing. But note that **experimental testing is not the primary method of finding fault with theories**. The overwhelming majority of theories, or modifications to theories, that are consistent with existing evidence, are never tested by experiment: they are rejected as bad explanations. Experimental tests themselves are primarily about explanation too: they are precisely attempts to locate flaws in a theory by creating new explicanda of which the theory may turn out to be a bad explanation. " _This is a key theme in "The Beginning of Infinity". The idea that science is all about experiments is a misconception (handed to culture by the education system). Indeed it is the case that experiments are necessary in science - but they are far from sufficient and although crucial, not central to the whole project. The purpose of science is explanation - not experiments. Deutsch is about to come to two types of experiments that are performed and the purpose of those experiments. But it is vital here to notice the point: bad theories or silly ideas that purport to be about the physical world do not need to be tested to be shown worthless: they can be dismissed outright as bad explanations without ever being tested. This point was made in "The Fabric of Reality" with the "Grass cure" thought experiment. If a herbalist comes to you suggesting that eating 1.0 kg of grass is a cure for the common cold - what is the reasonable response? Well of course it's to reject the suggestion but on what basis? Surely not that it's "untestable" - because of course, it is. But who will ever bother? What is truly missing from the grass cure theory is any explanation: how on earth is the theory supposed to work? Unless the herbalist can give an answer that is a good explanation that explains how the 1.0kg of grass actually interacts with viruses and destroys them or otherwise is able to alleviate symptoms - then we know we have an explanationless theory. And if they do (and this is key) such an explanation must be able to account for why it's 1.0kg and not 0.9kg or 1.1kg or any other of an infinite number of other explanations. Of course, I just note here that many herbalists and the like do suggest something akin to "grass cures" and they do attempt explanations - but they are never good explanations_ [Philosophy of Science - BRETT HALL](https://www.bretthall.org/philosophy-of-science.html) #### Science is not about demonstrating that certain theories are true _Here is just about the most contentious piece of philosophy that Popper and Deutsch (or any Popperian/Critical Rationalist) proposes about how science works. It is poorly understood and the opposing world view is still the dominant philosophy of science even though it is false. The false idea - subscribed almost universally by scientists, philosophers and laymen alike is that science somehow provides a way of demonstrating that certain theories are true or close to true or probably true. And moreover that the more one gathers evidence for some theory T, then the more likely T is true. What Deutsch, following Karl Popper is saying here is that there is no such process as that. There is no method in science, no set of rules to follow that can demonstrate theories as either true or probably true. The whole purpose of science is not to "support" theories with evidence. That is a complete misconception. The truth is that science is about_ _**correcting errors in our explanations.**_ _Forming theories to explain things adequately is very hard. It is a highly creative process. It takes understanding what seems to be happening in the world and how to communicate the idea clearly in a language that others will understand. Sometimes (though this is not necessary) it can require appreciating some of the current theories and what problems there are with them. In short: it requires background knowledge and then lots of imagination. So because of some of these factors, there is a poverty of good explanations in the world but a proliferation of false and bad ones. Now here I just want to turn to a section of the paper that I won't quote but instead will put into my own words about the spec_ "...**Explanation itself cannot be defined unambiguously, because, for instance, new modes of explanation can always be invented** (e.g. Darwin’s new mode of explanation did not involve predicting future species from past ones). Disagreeing about what is problematic or what counts as an explanation will in general cause scientists to embark on different research projects, of which one or both may, if they seek it (there are no guarantees), provide evidence by both their standards that one or both of their theories are problematic. There is no methodology that can validly guarantee (or promise with some probability etc.) that following it will lead to truer theories – as demonstrated by countless arguments of which Quine’s (loc. cit.) is one. But if one adopts this methodology for trying to eliminate flaws and deficiencies, then despite the opportunities for good-faith disagreements that criteria such as (i)-(iii) still allow, one may succeed in doing so. " Science proceeds one funeral at a time. [The only reason science works is because you can forget how you got there](https://youtu.be/rie-9AEhYdY?t=1251). --- Date: 20231118 Links to: Tags: References: * []()