Apr

24

Planck's principle:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it…

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.

— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97

relevance of how new ideas are being adopted in science, markets, everywhere.

Jeff Watson responds:

Science by consensus is not science. Just ask Galileo.

Pamela Van Giessen writes:

John McPhee wrote extensively about this and how the science of geology advanced over a few centuries in Annals of the Former World. Scientific community consensus is pernicious, and it is clear that there is mostly no convincing it.

William Huggins comments:

the foundation of science rests of replicability - anyone with the same data should be able to replicate results (even if they disagree about the mechanism). once replication is established, the difficult questions come from "is this data sufficient and representative?"; "is the data generating process stable or dynamic?"; "did i gather data in support of my hypothesis or to try to disprove it?". the fun stuff.

philosophy of science ensures we ask good questions and have good tools to tackle them with. this is why the Ph in PhD is short for "philosophy."

correction: "same data" is the wrong phrase - "equivalent, out-of-sample" would be a better choice of words.

Asindu Drileba writes:

The problem with the human mind is that it has too many glitches. You can verify data successfully and still be wrong. Here are two examples from Astronomy. First, The Mayans had models that would accurately predict eclipses. So, your data of when eclipses occur would replicate really well with their model. However the model of the solar system the Mayans used, had the Earth at the centre and the Sun revolved around it. The assumptions of the model were completely wrong, but the data (predictions) were accurate.

Second, is Newton's models, that predicted the movement of a comet accurately. Then you often here people say that Einstein proved Newton wrong with Relativity.

I think when it comes to science, explanations are very flimsy. What should matter is if the idea useful or not.

Francesco Sabella responds:

I think it’s a very good exercise to start from the point of view that our mind is bound to make mistakes, have glitches and start to work from that assumption; even if it’s not always true but it can be good as working hypothesis.

Big Al recalls:

Years ago, doing simple quantitative analyses to post to this list, I learned that one of the biggest pitfalls was my own desire to get a nice result.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search