> In my view, reproducibility is neither strictly necessary nor sufficient for scientific progress.
In your view? Reproducibility is essential to scientific progress because it defines what science is. It's the backbone of science. Hypothesis,testing/experiments. It's what separates science from math, arts and pseudosciences like social "sciences".
> I'm sure if you went back through the literature on something like electromagnetism, you would find results that fail to replicate, yet the theory of electromagnetism if applied properly is remarkably robust.
How would it be "robust" if it couldn't be replicated? How would the theory of electromagnetism be robust if it failed to produce replicable results?
> Scientific results can be strengthened by replication
No. It can only be a "scientific result" if it can be replicated/tested. It's definitional.
> Discovery of a psychological "effect" is perfectly scientific and interesting
No it isn't if it can't be test/replicated/reproduced. It's not science. It's something else altogether.
> And if those sciences are also plagued by irreproducibility, then they may embrace scientific methodology without producing a useful scientific knowledge base.
There is no "scientific methodology" without testability/replication/reproducibility.
I get what you're saying, but even within the more reputable sciences, the body of known or published results is peppered with results that will fail to replicate. They have not all been identified. There will be more. The good results are mixed with junk results yet somehow science progresses. The robustness of science has to come from somewhere other than the complete absence of junk results. This is what I meant by my first sentence.
I read that in the century after Newton, the French Academy offered a prize for evidence of the failure of Newton's laws. They gave out the prize dozens of times, yet Newtonian physics kept getting stronger and stronger. Eventually they stopped giving out the prize. Many of the contradictions apparently had to do with the lunar orbit, which was poorly understood.
> He’s like “well look, 90% of everything is shit”
I think there is a difference between "being shit" and "being fake" though. 'do you really think it’s true that 50-70% of biomedical research is fake?'
Fake seems more insidious and problematic.
Also this brings up a very troubling issue. If 90% of the "research is fake/shit" and lets say that means that 90% of the researchers are "fake/shit", then it means that 'scientific' consensus is also likely "fake/shit".
This is why I'm always skeptical of 'scientific' consensus. Science is about evidence, testing, etc. Not consensus - which is the realm of politics, law, etc.
And I'd suspect 99.99% of social 'sciences' is probably 'fake/shit' and that is used to push/change society/government/etc.
I think it's irrelevant to what was being said in their conversation. In Marc's context, being fake/shit equated to non-replicable simply. Before that quote, I believe he was talking about the replication crisis briefly.
Or, we just have a natural/historical aversion to centralized power. Much of the nation initially started out believing that power should be local. Or you can simply make up nonsense about 'mark of the beast'.
It's crazy how a nation of "religious fundamentalists" created the modern world. Crazy how "religious fundamentalists" created the wealthiest nation.
There has always been a backlash against centralized/federalized anything. From taxes to gun registration to you name it. As it should be. But you'll be happy to know that the trend is towards more centralized control and power.
> It's crazy how a nation of "religious fundamentalists" created the modern world. Crazy how "religious fundamentalists" created the wealthiest nation.
Not sure that responding to an overly reductive conclusion with an even more reductive conclusion is helping.
FWIW I wouldn't say that fundamentalism itself did much to advance the world or make any nation rich. Except perhaps to motivate some people to seek unexploited resources elsewhere.
> Or, we just have a natural/historical aversion to centralized power.
And yet support a sprawling state government machinery almost as powerful as the central/federal government so much so that states can dictate terms and laws they want and "local" cities and counties have to abide by it.
At this point, it's either mass hysteria, a weapon of some kind or something common within this group. Are these officials forced to carry some kind of equipment that can cause this? Were they required to get some shots/drugs, implants or training that causes mental/auditory/etc issues? It's also remotely possible it's just another ploy to foster more fear in population.
It is odd that it apparently affects a particular specialized group of people and that they would make this public without figuring things out first.
> Chinese belt and road projects are notoriously opaque but often have China bringing the financing, labor, and infrastructure.
It's so opaque that you know who is funding, building, etc? Right. Also, who else is going to bring the financing? And as for infrastructure, hasn't china shown to be the best at it?
> Foreign companies are often largely left out.
So what? It's a china led project which the west is opposed. What do you expect?
> The people benefit very little as the resources and value extracted return to China.
That's true for everybody. The people benefit very little. Do you think "the people" benefited from Canada sending timber to the US or Australia selling iron ore to china for decades?
Why don't we offer a better deal? So using your logic, afghanistan shouldn't trade with anyone?
If china's deal is that awful and afghanistan is choosing them, doesn't it really show how even more for awful everyone else is?
Also, I wouldn't take anything by wsj, rupert murdoch owned and controlled propaganda outlet, seriously when it comes to china as his propaganda empire is peddling the most anti-china propaganda.
Do you think "the west" cares about afghanistan, africa or any nation involved in BRI? Do you think we are mad because china is ripping them off or that china is actually giving these BRI nations a good deal? My guess is the latter. Or we worried that china is ripping off afghanistan, a nation we invaded and brutalized for decades? Or are you worried because china is giving them the best deal? Be honest. Given how evil we've been for a few centuries now, which do you think?
China is doing more for those countries than the West ever has or will.
Yeah, sure, they're building the infrastructure to strip the country bare, but the West hasn't been much better. Funding wars and bribing officials to keep a country poor and disorganized in order to plunder it has been the modus operandi for decades. Before then it was straight slavery.
If the Taliban make billions and build modern cities, I bet you anything that large Western countries will sell their good there. Apple, Mc Donalds, Coca Cola, Pepsi, Yves Saint Laurent, Rolex, VW, Ferrari, and so many more will be trying to conquer the market.
> It was taught in more the general sense of how to apply critical thinking to judge news stories.
Critical thinking is a general thing, not something for news stories. Besides the idea that school teach critical thinking in anything is laughable in this day and age.
What should be taught is history of news and why it exists. Not how to decipher good "news" from bad "news" because there is no good or bad "news". There is only agenda. Schools should also teach the history of modern school systems and the education department. Quite eye opening.
By your comment, it's apparently clear you didn't learn anything valuable in your class. But then again, it's Stony Brook.
> Google definitely lived long enough to become a villain.
I hate to break this to you but google was born a villain. Nobody innately good has to remind themselves "Don't be evil". Imagine walking down the street and meeting a stranger constantly repeating "Don't be evil" to himself?
Being able to group people into "good" and "bad" ones is convenient. It means you only need to find out once if someone is a "good" or "bad" person and once you have decided that someone is "bad" you can justify any of your own behavior towards them. But just because it is convenient does not make it true. People are people. Choices are bad or good or more likley somewhere in between. Nobody is innately good or bad - while some poeple my be wired to be more selfish than others, the choices they make throughout their lifes are as much dictated by the circumstances they are made in and by the experiences made before them as they are by the neurological makeup of the person.
In your view? Reproducibility is essential to scientific progress because it defines what science is. It's the backbone of science. Hypothesis,testing/experiments. It's what separates science from math, arts and pseudosciences like social "sciences".
> I'm sure if you went back through the literature on something like electromagnetism, you would find results that fail to replicate, yet the theory of electromagnetism if applied properly is remarkably robust.
How would it be "robust" if it couldn't be replicated? How would the theory of electromagnetism be robust if it failed to produce replicable results?
> Scientific results can be strengthened by replication
No. It can only be a "scientific result" if it can be replicated/tested. It's definitional.
> Discovery of a psychological "effect" is perfectly scientific and interesting
No it isn't if it can't be test/replicated/reproduced. It's not science. It's something else altogether.
> And if those sciences are also plagued by irreproducibility, then they may embrace scientific methodology without producing a useful scientific knowledge base.
There is no "scientific methodology" without testability/replication/reproducibility.
All science is based on hypothesis-testing.