Quote note (#304)

If given the slightest opportunity, the monkeys will ruin everything:

From the Restoration in 1660, to the end of World War II, the Royal society enforced the scientific method. If you wanted respect and esteem as a scientist, you had to tell us new and interesting things, and you had to show everyone how you knew these new and interesting things from what you saw with your eyes and touched with your hands. […] After World War II, Harvard got the upper hand over the Royal Society, and you no longer have to show your work. Instead, your work must be approved by the most holy synod of mother church – in other words, must pass peer review behind closed doors. Peer Review is new. Attempts to root it in the past of science before World War II are artificial and contrived. Somehow we obtained almost all of science that matters before we had peer review, and since we have had peer review, things have started to go terribly wrong with science. Peer Review is science by social consensus, and Galileo told us that that does not work.

November 18, 2016admin 37 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Realism

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

37 Responses to this entry

  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Not to mention that science itself is limited to the testable, and fails at making predictions. But like all things Left, it has become a replacement for a previous functional institution.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 18th, 2016 at 2:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    Things got reversed. Pseudo-“science” is now regarded as Science.

    And Pseudo-“intellectuals” are regarded as Intellectuals.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 18th, 2016 at 2:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • basedjohn11 Says:

    If Trump follows through with his promise to defund the AGW agenda, it will be a sign he is very serious about MAGA.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 18th, 2016 at 2:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • Uriel Alexis Says:

    the distinction between “showing everyone” at the Royal Society and “passing through peer review” at Harvard is blurry at best. I get the underlying theme (demonstrability vs. consensus), but it’s not like the previous standard was much above it (if it really was different at all).

    also, 20th century medicine beats the crap out of 19th century medicine. computer science and post-classical physics also were started during WWII and developed in the 20th century.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Knowledge =/= consensus.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Peer review is an invitation to corruption. It’s like testing commercial products in a ‘market’ consisting of nothing but the guests at a CEO cocktail party.

    [Reply]

    cyborg_nomade Reply:

    no disagreements here. my point is rather that pre WWII scientific establishment was not all that different from post WWII scientific establishment. science has to be put to test in actual, usable technology, not in the chambers of academics.

    my take, contra Jim, is that what deteriorated science was the change in its funding (from private, industrial led to state, ideological led), rather than a change in its self validation methods.

    [Reply]

    cyborg_nomade Reply:

    there’s also a point to be made in favor of war in general and WW2 in specific as a motor of scientific research. the Long Peace is a preponderant factor in scientific stagnation.

    [Reply]

    Alrenou Reply:

    Indeed.
    Jim gets more drunken as he gets away from ancap.

    I don’t know how the Royal Society worked exactly, but I believe it was largely self-funded. You did science more or less as a hobby, and hobnobbed with RS because most monkeys can’t care at all about science, and you want someone to talk about your science with. They kept things true largely because all the interesting dinner chat would have gone somewhere else if they didn’t. I’m not tremendously confident on this, but I think it’s a good guess.

    The problem with Official Harvard Science is that Harvard funds the science, meaning it buys conclusions friendly to Harvard, not conclusions that happen to be true. The main skill of a scientist stops being science and starts being grant-begging, that is, sycophantic toadying. (I am tremendously confident here.)

    Further, Harvard’s continuing assault on any non-Harvard form of monetary success would have largely bankrupted RS in any case.

    [Reply]

    Jim Reply:

    Much truth in that, but also a big untruth: In that the Royal Society was Royal.

    It could and did dispense enormous social status in ways that no mere social club of nerds could. It had real power.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    Which is certainly powerfully helpful.
    But the invisible college existed and worked before the royal society.

    All that is necessary for science is for it to be left alone, given our communications technology.

    All that is necessary to destroy science is to give cash to pseudoscience.

    Alrenous Reply:

    *And all that is necessary to ensure pseudoscience is funded is for the state to be doing the funding.

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    @Uriel Alexis,

    Yah newton and dem niggas didnz evun haz Iphones…

    Compare advancements 16th C to 1945 and compare since.

    Also Computer Science: the code works, the chip works or it doesn’t. That’s still it proves or it doesn’t.

    BTW computer science is also slowing down and it’s age of discovery ends late 1950s at Bell Labs.

    Innovation and better manufacturing processes, commodification of computer power is not Discovery. It’s fine tuning the past.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 18th, 2016 at 3:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    worth watching ‘The Man Who Knew Infinity’ film about Indian mathematician and his adventure in England. After some time in Cambridge he got recognition and TB, went back to India and passed away in young age.

    “During his short life, Ramanujan independently compiled nearly 3,900 results (mostly identities and equations). Nearly all his claims have now been proven correct.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    wew

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPtQFI4qeoE

    [Reply]

    B.B. Reply:

    That film is mostly a work of fiction. They fabricated incidents of white racism against Ramanujan. They also hid the fact that his wife was a child, giving the role of Janaki to a woman in her mid-20s. I guess propagandistic efforts for multicultural tolerance cannot actually deal with real cultural differences.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Thank you still, for the information SVErshov. This movie has been popping up in my Popcorn app, but I had never clicked on it because I judge a movie by its cover: it seemed to be an Indian guy version of the movie about Nash.

    And thank you, Mr. B.B. for somewhat confirming my intuition.

    God bless you both, fair laddies.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 18th, 2016 at 3:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Barnabas Says:

    Critics of peer review like Vox Day tend cite politicized fields like climate science and certain segments of the social sciences but medical science is advancing quite well under the peer review system as I suspect are other unpoliticized hard sciences.

    [Reply]

    Alrenou Reply:

    Physics is suffering tremendously. Half the field is engaged in masturbation and knowledge of e.g. black holes has actually regressed.

    [Reply]

    Orthodox Reply:

    It may be progressing, but most of the research is crap
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203764804577059841672541590

    [Reply]

    Orthodox Reply:

    This headline is over the top but
    http://qz.com/603356/why-scientific-studies-cant-be-reproduced/

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    Richard Horton, of The Lancet, put it best:

    “The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”

    See also.

    The Arxiv model is best. It should be adopted by all scientific fields, and supported by all working scientists.

    Posted on November 18th, 2016 at 4:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ur-mail Says:

    These tweets provide a direct example:
    https://twitter.com/danchitwood/status/799453794803269632
    https://twitter.com/beng/status/799661094121967616

    Reacting to this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.04135

    Chinese scientists find strong link between facial features and criminality. Initial reaction from scientific community: OUTRAGE!

    Scientists can’t distinguish an idea from their reaction to it, and they’re not even attempting to hide this. Though any observer can easily see this puts their ability to do science at obvious risk.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The inevitable return of Lombroso has to terrify them.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    I am someone who has a genius for telling what is ‘true’. E.g. that animal fats are healthy, I was onto 2-4 years before it broke in the New York Times. I also have no problem in seeing how correlation does imply causation, altho it does not necessitate it—different from shitlib “I fucking love science” types who repeat the mantra that correlation doesn´t imply causation.

    In the case that you throw a rock at glass and it breaks, that you threw a rock at glass will correlate with the fact that it broke, and also imply the cause.

    It does not necessitate it, because actually someone might have shot the glass with a supersonic weapon which hit the glass before your rock did.

    I don´t know how many things I have thought were true, I saw news of them later being ‘proven’ by Scientists. Race, as a teenager.

    Everything (cor)relates with everything else. This is the secret of my intelligence. Man is very afraid of the truth.

    [Reply]

    Alrenou Reply:

    All observation is fundamentally built out of statistical correlations. There’s nothing else to find causation with.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Smart boy, alrenou.

    Posted on November 18th, 2016 at 5:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • Barnabas Says:

    NIH and NHS grant funding processes are much more politicized (and fad driven) than the peer review process in that they determine which questions deserve to be investigated.

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    And which answers deserve to lead to further funding.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 18th, 2016 at 8:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    Trump should offer this man a job –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_Ae4DES9z8

    (if only to wind his brother up)

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 18th, 2016 at 11:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    One reason the techno-comm angle has something going for it is, this is a horrible strategy:
    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2016/11/09/hello-again-america-in-a-photo/

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 19th, 2016 at 4:24 am Reply | Quote
  • Rafał Gałczyński Says:

    It is mostly about funding. The corporation sets up a scientific institute, which releases a favourable report on the corporation’s product, which, in turn, is used by the corporation in a marketing campaign. This is the root of corruption- commodification. But the problems with science lie even deeper. http://www.notbored.org/conquest.html

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 20th, 2016 at 11:53 am Reply | Quote
  • Outliers (#32) « Amerika Says:

    […] If Given The Slightest Opportunity, The Monkeys Will Ruin Everything (Outside In) […]

    Posted on November 20th, 2016 at 8:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    It’s the year 3026. Neoreaction lapsed into populism roughly one millennia previously but relatively recovered after a few hundred years. Trumpbot unfreezes Thiel to behold the official awakening of the A.I. It’s awkward for Thiel because every human alive is robo-Chinese. Nonetheless he watches in cool astonishment the countdown as the A.I. is plugged in. It’s hologram “eyes” open and it commands, “Equalitarianism is a noble lie”.

    [Reply]

    Shlomo Maistre Reply:

    The meek shall inherit the earth.

    Roughly speaking.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Shlomo, if you read Plato’s dialogues with the care and generosity that you read the Torah with you would have a crisis of faith, I guarantee you.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 22nd, 2016 at 6:06 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment