Illusions of understanding in the sciences(link.springer.com) |
Illusions of understanding in the sciences(link.springer.com) |
In reality, science operates much like a mental model. The paper argues that just because a model predicts future values more accurately, it doesn't mean the model explains the actual causal structure. Yet, the fact that outcomes fall within the predicted range reinforces the illusion that one has truly 'understood' it.
This reminds me of the statistician's aphorism: 'All models are wrong, but some are useful.' Science itself, in a way, is a mental model—a simplification created for humans because the world is a complex system that is cognitively impossible to fully comprehend. Within that framework, certain facts reinforce the mental model, while others weaken it. While mental models vary from person to person, in a broad sense, we are commonly taught to view the macroscopic world through the Newtonian model and the microscopic world through the quantum mechanics model.
Reading this makes me reconsider what 'understanding' truly means. I believe the starting point of genuine understanding is acknowledging that perfect prediction is ultimately impossible, and that when viewing the world through our mental models, what matters is defining what we consider to be acceptable 'lossy information' (or information we can afford to lose)
It reminded the authors of this too, since they quote and source it
Yes. Celestial navigation was based on a universe which spun around the earth, which is wrong, but it worked for navigation.
Mathematically, in a two-body system, there's no actual difference between saying body A orbits body B or saying body B orbits body A, so in some sense, it's not even wrong.
And beyond that: models become most interesting at the point they fail, because that's where you learn something.
Scientists are still humans. Individual people may be curious and be open to some questioning. But thy find it difficult to discuss such things in the open. It is like a religious dogma.
One example is the model of "colliding magnetic field lines", which is a concept not possible in electron-magnetism (my own expertise). But astronomers use this concept to describe plasma lines that collide with each other on the sun. They call it "magnetic reconnection". I can discuss this problem within communities that know electromagnetism, but not with astronomers. The confusion comes from their model (magnetohydrodynamics) that plasma always follows magnetic field lines. And if plasma collides, so must also the field lines. But in reality (and according tot he inventor of the model, Alphen) the model describes a very special case.
accurate prediction is not better understanding
Less "accurate" model can lead to better prediction
A better understanding encodes more info about how much more it can be improved, when compared to a less good understanding
Explained by this wonderful series
More accurate theories are important once your requirements are so extreme that without them your prediction is off.
Understanding is about knowing these mental models at the different levels, how they connect to each other and where these models have weird gaps and/or disconnects. Since is and always has been about understanding the best current explaination of the things we observe. Whether it is exactly as you say, or some more elaborate hidden structure is beneath it, is not something you can tell apart, unless you run into the actual limitations of your model.
If you want to land on the moon, you use science, even if it doesn't know everything down to the last particle.
When we use computers for everything, the functionality provided by particular software packages can end up constraining how we think about a problem space.
If authors ever come to this forum, please read Duhem-Quine thesis, over/under determination, inference to the best explanation, Goodman's paradox, also how various theories in philosophy of sciences: from Popper to Kuhn, Lakatos, Laudan, etc.
I totally support a goal to get those groups talking more but something tighter is probably better. And why isn't it tighter? Without big original contributions, the goal does seem to be a survey
The feeling is a strange mixture of disappointment, awe, annoyance and excitement.
"All evidence points towards x under the constraints y, z and q."
vs
"Its like this: x"
We're handed a bunch of simplified models then build on them. The consequence being that the landscape is very narrowly revealed.
This itself is a consequence of the architecture, at least in the US we don't really specialize until college/university.
Nobody really comprehends the depth of things until then, and troublingly enough we don't understand that until we're 2-3 years in.
For instance we have DNA, right? It gets replicated in cells via mitosis and in specialized cells called gametes via meiosis, the latter form is used for sexual reproduction. That's the gist you get in High School, you might talk about the polymer, nucleotides, nucleotide construction (which are superficial)
That isn't even close to the end, just off the top of my head there are elements in the DNA that code for several processes like methylation, allow interfacing with proteins which have myriad effects like up or downregulating transcription, they can also change the local topology forming loops that facilitate the process. There's a bunch of crazy shit that happens at the histone level.
And any one of those Substituent parts is probably worth discussing for a week in lecture at least but they're glossed over for more advances classes. For instance those regulatory molecules, in sufficient concentrations, can overpower histones that keep genes turned off, and that has downstream consequences in general regulation and cell differentiation.
I think that in the long run it compromises mental rigor. It also allows people to carry with them a sense of complete understanding when it's superficial and shallow. Having never experience the depth that the real world goes to kind of limits the horizons of people that aren't naturally curious and never shows them the potential for how deep shit can really get and when it does it is still superficial by the dint of the expectation placed on students being so narrow.
But in some cases it is not good enough. If you look for a better explanation and chose gradient descent as your strategy, then you'll come to a local maximum eventually, but not for another explanation.
Arguably, it is hard to look for better explanation if the current one doesn't have a backtrack of failed predictions. One of the possible ways out of this situation is to search for the predictions that fail.
But what I want to say is explanations are not just for prediction. They are needed to build a mental model that then can drive the research. And new model can be built (theoretically) from the first principles. I can't find clean examples for it though. If we look at Einstein for example, he started with a failure to predict. But what he came up at first was Special Relativity which failed utterly with the gravity. Einstein spent like 10 years rewriting gravity to make it work with SR? Failed predictions of his new shiny theory didn't stop him, and it is considered to be good.
> Predictability encodes understanding in a strict information theoretic sense, regardless of our ability as humans to access that understanding.
But it doesn't necessary implies the possibility to move forward. I'm not sure if an analogy with compressed data is a good one, but you don't work with compressed data, you unpack it, and maybe unpack some more and convert to a very inefficient format with regard to the disk space used.
Compressed theory is good to apply it as is, but to refine it you should probably prefer something else.
This only seems possible if students can be admitted to more than one department.
;).
The math in science isn't provable, objective, or self-consistent, and mathematicians who look at physics regularly have "Wait a minute..." moments.
But scientific math is a useful toolbox of techniques that create useful metaphors where the maps and the experiences coincide, to a useful extent.
Science is really a process of inventing and trying out metaphor maps and keeping the ones that match experience.
Reality itself is likely unknowable, because our experience of it is too limited to provide enough information to get down to the bedrock mechanisms.
So we have these intermediate models that get some way there, but clearly have gaps and edges where the parts don't fit together.
Everything starts at human-scale and works outwards.
"the sciences" is very broad. in biology there are established methods for establishing causality (i.e. Koch's postulates, etc), and even then conclusions are generally qualified. not sure about the other fields, but I wish they had more concrete and recent examples of what they are talking about. this was painful to even skim.
also for some reason i cant click on anyting on the site or select text?
See also Frank Keil’s “illusion of explanatory depth.”
* magic not as “unreal,” but in the classical conception of a living magic world where mental intentions can manifest physical realities
R. Buckminster Fuller – Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking
> Delusional interpretation is a false deduction drawn from an accurate perception. The subject perceives correctly, but reasons wrongly; in him, judgment is impaired by affective disturbance, while the senses remain normal.
> Delusion progresses by accumulation, radiation, and extension; its richness is inexhaustible. The plan of the edifice does not change, but its proportions keep increasing.
> Every new fact, however insignificant, is immediately incorporated into the delusional system, where it becomes a fresh piece of evidence. The patient lives in a state of perpetual suspicion, searching everywhere for guiding threads, clues, correlations.
> Interpreters are not hallucinated subjects; they are logicians gone astray. Their point of departure is an intuition or a false belief, but the consequences they draw from it follow one another with an apparent rigor that often deceives the superficial observer. It is order within madness, logic in the service of the absurd.
> The need to write, graphomania, is in many interpreters a major symptom. They accumulate immense files, endless memoirs, interminable correspondences, in which every detail of their existence is dissected, analyzed, turned over and over, in order to bring to light what they believe to be the truth.
Sérieux & Capgras — Reasoning Madness: The Delusion of Interpretation
> The madman is, rather, the free man: the one who does not allow himself to be chained by the false appearances of common reality. Delusion is not an insult to logic; it is logic driven to exasperation. The paranoiac is a tireless translator, a man who spends his life deciphering the signs of the world in order to find in them the key to his own destiny. Far from being chaos, psychosis is an attempt at rigor, a complete theory that the subject constructs in order to account for his own genesis and his place before the Other. The risk of madness is measured by the very attraction of the identifications through which man alienates his freedom.
> following Fontenelle, I surrendered myself to that fantasy of holding my hand full of truths, the better to close it over them. I confess the ridiculousness of it, because it marks the limits of a being at the very moment when he is about to bear witness. Must one denounce here some failure in what the movement of the world demands of us, if speech was offered to me once again, at the very moment when it became clear even to the least perceptive that, once again, the infatuation of power had only served the cunning of Reason? I leave it to you to judge how my inquiry may suffer from it.
Lacan — Remarks on Psychic Causality
There is nothing new in the article and has already been covered well by some of the greatest Scientists/Mathematicians. We must be careful that articles/papers like these are not used by the anti-scientific crowd to promote their talking points and agendas.
Notably, Henri Poincare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9 and https://henripoincarepapers.univ-nantes.fr/en/) wrote three philosophy of science books; viz. 1) Science and Hypothesis 2) The Value of Science and 3) Science and Method.
These were published together under the apt title, The Foundations of Science which is available here - https://www.gutenberg.org/files/39713/39713-h/39713-h.htm and here (ebook versions) - https://archive.org/details/foundationsscie01poingoog
Details of the works;
1) Science and Hypothesis (1902) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Hypothesis
2) The Value of Science (1904) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Value_of_Science
3) Science and Method (1908) - pdf at https://henripoincarepapers.univ-nantes.fr/chp/hp-pdf/hp1914... At the minimum read this completely.
See also;
a) History of Scientific Method - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
b) Scientific Method - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
It is a slippery slope. At the moment you started to avoid talking about some things because your political opponents could use your ideas to promote their agenda, you stopped being a scientist and became a politician. You thinking is no more scientific, it is political. You are not a scientist anymore, you are a politician.
I dramatize a bit, it doesn't happen all suddenly, but before you started to devise a strategy of censoring discussion due to political reasons, you should find a way to do it without inhibiting thought and free flow of ideas.
From the other hand, I don't understand the discourse at all. If you don't like what anti-scientific crowd says, just don't read them. They will find talking points with you or without you. I believe, people are mistaken that you can curb somehow anti-science movement.
Lets take for example that story with "vaccines cause autism". If the paper claiming that was not published, there would be no antivaxxers, oder? I believe it doesn't matter. They would find something else, the whole point of their ideology "science is a conspiracy which hides things". So not published paper comes into the category of hidden things. They always find something. It is dynamic system with a chaotic behavior, you can try as hard as you like to remove triggers created by science, but conspiracy theories would be spawn by something "smaller".
Yuri Manin – Reception speech at the Paris Academy of Sciences
> I see the process of mathematical creation as a kind of recognizing a preexisting pattern. When you study something—topology, probability, number theory, whatever—first you acquire a general vision of the vast territory, then you focus on a part of it. Later you try to recognize “what is there?” and “what has already been seen by other people?”. So you can read other papers and finally start discerning something nobody has seen before you.
Yuri Manin – Good proofs are proofs that make us wiser
> The central figure of a philosophic dialogue is a wise man, whereas modernity generally and systematically replaces wisdom by training. Wisdom seems to be an inborn faculty slowly ripened by life experience; as such it is rarely met and even more rarely put to any use. Training is a democratic surrogate for wisdom which, in spite of all of its (mainly aesthetic) drawbacks, is superior in one respect: it produces professionals.
Yuri Manin – Mathematics as Metaphor
This isn't what the geocentric model claimed, though. It went beyond just a choice of reference frame, which as you say, you can do in math, or physics.
For a start, the geocentric model claimed a physically preferred reference frame, which already directly contradicts the coordinate relativism you described. In that sense, it was wrong.
Beyond that, it proposed a mathematical model based on epicycles, a model which was eventually falsified due to many failures to match observation. In that sense, it was also wrong.
These points also contradict your other claim:
> Modern astronomical ephemerides use the Tychonic model--the sun is modeled as revolving around the Earth, the other planets as revolving around the sun.
This is misleading at best. The ephemerides you mention are based on modern Newtonian many-body physics, but they do a coordinate transform on the results to express them in a way that's convenient for Earth-bound observers.
This is not "using the Tychonic model" in any meaningful sense. It's using a correct coordinate transform that is equivalent to the overall coordinate system that Tycho tried to use, but failed to get right. It doesn't rely on any aspects of Tycho's model, because that model was largely invalid, and would not produce correct results.
https://youtu.be/_Zxr9STGwbQ?t=3m39s
There's an upcoming book, mentioned in the blurb
It is not about censoring or playing politics. It is about the wording of the title of the OP article and its rather well-known thesis. All Scientists know the limitations of their own understanding and continuously revise it using the Scientific Method.
Given the very real negative agendas out there, it is every scientifically-minded person's duty to be aware of how their own words might be turned to discredit Science itself even though they did not mean it originally. The fact that the anti-scientific crowd might find something else to attack is beside the point. Science does not exist in vacuum but is subject to societal context/pressures and hence scientists must learn to navigate them judiciously in their writings.
As Isaac Asimov noted; The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
It is religious dogma.
The specific example given was divergent models of colliding magnetic field lines.
How are the models religious?
How are the models dogmatic?
The example under discussion suggests neither in the literal sense.
> When these models fail, the community will often enforce the model and censor the opposing facts. I have encountered several such conflicts.
Censoring opposing fact to enforce the wrong model is religious dogma. Or maybe just dogma. Religious or scientific.
At any rate, it's the antithesis of what the scientific method is. The reality is that scientists in general pay lip service to the scientific method, without forgetting where their paychecks come from (government, military or corporations).