# xkcd on purity of scientific fields **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 23, 2012, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678 "2012-04-23T10:51:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/41 "2012-04-25T00:17:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Indeed, I have run into those kind of dismissive fellows many times already How do you deal with them? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/42 "2012-04-25T00:20:19Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > How do you deal with them? Point them to the experts that do show that indeed the Maththurbators are just jerking around. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/43 "2012-04-25T00:23:25Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > “It’s only science if it postulates falsifiable hypotheses” is a vast oversimplification of actual philosophy of science. For starters, nothing is really falsifiable. See: “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” W. V. O. Quine, _Philosophical Review_, 1951. Also the characteristics of “soft” sciences that might make them seem unfalsifiable are usually shared (albeit often to a lesser degree) by “hard” sciences. > > It would be nice if people who’ve spent ten minutes reading about Popper on Wikipedia wouldn’t dismiss entire fields of study as non-scientific because their insight has made them authorities on the subject to match Lakatos or Feyerabend. Yes, but I don’t think it is reading about Popper on Wikipedia that is the source of this stuff. Kids get told in the “introduction to scientific method” section of their first year university science courses, or maybe even when doing their science fair project at elementary school. The people who teach it probably know better, but they need to keep it simple. Popper probably isn’t even mentioned much of the time. It is not like he actually invented hypothetico-deductivism. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/44 "2012-04-25T00:32:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Point them to the experts that do show that indeed the Maththurbators are just jerking around. 🙂 Appeal to authority. Exactly the kind of logic fallacy I would expect. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/45 "2012-04-25T00:40:53Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Appeal to authority. Exactly the kind of logic fallacy I would expect. He’s pulling your leg; in my experience, GIGO reliably answers questions about whether a field involves falsifiable predictions by supplying a falsifiable prediction. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/46 "2012-04-25T00:41:43Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Appeal to authority. Exactly the kind of logic fallacy I would expect. Nope, just like \*\*Gorsnak \*\*and \*\*njtt \*\*point out, appealing to Popper is not at the levels some propose, in fact I say that there is even a denial of sorts regarding the limits many scientists already know exist regarding falsification, and some indeed abuse the methods proposed by Popper. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/47 "2012-04-25T00:52:01Z")
Judging from the reaction, I think I touched a ‘soft nerve’. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/48 "2012-04-25T01:04:59Z")
Nah :), the reaction I saw here shows that I was correct before regarding the true perspective and how most scientists see falsification. I see it as touching my funny bone more like any nerves. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/49 "2012-04-25T01:22:51Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > And where have you seen what you’ve seen? Pop culture/media coverage? When one of the constant stream of miraculous cancer cures suddenly stop getting reported on, is it out of fashion or quietly falsified? > > Off the top of my head, I would say Phrenology is a falsified Psychological theory. Not a good example. Neuroscience is an actual science. Psychology had nothing to do with falsifying Phrenology. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/50 "2012-04-25T01:36:37Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Not a good example. Neuroscience is an actual science. Psychology had nothing to do with falsifying Phrenology. Well – in the spirit of that XKCD comic – how about, say, prescribing a particular antidepressant to treat folks with specified symptoms? Do you figure we could make predictions about how those chemicals would stack up against a placebo in a proper double-blind study? Could we hypothetically falsify those predictions? ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/51 "2012-04-25T01:45:46Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, just like \*\*Gorsnak \*\*and \*\*njtt \*\*point out, appealing to Popper is not at the levels some propose, in fact I say that there is even a denial of sorts regarding the limits many scientists already know exist regarding falsification, and some indeed abuse the methods proposed by Popper. Definitely. Just see Lakatos’ _The Methodology of Scientific Research Programs_. Here is a summary from the [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/). It is a wall of text, but one well worth reading. > [@](#): > > As Lakatos has pointed out, Popper’s theory of demarcation hinges quite fundamentally on the assumption that there are such things as critical tests, which either falsify a theory, or give it a strong measure of corroboration. Popper himself is fond of citing, as an example of such a critical test, the resolution, by Adams and Leverrier, of the problem which the anomalous orbit of Uranus posed for nineteenth century astronomers. Both men independently came to the conclusion that, assuming Newtonian mechanics to be precisely correct, the observed divergence in the elliptical orbit of Uranus could be explained if the existence of a seventh, as yet unobserved outer planet was posited. Further, they were able, again within the framework of Newtonian mechanics, to calculate the precise position of the ‘new’ planet. Thus when subsequent research by Galle at the Berlin observatory revealed that such a planet (Neptune) did in fact exist, and was situated precisely where Adams and Leverrier had calculated, this was hailed as by all and sundry as a magnificent triumph for Newtonian physics: in Popperian terms, Newton’s theory had been subjected to a critical test, and had passed with flying colours. Popper himself refers to this strong corroboration of Newtonian physics as ‘the most startling and convincing success of any human intellectual achievement’. Yet Lakatos flatly denies that there are critical tests, in the Popperian sense, in science, and argues the point convincingly by turning the above example of an alleged critical test on its head. What, he asks, would have happened if Galle had not found the planet Neptune? Would Newtonian physics have been abandoned, or would Newton’s theory have been falsified? The answer is clearly not, for Galle’s failure could have been attributed to any number of causes other than the falsity of Newtonian physics (e.g., the interference of the earth’s atmosphere with the telescope, the existence of an asteroid belt which hides the new planet from the earth, etc). The point here is that the ‘falsification/corroboration’ disjunction offered by Popper is far too logically neat: non-corroboration is not necessarily falsification, and falsification of a high-level scientific theory is never brought about by an isolated observation or set of observations. Such theories are, it is now generally accepted, highly resistant to falsification. They are falsified, if at all, Lakatos argues, not by Popperian critical tests, but rather within the elaborate context of the research programmes associated with them gradually grinding to a halt, with the result that an ever-widening gap opens up between the facts to be explained, and the research programmes themselves. (Lakatos, I. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, passim). **Popper’s distinction between the logic of falsifiability and its applied methodology does not in the end do full justice to the fact that all high-level theories grow and live despite the existence of anomalies (i.e., events/phenomena which are incompatible with the theories).** The existence of such anomalies is not usually taken by the working scientist as an indication that the theory in question is false; on the contrary, he will usually, and necessarily, assume that the auxiliary hypotheses which are associated with the theory can be modified to incorporate, and explain, existing anomalies. My emphasis. This is exactly how the social sciences I am familiar with (political science and economics) work. For example, consider the Median Voter Theorem ([Median voter theorem - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem)). It is a core finding of rational choice political science, and empirically, it is completely wrong. But it’s not wrong because the theoretical groundwork that supports it is wrong; the MVT is just too frictionless to make meaningful empirical predictions. Political scientists did not abandon the entire framework when it became obvious that the conditions for the theorem didn’t hold. They gradually refined it and produced much more powerful results. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/52 "2012-04-25T04:00:30Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well – in the spirit of that XKCD comic – how about, say, prescribing a particular antidepressant to treat folks with specified symptoms? Do you figure we could make predictions about how those chemicals would stack up against a placebo in a proper double-blind study? Could we hypothetically falsify those predictions? Actually that experiment has already been done and it turned out that antidepressants were no more effective than placebos. It doesn’t seem to keep doctors from prescribing them. Antidepressants were created by Biochemists, but psychologists have show no ability to actually figure out how they work or if they work. All they have are some rather subjective descriptions of symptoms that doesn’t seem to work much better than casting a horoscope. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/53 "2012-04-25T04:25:24Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > Definitely. Just see Lakatos’ _The Methodology of Scientific Research Programs_. Here is a summary from the [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/). It is a wall of text, but one well worth reading. > > My emphasis. This is exactly how the social sciences I am familiar with (political science and economics) work. For example, consider the Median Voter Theorem ([Median voter theorem - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem)). It is a core finding of rational choice political science, and empirically, it is completely wrong. But it’s not wrong because the theoretical groundwork that supports it is wrong; the MVT is just too frictionless to make meaningful empirical predictions. Political scientists did not abandon the entire framework when it became obvious that the conditions for the theorem didn’t hold. They gradually refined it and produced much more powerful results. Lakatos is off base. Science is always limited by the tools. He creates an imaginary example and thinks he is proving a point. There is always the possibly of experimental error, which is why scientific results have to be independently confirmed. That happened recently with the faster than light neutrinos. String Theory actually is outside science right now, because we can’t built the tools to test it. It may become science some day when we build tools or it might be falsified. The limits of Science are defined by our tools, not by our theories. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/54 "2012-04-25T05:09:29Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Actually that experiment has already been done and it turned out that antidepressants were no more effective than placebos. It doesn’t seem to keep doctors from prescribing them. Antidepressants were created by Biochemists, but psychologists have show no ability to actually figure out how they work or if they work. I’m not following you. I sure wouldn’t mind a cite – but if, as you say, the antidepressants truly _ **were** _ no more effective than placebos, then why claim the predictions can’t be falsified? It sounds like something entirely relevant to figuring out the _“if they work”_ point you mentioned at the end there. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/55 "2012-04-25T09:32:00Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Lakatos is off base. Science is always limited by the tools. He creates an imaginary example and thinks he is proving a point. There is always the possibly of experimental error, which is why scientific results have to be independently confirmed. That happened recently with the faster than light neutrinos. > > String Theory actually is outside science right now, because we can’t built the tools to test it. It may become science some day when we build tools or it might be falsified. The limits of Science are defined by our tools, not by our theories. So, by your somewhat idiosyncratic ideas about science, the observational sciences now get kicked out? Epidemiology is not a science now because we cannot construct experiments? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/56 "2012-04-25T09:45:26Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Actually that experiment has already been done and it turned out that antidepressants were no more effective than placebos. Actually, it was shown to be no better than placebo on patients who did not have moderate to severe depression, but shown to be effective on those who did. Your point about doctors still giving them out for lesser illnesses is still on point, however. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/57 "2012-04-25T21:46:28Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Actually, it was shown to be no better than placebo on patients who did not have moderate to severe depression, but shown to be effective on those who did. > > Your point about doctors still giving them out for lesser illnesses is still on point, however. That is correct. My main objection is that physicians prescribe antidepressants based on symptoms rather than actual observations of the brain chemistry. Physicians are not scientists yet, but there are some movement in that direction, like evidence based medicine. Of course, most physicians will remain technicians, but their actions will be based on actual science. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/58 "2012-04-25T21:55:15Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > So, by your somewhat idiosyncratic ideas about science, the observational sciences now get kicked out? Epidemiology is not a science now because we cannot construct experiments? Your reading skills seem rather limited. The example we were discussing was from astronomy which an experimental science which generates falsifiable predictions. I don’t know that much about Epidemiology, but don’t they do animal experiments? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/59 "2012-04-25T22:03:57Z")
Astronomy isn’t an experimental science, because we have no control over the things we’re studying. If you want to learn about the evolution of a star with a particular metallicity content, say, you can’t just make one in the lab; you have to hope to find one that’s relatively close, and which has minimal confounding variables, and extrapolate from there. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678/60 "2012-04-25T23:00:56Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Your reading skills seem rather limited. The example we were discussing was from astronomy which an experimental science which generates falsifiable predictions. > > I don’t know that much about Epidemiology, but don’t they do animal experiments? You’re right. My reading comprehension must be very limited indeed. After all, I am just a social scientist. How is astronomy experimental? How was Galle’s finding of Neptune, the critical event that corroborated Newtonian mechanics, experimental and not observational? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/xkcd-on-purity-of-scientific-fields/619678.md?page=4)