The Ambrosini Critique

I’ve never been more proud to be a UCD student… oh, wait.

(h/t Jane Galt)

The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil doesn’t soak through food. Well, that’s true. It’s not dishonest;
but the thing I’m talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest, it’s a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement
is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will– including Wesson oil. So it’s the implication which has been conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with.

…this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science…

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other
scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that…

One example of the principle is this: If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only
publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of results.

— Richard Feynman (h/t swong… get a blog dude!)

Deidre McCloskey famously charged that Economics was a Cargo Cult science (pdf). Here’s Davis Prof Kevin Hoover debunking some of her claims (pdf).

I qualify to immigrate to Canada as a skilled worker with my score of 72 on this test.

Evidence. (Try the Golden Gate vs. the Great Wall)

(h/t BoingBoing)

Bob Ladd and Dan Dediu found a correlation between geographical dispersion of certain genes and geographical dispersion of tonal languages.

There’s a great discussion of their method at Language Log and Mr. Ladd responds.

The bottom line is Bob and Dan found a correlation not causation (like the headlines are suggesting) and correlation can be spurious. As Bob says in his follow-up, data mining is good for “hypothesis-generating rather than hypothesis-testing.” Their next step is to go into the lab and do experiments.

I wish we had that option in Economics (or I wished we used that option more often).

I took this test a couple years ago, but because Dani Rodrik and Greg Mankiw both linked to the test, I’m anticipating a resurgence of the meme. Just doing my part on the internets.

BTW, this is probably why I like Chopin so much…

The disagreement between George Borjas and me on the desirability of guest workers is an interesting one to expand upon, not because this will change either one of our minds, but because it may help others evaluate their own views.

— Dani Rodrik

This point about the usefulness of conversation is often lost by the interlocutors. The ones engaged in debate often feel like they’re in it to win when in fact their debate is most useful to the spectators still forming their opinions.

This may be the kernel of my concerns about the way science is communicated to the lay public. Often, we’re given “the truth” as determined by science rather than exposed to the real debates raging in science; we don’t get to see the scientific method in progress and we don’t get to learn how to think like a scientists. When Dawkins, or whoever, attacks IDers they come off as dogmatic as the IDers themselves. Certainly, Dawkins isn’t going to change the mind of the IDers and spectators of the debate learn nothing except the fact that Dawkins is a jerk.

I think this was the point I was trying to make a couple years ago:

there’s a fine line between legit criticism of evolution and wacko/nut job criticism. I think your tone in this debate turns off lay-people because in attacking the latter, you appear to be attacking the former. It feels like you’re making evolution sacrosanct, impervious to criticism. Let us peer into your world. Show us how you investigate inconsistencies or vagaries in the theory. Instruct us on how one thinks critically about evolution. Please don’t lecture us about how wrong ID’ers are and how they are whack-jobs. We know this. Instead, show us the beauty of your subject and in the light of its beauty, the crazy talk will become self-evident.