I respectfully disagree. When people say “X causes Y,” they usually mean “X *always* causes Y.” But, in biology, it is common to find causal relationships that disappear when conditions change. You need mechanism to be able to say “always.”https://twitter.com/s_r_constantin/status/1109096998278320128?s=21 …
-
-
Replying to @LoCtrl
You need *perturbation* to be able to say "always." You need to change the conditions and see if the relationship still holds. If you couldn't infer causation from perturbation, how would you even be able to discern a mechanism from experiment?!
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
In biology, you can make a perturbation, say under 25 C temperature, find causality, publish a paper and celebrate victory. Six months later, someone finds that your experiment does not replicate under 22 C temperature. This is why we need to know mechanisms.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @LoCtrl
Well, tbh, I'd call that example not experimenting in good faith. Which happens! But I don't like conflating 'methods for finding answers to our questions' with 'methods for making cheating inconvenient'.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
But how is it “not experimenting in good faith”? Are you saying I should have tested all temperatures? Fine, but temperature is not the only type of condition that is relevant to a biologist. There are zillions of similar conditions. One can’t possibly test all.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @LoCtrl @s_r_constantin
experimental biology is basically thinking about all the controls you should probably be running but don't have time for, forever "did you control fo- NO, WE DIDN'T. BECAUSE WE COULDN'T." *cries*
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @halvorz
this is all true! The thing is, you have a.) limited resources, and b.) places where you make judgment calls about what's "relevant" vs "irrelevant." The thing I'm claiming is that this is *necessary*, so we should own it consciously.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @halvorz
This is what Judea Pearl
@yudapearl keeps ranting about. "So you're saying scientists should be subjective?" "I'm saying that they already ARE, by necessity, and the "scientific method" should include being explicit about untested assumptions."2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Scientists should be "humble" in the sense of being honest about what is still unknown. But they should not pretend not to have priors or hypotheses. That kind of "humility" creates a power vacuum which will be filled by far less scrupulous authorities.
-
-
"What can we conclude from the data?" The scientist says "nothing." The press, the government, the pharma company, the fad-diet-seller, say "obviously, the data implies that you should do what I say!"
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.