I promised I’d let Sebastian have a guest slot here while I was in the US. So here it is.

I’ve not had a great deal of time to thoroughly edit the translation from the original Spanish, but if anyone here speaks Spanish they’re welcome to have a go. All views and opinions are Sebastian’s alone. I’m actually unlikely to participate in any discussion because I’ll be doing the reverse of the nightmare trip to America.

————

I will try to tell the story as I remember it yesterday.

Last Friday we had a conversation  
with some students at the physics department, University of Chile. We  
tried to present and make sense of some scientific facts from the previous 
time.



We showed a video, How does a machine understand the  
world?.

What are the fundamental questions in science? Science magazine gives  
the first two: What are the biological bases of consciousness? and What  
is the universe made of?



Immediately, a third question arises: How are we going to answer in a  
reasonable amount of time these questions?

This question has not appeared in Science’s list, but we believe that it is time to add it. 

For years the image of the scientist is of someone who has been able to  
get up on a small hill and has looked around, so cold and impersonal,  
establishing assumptions, models and checks or rejecting the  
hypothesis. Thanks to scientists, we have achieved incredible things for  
humanity. And we thank them.



But we believe that something happened on the road, and today when we  
try to answer the big question of conscience say that something is  
demonstrated with a study covering 18 subjects. When we see it with  
a critical eye we think only of white noise modulation, pareidolia

We studied the Nightingales in the arctic instead of doing something about  
global warming. We put a robot on Mars and we do not care about  
leading dandruff. And we are proud.



There is genocide in africa and prisons in Iraq to tell us that  
humanity has no future, and the statue with its clean sky of concept  
does not account for this. On the shoulders of giants scientists look  
forward, to answer questions with hearts of stone.



And we understand that science is important, but we also understand  
that there are many other important things. So how can we assess  
whether it is necessary to spend billions of dollars on building  
toys if the scientists are unable to justify these investments rather than  
saying “the method works so we continue?”. Examples are many, the ITER  
is one of the most visible.



And we are angry, we are sad, that this scientist is burning  
humankind’s resources to answer his questions, to play his game.



These are my taxes, it is my knowledge. We believe that the citizen is going to  
realize this. And going to say enough! It’s my money, I want to  
invest well. In the same way that I want my roads to have no holes, I  
want scientific research to be serious. So it is necessary that  
scientists are held to account. If it is only to satisfy their curiosity, my taxes are not for that.

And we want the knowledge that our taxes fund to be free. Because  
knowledge is real. And the reality is dense with data: Linux, google,  
wiki and the iPhone are facts that we can not ever forget.



And the data, the mass of data of any kind at our disposal. To ask  
all the questions you want, but in a simple and natural way.

But these data do not tell us anything without a story behind it.  
Without a story that contextualizes and make sense of, in the widest  
sense of the word sense.



Then, when "Wired::http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory said that science is over, we believe that has some  
reason. There are things that we can not continue letting our statue.  
We believe thatthe statue of the happy prince is missing parts:  
context, humanity, sense, honesty and innocence.



Here is where the third question comes again and their need becomes  
apparent. How ca we answer our questions in a reasonable time?



That the machines do what they do, and that the scientists write  
stories.

We believe it is time to divide science. The scientist, in his  
humanity, when presented with an hypothesis in advance of the reality  
will change the data obtained.



We propose the development of 3 layers of science. 1) acquisition of  
data, where the trust in them must be absolute, and thus measurements can not  
be made by anyone with pre-conceived assumptions about the data. 2) The layer  
of analysis, where computers are responsible for filtering the  
information and making correlations. For example, that red houses  
generate more wind than those of other colors. 3) The layer of  
interpretation or meaning, this is the place where scientists ask their  
questions and interpret the answer; how is it that the red houses  
produce wind?



Then, in general terms how does this function? We measure things of  
concern to society as a whole, for example, thousands of EEGs of people  
doing a particular task. And this must be arranged and perfected, we  
need qualified people to obtain data  professionally  and should be  
funded in the same way as classical investigations are now. And  
the publications should be responsible for encouraging, promoting and  
sponsoring measurement standards.



The data are entered into a server that stores, orders and prepares for  
analysis. As these data are facts of nature they lie in the public  
domain and access should be guaranteed to any person or entity. But we  
do not refer to raw measuring; humans are those who worry about  
measuring, scientists as much as anyone, worried about evolving the  
capture of data. The scientist gets results without altering data or  
modifying them to meet their expectations.



Based on the foregoing, we propose to revise and adapt the scientific  
method and we see it this way:

1. Define the question

2. Collect data (observe)

3. Form hypothesis

4. If the data exist, send the query. If there are no data, ask for the experiment to be performed and collect data

5. Interpret the answer to the query and draw conclusions that serve  
as a starting point for a new hypothesis

6. Publish results

7. Retest (4 do again if there is new data on the system)



And finally, we would like to thank Kim for making us see the meaning  
as well.



La Tostaduria