I got into an interesting argument with a prototypical scientist-who's-been-taught-facts-but-hasn't-been-taught-how-to-think, and he made the following argument:
Science, ungtss, is a community, where everyone discusses and argues and adds to the body of working knowledge through the every changing process of research. The corpus of that research is called "THE PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE."
I responded (in pertinent part):
Science is not a community. Science is a process -- the process of observation, analysis, and interpretation of facts. Kuhn did a great job describing and analyzing what science as a community yields -- institutional stubbornness and refusal to give the facts a fresh look.
He responded:
Man oh man, I love seeing the anti-intellectualism at work! The blatant disregard for how science is done or practiced! I'm glad you are not a doctor, Ungtss...I'd hate to see your clinical trials...Science is a community, populated by people. Your weird aristotelean/neo-platonic "science" would require that, EVERYTIME WE TRIED TO STUDY SOMETHING, we'd have to independantly come up with gravity, hydrdynamics, etc. The peer-review literature lets us draw on the knowledge and expertise of many other workers, providing us with data and interpretations that no one individual could ever match.
I found his response fascinating, because it illustrates two different understandings of what science is. To him, science really is an organic community of people. Put 10 scientists in a room and ask them what they think about an issue, and you have "science." It's personal, charismatic, and subjective.
To me, science is a process. Put 10 scientists in a lab and let them do their thing. Then examine their results. Experimentally supported results are Science -- or in the case of competing explanations for a given phenomenon, Science is the last explanation standing after the others have been falsified. Science is not exclusive to the scientific community. It is a process that can be done by anyone, but which is done primarily by the scientific community, because they are uniquely suited to do so. However, just because they are uniquely suited to perform science does not mean that whatever opinion they have is "scientific." Their beliefs are still subject to the scientific method which (unfortunately) few of them are actually taught at a philosophical level.
This really reflects the difference between the views of Feyeraband/Thagard and the views of Popper. Popper thought science was a process. Feyeraband and Thagard thought science was whatever scientists think.
What difference does this make?
1) It makes "scientists" like this monkey respond very personally to every challenge to their ideas. Challenge their opinion, and you are not challenging an objective experiment -- you are challenging their status as part of "science" -- and it makes them very angry.
2) It leaves "scientists" like this monkey unable to critically evaluate and interpret the facts, and vulnerable to group think -- because science is primarily about what the other scientists think, not the logical basis for their opinions. Present them with a challenging fact, and they don't know what to do with it. They'll just attack you personally as not being as "scientific" as they are.
3) It slows down the process of science, because scientists are not in the habit of challenging what "the scientific community" thinks -- they are in the habit of reading what all the other supergeniuses think, and concurring.
4) It makes "scientists" like this monkey attack any challenge to their paradigm as "anti-intellectual." Because if I am science, and you are challenging me, then you are challenging science.
Bird Flight Automaton
1 year ago
2 comments:
Maybe point your readers towards the relevant discussion thread, ungtss. Just common blogging courtesy and all that.
I think you are being somewhat dishonest here. First, you misrepresent what I said. I said: "Science...is a community, where everyone discusses and argues and adds to the body of working knowledge". That implies three things: 1) research and data generation; 2) interpretation of data; 3) public disseminatation of data through the peer review network.
You, on the other hand, misrepresent that as a conspiracy of science, where we get into a dark room and agree on the truth. Utter bullshit, frankly, and it shows a severe misunderstanding of the process of science on your part. The publication of our results, and the resultant arguments and reevaluation in the scientific community at large are what make science. OUR IDEAS AND RESULTS, in other words, ARE EXAMINED AND GONE OVER COUNTLESS TIMES, and are constantly argued over and evolved through continued work by others.
That vetting by your peers is what makes science. Everybody can do science, but those who refuse to read the literature, back up their arguments with data, and engage in the debate are not doing science. We don't exclude anyone; you recuse yourself from the scientific community because you refuse to actually do any scientific work.
It's the same thing with the Creationists, who whine about being "excluded" from the biological community. DO SOME RESEARCH, CITE SOME PAPERS, AND PUBLISH WORK. No one is keeping you down, no one is trying to silence you. It's just that the anti-intellectuals out there refuse to even TRY to do science. They don't understand the pertinant literature enough to argue, let alone do any actual research.
Here's a link to the original discussion, as requested: http://dynamic-earth.blogspot.com/2008/02/as-far-as-wonky-pseudo-science-goes.html
I think you are being somewhat dishonest here. First, you misrepresent what I said. I said: "Science...is a community, where everyone discusses and argues and adds to the body of working knowledge". That implies three things: 1) research and data generation; 2) interpretation of data; 3) public disseminatation of data through the peer review network.
The three things you listed are all processes, not people or groups of people. Yet you insisted that science is a "community" rather than a "process." What's up with that?
You, on the other hand, misrepresent that as a conspiracy of science, where we get into a dark room and agree on the truth.
Can you point the reader to a place where I referred to any sort of conspiracy? Common blogging courtesy and call that. I think you'll find a bunch of references to Kuhn and the paradigm-dependence of the scientific community, but I don't think you'll find any reference to conspiracies.
That vetting by your peers is what makes science.
No. It is the scientific method that makes science. The ptolemaic system was vetted for a thousand years, but what totally wrong. Science is a method -- a method of experimentation, observation, and analysis. With that method, a little 8 year old sitting in his room may or may not do science, and a 60-year old professor of biochemistry may or may not do science. Science is achieved through observation and analysis, not vetting. Vetting is just one way to test whether solid observation and analysis has been performed. But it is not foolproof. All you need to do to get "vetted" is not break any rules -- you don't have to be right. That's why I attack the evidence directly (at least as far as I can) and ask direct questions instead of relying mindlessly on what's been "vetted."
Everybody can do science, but those who refuse to read the literature, back up their arguments with data, and engage in the debate are not doing science. We don't exclude anyone; you recuse yourself from the scientific community because you refuse to actually do any scientific work.
I haven't recused myself. I have a full-time job (not in the sciences) and a family, I live in Turkiye where there are no English libraries, and this is my hobby. But most importantly, my physical inability to read the books you recommended does not negate the fact that you haven't addressed the points I raised. Why do Australia, the East Pacific Rise, and South America fit together? Why do you claim subduction is scientific fact when the paper you cited called it a hypothesis supported by circumstantial evidence? Why is the Pacific ocean not observed to be shrinking at a rate corresponding to the observed expansion in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans? And why is there no direct evidence of crust physically moving into subduction zones? (as in, that rock was on the seafloor last year, but an earthquake came and it subducted?)
Those are the facts I'm asking about. You keep accusing me of being anti-intellectual, but keep failing to address the issues I'm raising. Let's just act like grown-ups and address the objective, scientific facts, shall we?
Post a Comment