Scientific Arrogance

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by NeitherExtreme

Does science, or those who claim to live by a generally scientific worldview, define the word "know" in such a way that it is only meaningfully able to be used within the scientific context?

I think the question is misplaced, because the word "know" is not a scientific word. It's seldom used in pure scientific communications, though for sure it's used colloquially in things like editorials and symposia and conversations. Why is it used so seldom? Because scientific communication almost never refers to "scientists" or "humanity" as a subject. You might think otherwise when you see scientific subjects discussed in popular media, including by scientific authorities, but take that with a grain of salt -- it's colloquial speech meant to be comprehensible to a lay public, which is a lot different than formal scientific writing and speech.

Scientific writing can be awfully boring and sterile (certainly compared with 100 years ago, which is quite colorful). Part of this is how neutral we try to make our verbs sound. In scientific writing the passive voice is used a lot (eg. "1 mL aliquots of packed erythrocytes were lysed with saponin") -- the passive voice completely removes the subject from the sentence and the ACTUAL subject (we the arrogant scientists) is only implicit. We also constantly use phrases like "these data suggest that..." or "this assay demonstrates that...", which takes the scientific story away from what we know and anchors it on what the data tell us.

Furthermore, whether the word "know" or some synonym is used, this ALWAYS references only the supporting evidence -- even if this is not explicitly stated. It never references absolute knowledge. So if I make a statement with great confidence, like "We know that the dinosaurs went extinct", I'm referencing very compelling evidence such as the fact that there are no living dinosaurs, but there is abundant evidence that there were in the distant past. If I make a sketchy statement like "We know that industrial carbon emissions were responsible for Hurricane Katrina", I'm referencing a string of evidence of variable strength that links the two, but that know is referencing a much more debatable chain of data (and assumed causality). But again, never would one presume that a scientist references absolute truth with the word "know". That word only references the empirical source of that knowledge.

That "know" can be wrong as well (for a variety of reasons), but that's besides the point. Because remember that science by its nature can always revise itself as more data are aggregated, as our understanding improves, and this in and of itself should demonostrate to you how science never concludes that its knowledge is absolute.


Look, science is the discipline of producing empirical data with the highest level of confidence -- it adds structure and control to our otherwise disorganized and anecdotal observations of the world. And in this it not only provides a great deal of confidence in its results, but more importantly it can tell us how much or how little confidence we should have! You may point out that there are inherent philosophical or epistemological limits to what this means, but the thing is that these limits are wholly irrelevant to the role of science in our world.

And furthermore, the fundamental nature of science to ALWAYS acknowledge that it can be revised is surely the antithesis of arrogance. Who else says that? Do the presidential candidates say that they might be wrong? Do religious authorities? Not that I've ever heard.

[Resha Caner]

Originally Posted by NeitherExtreme

I think the possible arrogance being discussed could come from the feeling that scientists then, intintionally, or even moreso unintentionally, act as though everyone should accept their definitions of the word "know" as the most valid definition. This, I assume, would happen mostly un-intentionally, but simply result from functioning within their own worldview, as all of us do, as they interact with other worldviews. (This perception of arrogance of course could be the "fault" of either party, or both, or maybe neither.)

An excellent post. I think you've captured the essence of the issue perfectly. That Aedes chooses to bicker over the word "know" is a semantic issue.

Originally Posted by Aedes

Scientific writing can be awfully boring and sterile ... We also constantly use phrases like "these data suggest that..." or "this assay demonstrates that...", which takes the scientific story away from what we know and anchors it on what the data tell us.

That "know" can be wrong as well (for a variety of reasons), but that's besides the point. Because remember that science by its nature can always revise itself as more data are aggregated, as our understanding improves, and this in and of itself should demonostrate to you how science never concludes that its knowledge is absolute.

Look, science is the discipline of producing empirical data with the highest level of confidence -- it adds structure and control to our otherwise disorganized and anecdotal observations of the world. And in this it not only provides a great deal of confidence in its results, but more importantly it can tell us how much or how little confidence we should have!

With that said, I agree with a good part of this last post. The arrogance rarely shows itself in the professional literature, but when "scientists" appear in a public venue, it often manifests itself. They do exactly what NeitherExtreme describes, taking on an air that suggests scientific methods are the only method or the best method, and that other world views are beneath them. It has a definite feeling of Saruman preaching from the balcony of Orthanc.

One could claim such instances are perpetrated by individuals who do not represent the scientific community as a whole ... and I might agree with that were it not for the interesting turn abouts that happen. I would only accept such a claim if it is accompanied by acknowledgement that the same accusation of arrogance levied against religion carry the same realization - that the proclamation of one person doesn't necessarily represent the whole community.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

An excellent post. I think you've captured the essence of the issue perfectly. That Aedes chooses to bicker over the word "know" is a semantic issue.

Well, he asked about that word and I answered. But more importantly, I wasn't bickering semantics over the word "know". Take note where I clearly say that it doesn't matter whether the word itself is "know" or some functional synonym, the point is that a statement about scientific knowledge is referencing empirically derived data (and conclusions drawn from those data).

They do exactly what NeitherExtreme describes, taking on an air that suggests scientific methods are the only method or the best method, and that other world views are beneath them. It has a definite feeling of Saruman preaching from the balcony of Orthanc.

Do you have examples of this? I don't ask out of pure doubt, I ask just because I don't know that it's useful to make sweeping generalizations. I mean when you see Sanjay Gupta give a medical report on CNN is he doing what you describe? When you read the Science section of the Tuesday NY Times do you get that sense? When you hear a news report about the Phoenix lander touching down on Mars do you get that sense?

I suspect not. I think you get that idea from people like Al Gore and Michael Moore and Richard Dawkins who are loud and unapologetic in their rhetoric. And thus they are speaking politics through a veneer of science, not really speaking science. I mean I have no problem with Gore's advocacy and I sympathize with his issues, but I do take it for what it's worth -- he's not a spokesman for science, he's a political figure. And in this it really doesn't matter that it's science -- it's incidental that that's his issue. Polemics and rhetoric are not the domain of any one subject.

One could claim such instances are perpetrated by individuals who do not represent the scientific community as a whole ... and I might agree with that were it not for the interesting turn abouts that happen.

Well, individuals aside, you need to be clear about which issues you're talking about and if the subject at hand really is scientific. When we're talking about a classic one like evolutionary biology versus creationism (or some spinoff like intelligent design), science hits pretty hard with a hammer because it's rooted in its own evidence. This has been a divide between these two camps ever since the Scopes Monkey Trial. The problem is that scientific epistemology and religious epistemology use two completely different standards for how something is "known". Science rests on conclusions drawn from evidence produced by its own methods. Religious or theological views will give weight to things like scripture and revelation and miracles that are simply not within the domain of science. It doesn't even matter (for the purposes of this discussion) whether there is a God or whether miracles are possible. The issue is that when science is presented with a miracle it will explain it in its own terms, which are certainly NOT in line with religious orthodoxy.

And thus science and religion are not epistemologically really at odds with one another because they don't even speak the same language. But they are at war in the cultural arena. Scientists feel that religion is going to contaminate science education if non-scientific viewpoints are weighed as if they have scientific merit. So if you happen to sympathize with the "intelligent design" camp you're certainly going to see science as arrogant in this regard, but until the intelligent design advocates produce meaningful scientific evidence then they're not really advocating anything scientific -- they're just trying to take down a scientific domain using non-scientific rhetoric.

I would only accept such a claim if it is accompanied by acknowledgement that the same accusation of arrogance levied against religion carry the same realization - that the proclamation of one person doesn't necessarily represent the whole community.

Of course. And that's true for everything in life. I don't hold all Christians accountable for the words of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, I don't hold all Muslims accountable for the words of Osama bin Laden, and I don't hold all Republicans accountable for the deeds of George W. Bush (though I hope the voting public does! )

[Resha Caner]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Do you have examples of this?

I wouldn't have included Michael Moore or Al Gore. Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, is an example. Qualifiying him doesn't change the public perception of his authority. But, OK, you don't like him, so I'll give some other examples.

Actually, I gave an earlier example for Bertrand Russell, and you qualified that as well. I still perceive him as arrogant.

Another would be the recent debate on stem cells, where I heard example after example dismissing the relevancy of ethics to the issue. Whether you agree with the religious position on the ethics of this, to dismiss ethics as irrelevant to science is arrogance. It places science above ethics. I don't have the exact quotes at hand, but I did find this article after a quick search:

Stem cell hopes distorted by 'arrogance and spin' | UK news | The Guardian

Carl Sagan was another one that made me ill.

On the flip side, I'll give you examples of those in the public eye that I don't think come across as arrogant: Stephen Hawking, Stephen Jay Gould (maybe it's only scientists named Stephen ). And, I don't agree with everything they've said, but they state their ideas with respect for those who disagree.

Originally Posted by Aedes

The problem is that scientific epistemology and religious epistemology use two completely different standards for how something is "known"

Yeah, I can agree with that, but I cringe, because I know the next statement is coming.

Originally Posted by Aedes

And thus science and religion are not epistemologically really at odds with one another because they don't even speak the same language.

The fact is, they are. Just because they use different methods does not give one a right to claim "this is my realm and not yours". And, yes, issues of the origin and progression of life is the classic example. Religion and science will always overlap at some points. At those points, the methods clash and fight for supremacy - for the right to claim what we "know". No human means exists for deciding which one knows.

This gets to be a humorous discussion for me, because it's where those who support the "scientific" view of life often dig in and become dogmatic. It's even funnier because reading the view of Intelligent Design is what led me to abandon some of my own prejudices against that scientific dogma. Whenver I try to explain that, trying to make a distinction between my belief that God created life and the claims of Intelligent Design, I am typically decried like a witch from Salem.

So, I try to explain the issue with two examples:

1) My field is nonlinear structural dynamics, and for my employer I apply that discipline to rotating machinery. At one point in time I was the lead engineer for NVH research (noise, vibration, and harshness). I made several attempts to explain how company paradigms were restricting our ability to progress. In once case, people were using 1 DOF rotational models for gear train dynamics, and they would "correlate" the stiffness of these models to match test data. I developed examples to show them why they kept getting the worng answer, and how a simple change to 2 DOF vastly improved their accuracy. In that instance I was successful in getting the company to change it's methods. But, the dogmatic persistence that 1 DOF was an adequate description and that 2 DOF was unnecessary parallels discussions about the creation of life.

I would recommend a book called "Flatland" by Edwin Abbott. It is a brilliant use of the idea of worlds with multiple dimensions as a demonstration of how some deny very real alternatives and insist on sticking with limited concepts that frame their perceptions.

2) The second is a classic that you probably already know. Knowing that people exist, what happens to our "scientific" conclusions when we say human existence is irrelevant to studying human creations.

[NeitherExtreme]

Hi all.

Just to clarify, I think Aedes was justified in noticing a problem with my overuse of the word "know" in regards to the scientific worldveiw. I realized that I had made that mistake as I thought about it later after posting. I still think that the main point is decipherable, but I understand the objection.

To me its more an issue of attitude and action that one of words. If a scientist claims with words that he doesn't "know" anything, but then procedes to act as if he knows best or that his empirical approach to understanding or knowledge is most valid, he will probably come across as arogant, regardless of what he says about "knowledge" itself. But of course there are also very humble scientists, which I realize and appreciate. And, for what it's worth, what I said above I think relates in theory to anyone, not just scientists...

And just to make sure I'm clear here, I have high respect for scientists and the work they do. They apply rigorous standards to themselves and hold themselves to very disciplined methods, and in so doing accomplish things that wouldn't be accomplished otherwise.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

I wouldn't have included Michael Moore or Al Gore. Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, is an example. Qualifiying him doesn't change the public perception of his authority. But, OK, you don't like him, so I'll give some other examples.

Actually, I gave an earlier example for Bertrand Russell, and you qualified that as well. I still perceive him as arrogant.

But don't you see that the qualifications don't matter? I mean there are arrogant loudmouthed people in all walks of life, but that is only a statement about them as individuals. The real issue is if you're being fair by generalizing annoyance with one individual to a whole discipline that he doesn't speak for. I mean Dawkins doesn't even speak for atheists let alone scientists. He speaks for himself. If you're willing to call all of science arrogant based on that, then you can see why it makes no sense.

Another would be the recent debate on stem cells, where I heard example after example dismissing the relevancy of ethics to the issue.

Oh come on, the ethics of stem cell research are widely discussed in scientific and medical communications, and they are NOT blankly endorsing of unregulated embryonic stem cell research. It's indeed arrogant and irresponsible for someone to claim stem cells as some burgeoning magic pill in medicine and to dismiss all ethical implications. But it's just as arrogant and irresponsible for someone to outright dismiss all medical and scientific merit of stem cell research because of an overemphasis of ethical implications. The key here is dialogue and consensus, not individual opinion, because it's in a subject like this where we determine our values as a culture.

Whether you agree with the religious position on the ethics of this, to dismiss ethics as irrelevant to science is arrogance.

And no one responsible does. It's a gross exaggeration and distortion of the truth to assume that scientists consider ethics irrelevant, or that one example of it is generalizable to all science. Have you ever submitted a grant or a research proposal to an institutional review board? There are unbelievable checks and balances in all institutions that conduct scientific research in the US, and these IRBs are not made up only of scientists. They have laypeople, ethicists, and lawyers to ensure that there are perspectives from outside the research community.

Just because they use different methods does not give one a right to claim "this is my realm and not yours". And, yes, issues of the origin and progression of life is the classic example.

I agree. Scientists only get to claim that an empirically, scientifically derived story about the origin of life is theirs. Religion gets to claim that a scriptural origin of life is theirs. And what one "knows", in the end, depends on which source of knowledge one finds more credible.

I would recommend a book called "Flatland" by Edwin Abbott.

A great book, I love it.

Knowing that people exist, what happens to our "scientific" conclusions when we say human existence is irrelevant to studying human creations.

That's a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Science just doesn't dabble in that sort of thing. That's why we NEED things other than science. But that doesn't diminish the ability of science to explain the physical universe we live in, to understand its past, to anticipate its future, and to solve practical problems we have.

Originally Posted by NeitherExtreme

If a scientist claims with words that he doesn't "know" anything, but then procedes to act as if he knows best or that his empirical approach to understanding or knowledge is most valid, he will probably come across as arogant, regardless of what he says about "knowledge" itself. But of course there are also very humble scientists, which I realize and appreciate. And, for what it's worth, what I said above I think relates in theory to anyone, not just scientists...

Of course it does. So why are we singling out scientists here? I mean with millenia of dogma, condemnation of heretics and unorthodoxy, can't we just as easily call religion arrogant? I wouldn't ever do so, but one doesn't have to try very hard to spin that argument around.

What it comes down to is humans. It's not a "type" of person that's arrogant. It's not a discipline that produces arrogance. It's just the way people behave under certain circumstances -- and the way authoritative people come off to their adversaries. But I think we should be fair here.

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Of course it does. So why are we singling out scientists here?

I guess, from my perspective, it feels like they are given somewhat free-reign in our society to say what is true (or most true, or whatever), and so the arrogance (if it exists) can go largely unchallenged and yet have powerful consequences without a whole lot of accountability from other worldviews. That situation is probably as much the fault of society at large than just scientists though.

But you are right in that scientists are not the only arrogant ones out there, and just because a person is a scientist does not make them arrogant.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by NeitherExtreme

I guess, from my perspective, it feels like they are given somewhat free-reign in our society to say what is true (or most true, or whatever.

So whose voice would you like to balance out the scientific view when, for instance, we land a rover on Mars? I mean if the rover discovers water on Mars, does a non-scientist get to make a statement about the truth or falsehood about water on Mars? Should a non-scientific claim about the truth of this be taken seriously when the truth is founded on evidence?

If a clinical trial shows that smoking is a strong risk factor for stroke, which non-scientist should be challenging the truth of that evidence?

If a lab discovers that tetracycline resistance is mediated by an efflux pump, which non-scientists gets to challenge the truth of that finding?

Do you get my point? As far as I'm concerned, the people studying the chemical makeup of the Mars pole get to say whether it's true that there is water on Mars; and it's the microbiologists who get to tell us the mechanism of tetracycline resistance, etc.

[Resha Caner]

Originally Posted by Aedes

... there are arrogant loudmouthed people in all walks of life ...

Yes, there are. But NeitherExtreme makes a good point, that it is the arrogance of those in authority that has the greatest impact. And I would agree that "science" is the dominating world view at the moment.

At the dawn of the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church dominated, and they were arrogant. In that case it led to persecution. Though not yet violent, I can quote you recent examples of career-ending persecution in the scientific community. One happened at my alma mater.

Originally Posted by Aedes

Oh come on, the ethics of stem cell research are widely discussed in scientific and medical communications ...

Uh huh. Since it's easier to call your own sister ugly than someone else's, let me give you an example I'm familiar with. My industry is currently groaning under the weight of EPA regulations. The EPA didn't need to go as far as it did, but I'm actually happy that they're regulating the industry. I think the regulations benefit society as a whole. Being an insider, I also firmly believe the industry would NEVER have self-regulated. The incentive for profit is too strong.

But, yeah, we talk about it alot. Talk, talk, talk.

So, I agree that scientists are in no special category. They don't have a purer soul. They're just as prone to human fallacies as anyone else.

Originally Posted by Aedes

That's a philosophical question, not a scientific one

Which means what? That it has no impact? I would disagree with that. The idea that data "is what it is" is misleading. Data is useless without conclusions, and conclusions are laden with philosophy.

I can give you examples outside controversial issues like evolution that can be discussed a little more objectively. But, it impacts evolution as well.

Originally Posted by Aedes

So whose voice would you like to balance out the scientific view ...

Your examples are a bit of a straw man. If the question is strictly about water on Mars, do you think anyone would object? It's the controversial questions that are at issue, not the mundane.

Now, if there is an agenda behind the search for water on Mars, I think that agenda should be open to challenge from other groups.

Maybe it's a back door for SETI or some other waste of time and money.

I remember ABC News gloating like the neighborhood bully that's just stolen some kid's milk money about some of the other Martian discoveries that pointed toward life. They asked "thought provoking" questions about whether people's religious faith could survive such discoveries. Yeah. I'm really worried that God's ability to create life is restricted to Earth.

The smoking example is better. Science may demonstrate the impact on health, but it doesn't justify taking away peyote pipes from the Indians. That's a moral decision (or maybe a societal question), and it may be justified, but the line needs to be clear.

Plus, science often gives myopic reports (though I've seen improvement from the health community over time). Alcohol is an example.

Alcohol is bad. Really? Yes, it destroys your liver. Don't drink it. But what about it's ability to break down fatty foods and reduce their negative impact? What about the ability to store it long term and provide hydration to societies in polluted climates?

Who knows. Maybe tobacco has a similar future. I'm sure the proponents of "medicinal" marijuna have their "scientists" lined up and ready to go.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

Your examples are a bit of a straw man. If the question is strictly about water on Mars, do you think anyone would object? It's the controversial questions that are at issue, not the mundane.

Exactly my point. It's easy to levy a general objection against the arrogant voice of scientists when it conflicts with one's personal values. But the fact of the matter is that most people really don't care about 99.99999% of the issues that scientists study and are happy to let them have their authority. Thus, it's not the scientists and their arrogance but rather the issue itself that people get their hair raised about.

Plus, science often gives myopic reports (though I've seen improvement from the health community over time). Alcohol is an example.

Alcohol is bad. Really? Yes, it destroys your liver. Don't drink it. But what about it's ability to break down fatty foods and reduce their negative impact?

Oh for god's sake, I'll cite you a million journal articles showing its beneficial impact on heart disease, including from extremely high profile journals such as NEJM. In terms of medical consensus statements, bodies like the AHA have not formally endorsed alcohol for preventative cardiology because the risks and benefits have to be individualized, and alcohol has some big downsides as well.