Scientific Arrogance

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Aedes

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.

Yes, I get your point. In fact, I completely agree with you! I haven't complained about scientists using a scientific worldview in regards to their field of science. (Although, sometimes a challange from outside might help some, just because we're all human, and science isn't perfect either.) Another question to think about is what happens when there is a field of study that is not 100% science, like psycology or sociology or even history of orgin? Who get's to be the authority? I'm not saying I have an answer or trying to get an answer, I'm just saying its a complex issue.

I think "scientific arrogance", if it was a problem, could happen when science (or those pretending to be science) are exersizing influence over society, or non-science. And I'm not saying that science shouldn't have any influence on society! I'm saying that if there's going to be a problem, it's going to be where the two meet. (Which of course can go both ways again.)

Personally, I think pushing out this idea of "what could scientific arrogance look like?", without trying to prove that it exists in the same breath, would be an interesting discussion on it's own, and maybe reduce the drama a bit. I'd think it would make a good subject because it's going to look different than, say, religious arrogance, which can be right up in your face and hard to miss. It's the objective/nuetral persona of science, or those pretending to be science, that makes it such a slippery thing.

[Resha Caner]

Originally Posted by Aedes

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.

That's an interesting point. Sorry if I misread it.

Originally Posted by Aedes

Oh for god's sake ...

This ... well, it doesn't contribute anything to the conversation, and ruins what would otherwise have been a good post.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by NeitherExtreme

Another question to think about is what happens when there is a field of study that is not 100% science, like psycology or sociology or even history of orgin? Who get's to be the authority? I'm not saying I have an answer or trying to get an answer, I'm just saying its a complex issue.

Of course. And it's not as if these are really one simple coherent discipline either. I mean psychology runs the gamut from behavioral science to analytic psychology to neuropsychology, i.e. from hard core bench science all the way to surveys and interviews. But the point I'd leave is that these are all empiric disciplines -- authority is vested in data, and data are only so good as the methodology that produced them.

I think "scientific arrogance", if it was a problem, could happen when science (or those pretending to be science) are exersizing influence over society, or non-science. And I'm not saying that science shouldn't have any influence on society! I'm saying that if there's going to be a problem, it's going to be where the two meet.

Do you think it's scientists and science who have undue influence? Or do you think it's politicians and people with special interests who actually make policy happen? I'd argue that the ONLY way to have a society in which science is used responsibly is to have a society that is EXTREMELY well-educated in science!!

It's the objective/nuetral persona of science, or those pretending to be science, that makes it such a slippery thing.

Hence my point above. Educate people well in science and they won't be as susceptible to nonsense that masquerades as science.

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

This ... well, it doesn't contribute anything to the conversation, and ruins what would otherwise have been a good post.

I think you've missed the point. Let's back up a bit. You've proposed in a general sense that there is a lot of arrogance in science. My response is that you are generalizing from some annoying things that you see in science, and you're not being fair in your judgement.

I've made a couple points that I think we're in agreement about. First, the loudest and most arrogant individuals are the main source of your judgement, with Dawkins being an example. Second, I made the point that the vast majority of the time the world is content to let scientists be authoritative about scientific things, and your judgement of arrogance mostly pertains to things that you DO care about -- so in the end the problem is less the way science is conducted and more the circumstance of your disagreement with science on this or that issue.

A third point came up. You talked about the "myopic" reports in science that concentrate so heavily on one finding as to obscure a potential counterargument, and give as your first example the potential health benefits of alcohol. It turns out that you're quite wrong on this point, and I brought that fact up solely to illustrate that you were willing to go out on a limb like this in an effort to support your thesis. You're even wrong about cigarettes, which are very well known to not only improve but prevent ulcerative colitis, and they may also have a beneficial effect in some hyperdopaminergic psychiatric disorders (like schizophrenia).

I'm not trying to pick on you for being wrong, and I'm sorry if my "oh come on" came off as snarky -- but I DO think that you have a fundamental bias in this argument that is causing you to assume the worst, even on subjects in which you're not sufficiently informed. I'm sure you CAN find examples that would support your argument, and I would have to acquiesce on those points -- but you were very quick to pass snap judgement on science for things that turn out not to be the case, and this illustrates my point that you're being unfair.

I hope my previous response makes more sense in light of this explanation!

[Resha Caner]

Yes, you've been clear that you think me unfair. It's been interesting both in what you've said and what you haven't said.

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Aedes

I'd argue that the ONLY way to have a society in which science is used responsibly is to have a society that is EXTREMELY well-educated in science!!

Actually, that sounds like a very reasonable assertation.

Of course, in some ways there would be just as much of an issue of deciding how to teach science nuetrally, without injecting the full naturalistic worldview that often accompanies science into the classroom, where it doesn't belong. But, we both know our differences of opinion on that particular idea... So I guess we can just agree that a society with a better understanding of science, both it's strenghts and limitations, would please us both.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by NeitherExtreme

Of course, in some ways there would be just as much of an issue of deciding how to teach science nuetrally, without injecting the full naturalistic worldview that often accompanies science into the classroom, where it doesn't belong. But, we both know our differences of opinion on that particular idea...

A fundamentalist creationist can do carbon dating and dig up fossils as well as any atheist. The difference is that this strange 'naturalistic' archetype of yours doesn't infuse his findings with unsupported claims about miracles which don't ever belong in a science classroom. Competing scientific theories belong there; NON-scientific ideas do not.

Originally Posted by NeitherExtreme

So I guess we can just agree that a society with a better understanding of science, both it's strenghts and limitations, would please us both.

But we differ on which limitations. If I'm teaching a scientific subject, the limitations I feel are important are the reliability of the data, the validity of the method, and the generalizability of the findings. I think you feel the limitation is its inability to explain supernatural things that might be an alternative explanation. And frankly this latter idea, while a perfectly fine debate for our culture to have, is simply NOT science and should not confuse and contaminate the process of teaching science itself.

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Aedes

You somehow keep forgetting that the METHODS in science are irrelevant to worldview. A fundamentalist creationist can do carbon dating and dig up fossils as well as any atheist. The difference is that this strange 'naturalistic' archetype of yours doesn't infuse his findings with unsupported claims about miracles which don't belong in a science classroom.

hehehe... Well, that's not really what I mean... Although worldview is relevant and always will be.

I've never asked that science infuse their findings with unsupported claims about miracles (so please don't accuse me of that). And I'm not arguing for "Creation Science" either, I don't even like that very much.

But, teaching in such a way that indoctinates a worldview that excludes the possibility of miracles (or knowledge outside of science in general) doesn't belong in a classroom either, because that naturalism- not science. Science should be "timid" about it's claims, while naturalism is deterministic in nature. I'm not sure you'll acknowledge the difference, but it's there. (Though I don't really want to debate it right now, maybe sometime we can start a thread just discussing if/how worldview can affect science, since we come around to this fairly often.)

Can such a foggy distinction, assuming it exists, really be made, especially given the culture wars and power stuggles going on? I'm not sure, but I think it would be worth exploring anyway. But it will only be productive if all parties are willing to let go of their preconceptions and feelings of superiority.

All that said, I still think a better science education would be extremely helpful to society, exactly as you said. So we agree on this!

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by NeitherExtreme

teaching in such a way that indoctinates a worldview that excludes the possibility of miracles (or knowledge outside of science in general) doesn't belong in a classroom either

You're making the broad sweeping assertion that this has something to do with worldviews. It's not about worldviews. The fact that we can learn by observation is self-evident, because it's how we live. Everyone believes it except maybe very mystical Buddhists who believe all of existence is illusory.

The fact that we can infer things about observible phenomena by systematic observation and data collection is also self-evident -- and that is what science is. And this is so self-evident and so omnipresent in every waking moment of our lives that just intuitively everything that is observible MAY provide more information if observed or analyzed more closely. This is not a worldview, it's just common sense.

For instance, if I see you walk out of a room that I didn't know you were in, the fact that I don't know how you got there doesn't mean you were miraculously created there from thin air. It just means that you almost certainly got there in a way that's consistent with our understanding of the world, but we did not observe it happening.

Science is simply a methodology and the knowledge it produces. EVERYTHING in nature was a miracle before we had science, which is why pagan religions worshipped natural forces. Science allows us a way of understanding things without invoking black magic, curses, alchemy, witchcraft, or miracles. And based on the reliability of science in providing explanations for things that were once thought magical, I think it's grossly irresponsible to teach in a science classroom that something should be dismissed as witchcraft or a miracle without being scientifically investigated or explained. It's much more likely that yellow fever is spread by mosquitos than caused by moral vice, and yet before the Walter Reed commission to Cuba in ~1903 that's exactly what people thought.

I'll acquiesce to you on one point: I think science should tread lightly on scientifically investigating and explaining religious miracles that are important to people's tradition. That's not because the 10 plagues or the resurrection of Jesus can't be investigated -- but it's because the explanation is not worth the cultural war. And besides, if we found the body of Jesus himself and identified 1000 direct descendents of his who are alive today, it wouldn't change religion at all but the public discourse would be ugly.

As always, this comes back to evolution versus creation. As we established a few posts ago, you really don't care about 99.9999% of the stuff scientists study. You don't care about the molecular taxonomy of vascular plants. You don't care about 16s ribosomal subunit sequences among archaebacteria. You don't care about the physiology of eccrine sweat glands. You don't care about the thermodynamic properties of saturated hydrocarbons. You don't care about bicoid mRNA transport mechanisms in oviparous insect oocytes.

It's not that you don't care -- it's that you don't care enough to invoke miracles to explain the unknown in these fields.

But evolution, whoa, that's a different matter altogether. That contradicts religious teaching. Who cares about the fact that evolutionary biology doesn't use methods that appreciably differ from any other area of scientific study. It just so happens that the research questions strike a nerve when they directly contradict a Biblical story. So science is NOT being arbitrary when it talks about evolution and contradicts miracles -- any more so than calling it nonsense if someone asserted that the trafficking of bicoid mRNA in oocytes is a miracle.

So the only worldview at play here is the one that will ARBITRARILY complain about science when it contradicts a SPECIFIC religious belief. Science can be the master of all the things you don't care about, but suddenly it's a "naturalistic" religion when it addresses something you do.

Or miracles, like the story of your loved one who got better when prayed for. I named a bunch of other coincidences that seem silly -- and you had no problem with those being silly examples. But when it comes down to something you viscerally and emotionally find meaningful, then in THAT case you're again abitrarily annoyed with a contradictory scientific viewpoint.

Now there's no reason why science should dismiss the cultural and religious importance of religious beliefs, and I differ from Iconoclast in that I think it's healthy. While I personally don't believe in God, I will pray and observe religious holidays for reasons of personal and family importance even though I don't hold literal beliefs in the ritual or the theology.

Scientific truth is different than religious truth, and scientific meaning is different than religious meaning. But religious truth does not conform to scientific standards, and in a science classroom what is taught must always do so.

[Arjen]

Aedes,

You argue a number of points in this thread while refuting yourself on numerous occasions. I am sorry you did not reply in a serious manner to me previously. That would have prevented a lot of beating about the bushes I think. You have not once argued why science would not be arrogant. On top of that you sate that science is responsible (that cracked me up for about ten minutes by the way). You seem to think to be able to prove that by saying that people can only be responsible by being scientificly taught. In effect you are saying that one can only understand science by understanding science and since science is responsible it is responsible. That is what I would call a circulatory argument.

Contradicting your circulatory argument I would like to say that science is not nor can ever be responsible because that is outside it's realm. Responsibility requires a "rulebase" with which to judge. Responsibility is, therefore, always a circulatory argument. One would need to define what responsibility and then using those definitions to "judge" situations to see if they are responsible or not.

Claiming, without doubting it for a second, that science is the only way that will happen is well, quite extraordinary. I have pointed you to Hume's is-ought problem before, haven't I? I hope you will see what it is all about. I think it could help you in your reasonings.

[NeitherExtreme]

Aedes, yes, worldviews are relevant. More on that in a bit...

Originally Posted by Aedes

And based on the reliability of science in providing explanations for things that were once thought magical, I think it's grossly irresponsible to teach in a science classroom that something should be dismissed as witchcraft or a miracle without being scientifically investigated or explained.

Have I ever asked for this to happen? Absolutely not.

Originally Posted by Aedes

As always, this comes back to evolution versus creation. As we established a few posts ago, you really don't care about 99.9999% of the stuff scientists study. You don't care... But evolution, whoa, that's a different matter altogether. That contradicts religious teaching.

This does not come down to evolution vs. creation, at least not for me. Evolution is not a religious problem for me, and I'm not scared of it. We take Biblical prophecy to be meaningful and truthful but not literal. I have no issue with seeing early Genesis the same way. So please don't assume you have my motivations all figured out. I do have some intellectual questions about evolution, but (especially after our first debate) I adopted this simple personal position on it: Evolution as a means for explaining complex life doesn't make sense to me, but there are many things that don't make sense to me, so I won't assume that just because I can't make sense of it that it can't be true. I'm ok if modern understandings are accurate, I'm ok if there not. That's not the issue at hand.

Originally Posted by Aedes

Or miracles, like the story of your loved one who got better when prayed for. I named a bunch of other coincidences that seem silly -- and you had no problem with those being silly examples. But when it comes down to something you viscerally and emotionally find meaningful, then in THAT case you're again abitrarily annoyed with a contradictory scientific viewpoint.

Aedes, why did you bring this up? Did I ever present this as science? Did I ever ask for this to be taught? I think I was very clear that I did not see that as scientific evidence, and I posted that story in the relgion forum, rather than the science forum for a reason. I don't really appreciate it being taken grossly out of context and then used against me here.

But... now that we're on the topic, and we're in the science forum rather than the religion forum where I posted that story, I'd love to hear the "contradictory scientific viewpoint" over which I got "annoyed"... There was never a contradictory scientific viewpoint at all. This is a prefect example of how you're accidentally mixing up science and naturalism. Science has no explanation whatsoever as to what happened there, nor can they. It was once and done, and there wasn't any reasonable explanation (as attested to by many surpised and confused doctors). That's where science stops. From there worldviews take over. The theist can decide to believe it was a miracle, while the naturalist will believe that it wasn't. Neither of those beliefs are scientific any more, and if a scientist attempts to impose a naturalistic interpretation of these events, whithout any supporting science, then that is what will get called "naturalism".

If a scientist, for whatever reason, wanted to continue studying the event and looking for natural explanations, and if he finds out something relevant, that's fine, I've got no problems with that. But he should not make any premature "scientific" claims about it, without nuetral and substantial evidence, simply because he want's to support or defend his naturalist worldview.

On a larger scale, this is exactly what concerns me about "science" (or it's supposed representatives), and potentially the science classroom. The more naturalistic Acedemia and "Religion" have been at each others throats for a few hundred years now, and I wonder if that has created an acedemic culture which, probably unintintionally, opperates in "defence mode". This could provide a somewhat universal, but not necessarily scientific, motivation for (1) attacking religion where they can, and (2) promoting naturalism.

A good example of Edward B. Tylor's theory (from the early 1900s I believe) on the evolution of relgion. It, while really only an intellectual rationalization, apperantly was quickly and happily accepted by accedimia as valid science. On the other hand, the well documented refutation, based on volumes of observations by a few former proponents of the theory, took a lot of work to find acceptance, and certainly never recieved the happy welcome Tylor's theory had. Of course, realizing the theory didn't match with the facts didn't prove that religion hadn't evolved naturally... But accedemia had been quite happy to have the matter of relgious evolution settled neatly, and didn't appreciate the subject being re-opened.

How much could things like this affect modern science? I don't know, maybe less than I think. But, then again, maybe more than most suspect.

Originally Posted by Aedes

Now there's no reason why science should dismiss the cultural and religious importance of religious beliefs, and I differ from Iconoclast in that I think it's healthy.

I have noticed this, appreciate the respect which you show towards such vastly diferent, and sometimes antagonistic, worldviews.

By the way, if we haven't already gotten as far as we're going to get, I wouldn't mind starting a new thread soon, so I don't have to keep this conversation going under the heading of "Scientific Arrogance", which I don't think really has much to do with our current discussion, and adds a bit too much of an antagonistic feel to it, IMO.