 |
| The end of a robin's life -- why? |
What Is Science?
The
scare quotes around “science” are intentional, because – think about it – it’s
such a vague term, isn’t it? What’s behind it, or, to use a different image,
under its umbrella? I thought I’d start by doing a search for “what is science”
and see what popped up, and this is the first site my search yielded:
“Understanding How Science Really Works.”
The
first screen begins with a broad statement: “Science is both a body of
knowledge and a process.” Okay, good beginning. Facts and a way of gathering
them? The site goes on to say that science is “exciting,” “useful,” “ongoing,”
and “a global human endeavor,” but we could say that about many human
activities, couldn’t we? We have to click to get to other screens and more
specific answers to the original question. Pursuing the question, then, we are
told that scientists seek explanations of phenomena in the natural world by
means of observation, analysis of evidence, and the testing of hypotheses.
I
appreciate the way this site lays out the limits of science, acknowledging that
science cannot make moral or aesthetic judgments, cannot deal with the
“supernatural” (not a big concern of mine), nor can it tell human beings how
scientific knowledge should be used. The first and third limitations are ones I
take very seriously. As
philosophers say, “’Should’ implies ‘can,’ but ‘can’ does not imply ‘should.’”
I.e., we are not obligated beyond what is possible for us; at the same time, a
possible course of action isn’t necessarily one that’s good for us to follow.
And while we may look to science for certain relevant facts, we can’t turn to
it for decisions about how we should live.
For
a shorter definition of science, look here. What
do you think of the definition? Did you read what is included under
“methodology”? I’ll come back to this shortly, but first there is the question
of public fear and mistrust of science.
So What’s the
Problem?
Is
it only ignorance and superstition that explain so many people these days
backing away from science like nervous, trailer-shy horses? Many scientific issues are so complex, it’s true,
that only the most advanced practitioners in their very narrow fields even
understand the questions posed. I once worked in an office that had a “Science
for Citizens” program among its many projects, but there is a limit to how far
such a program can go.
Does
human irrationality come into the picture? Doubtless, on some issues it does.
Give me statistics until the cows come home about how much safer I am in an
airplane than in a car, and I’ll continue to approach commercial flight with
trepidation that rarely assails me on the road.
The
way we’ve always done things, what we’re used to, what we learned back in
school, etc.—all these can get in the way of our accepting new scientific
knowledge. But I can’t help thinking there’s a lot more than that going on and
that “science” and its would-be defenders have made some very serious public relations
problems for themselves. Claiming intellectual superiority over the whole world
is not a way to win hearts and minds.
For
some people, “science” has become a religion. Again I use scare
quotes intentionally, because if there’s anything science should never be, it’s
religion. When “science” is used to cut short inquiry rather than to
respond to it respectfuly, it isn’t science at all. It’s dogma.
Science
gives provisional truths, not eternal verities. Received scientific knowledge
must always
be open to question. But all too often doubts and arguments are dismissed if
and when they contradict “scientific research.” Please, tell me more!
Who funded the research? Over what length of time was it conducted? Has it been
replicated? What long-term consequences might we expect? People for whom
“science” is a religion have a tendency to speak and behave as if anything
coming out of a laboratory is above and beyond question. I repeat: this is not a scientific
attitude.
And
yet, the science-as-religion crowd (and they would never label themselves as
such) take themselves to be defending rationality against ignorance and
superstition. How’s that for a conversation stopper?
I want to go back now and pick up the Science Council’s definition of science, for
which I only gave the link above. For those who didn’t follow the link, here's
the definition:
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and
understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic
methodology based on evidence.
Further
down the screen, the first item included in scientific methodology is objective
observation.
Repetition, verification, testing, peer review and assessment are also
included. (Follow the link for the entire list.)
It
is no secret any longer that conflicts of interest rage in academic and
medical circles and infect much that is published in the most respected
journals. This is not trivial. Read about it if you haven’t already.
Conflicts
of interest, fueled by financial considerations or career advancement or both,
easily lead to bad “research.” How can a researcher be objective if his or her income or
career hangs in the balance? For example, what kind of studies would be
necessary to demonstrate safety for human beings of a given drug (or herbicide
or hormone or industrial process)? One corporate-funded study? Six weeks of
unaffected health in a couple hundred mice?
Here’s
something else that has become common knowledge: all human beings are prone to a
host of irrational biases. Note that uneducated lay people are not the only
human beings to be so afflicted. Scientists are human, too. Go down the list of biases and see how many
might affect scientific research, not forgetting for a minute that big money is
usually involved, too. Once
you get started, it’s pretty easy to see where problems can arise.
A surgeon
naturally looks for surgical solutions. A researcher funded by a pharmaceutical
company is going to see big benefits in prescription drugs, probably the ones the funding company makes. Engineers seek to
solve problems within their realm of expertise; they don't look to other fields. Confirmation bias assures each expert of the superiority of her or his professional approach;
ingroup bias strengthens that conviction; etc., etc.
When
an established researcher writes a paper on how published research
findings
are more likely to be false than true, is it any wonder the public
doubts the latest pronouncements of scientific truth?
Science in a World
Where Everything Is For Sale
Oddly,
perhaps, it was a book on economics that put the question of scientific
objectivity in my head again this morning--that and (here I digress briefly)
the fact that I posted a link on Facebook and got jumped on because not because
of the information given (at least not directly) but because of the source of
the information. The criticism was legitimate and prompted me to seek out
better sources (which are easily found), but once again the question that
emerged, for me, was: Who gets to wear the mantle of “science,” and who
doesn’t? And
the corollary question: How much respect should the mantle confer?
Joseph
Schumpeter’s thesis back in 1942 was that capitalism was not headed for failure
but that its very successes would be the death of it. I’m only about a third of
the way through Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy but find it fascinating.
Here, for instance, is a very strong, unqualified statement:
I have no hesitation in saying that all logic is derived from the
pattern of the economic decision or, to use a pet phrase of mine, that the
economic pattern is the matrix of logic.
Economic
logic, he goes, beats magic in being both definite and quantitative, and due to
its successes it readily spreads,
...spreads under the pedagogic influence of favorable experiences to
other spheres and there also opens eyes to that amazing thing, the Fact.
Human
beings were self-interested, even greedy, before capitalism, Schumpeter says,
but capitalism exalted the unit of money, leading the way to cost-profit
calculations (what we know as cost/benefit analysis), and that attitude, or
method—well, let him tell you in his own words—
...this type of logic or attitude or method then starts upon its
conqueror’s career, subjugating—rationalizing—man’s tools and philosophies, his
medical practice, his picture of the cosmos, his outlook on life, everything in
fact including his concepts of beauty and justice and his spiritual ambitions.
[Facts!
I am reminded of the Gradgrinds in the novel by Charles Dickens, Hard Times. Wealth
and poverty feature in most, if not all, of the Dickens oeuvre, but in Hard Times,
Schumpeter’s “matrix of logic” really comes to the foreground.]
Schumpeter
thinks capitalism destroys its own support system. As capitalism “chases away”
metaphysical beliefs and all kinds of mystic and romantic ideas, and as the
capitalist world becomes more and more depersonalized and automated (what would
he say in 2017!), and nothing is any longer sacred, everything can be
questioned and held up for criticism, including capitalism itself. Rationalism, then, capitalism's motive force, is also its undoing.
If
he is right—and his argument stretches over 400-plus closely argued pages, to
which I have by no means even begun to do justice—then science too, as a
natural outgrowth of capitalistic logic, is a self-cannibalizing proposition.
Teach people to reject undemonstrated truths, and they will have no truck with
your new shibboleths. Tell them to question authority, and they will question
yours. Start down this road, and there is no turning back. But it was--and here's the paradox--the only road along which science could develop!
What about the money that built the road? When the project of “science” seems to have become primarily, in far too many cases, only another avenue for seeking profit at the expense of truth, when it comes to be
seen, along with politics, as simply a tool to deliver increased wealth
to those at the top by denying self-determination* to those at the bottom, is
it any wonder there is growing public mistrust? Science, like politics, has
sold out too many times to expect universal unquestioning admiration.
[* "For mankind is not free to choose. ... Things economic and social move by their own
momentum and the ensuing situations compel individuals and groups to behave in
certain ways whatever they may wish to do—not indeed by destroying their
freedom of choice but by shaping the choosing mentalities and by narrowing the
list of possibilities from which to choose."]
Here
I would close with the old saw, “Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas,” except
that I consider it a terrible libel on the nature of dogs. Also, I probably
need to say straight out that I am not taking an anti-science stance, nor am I
opposing rationality. It's simply that I don’t regard scientists as gods, nor do I trust blindly in “scientific” pronouncements that come from behind locked doors of corporate
secrecy. If you do, you are being neither “scientific” nor “rational.”
 |
| Returning to earth |
