I wrote:
> C'mon! what we need is _more_ scientific thinking, not less.
> (Scientific thinking says, among other things, that a lot what science
> believes may not be true.)
6/22/06, ravi wrote:
Could you expand on the parenthetical comment? Scientific thinking, more
so than any other practice, seems to me to depend on the
consistency/truth of its axioms and prior results, than other types of
thinking. My mother is always aware of the fact that her notions and
practices could be entirely wrong. Hence the kindness of mothers ;-) and
the arrogance of scientists. When some evidence surfaces to question a
scientific theory or practice, it causes a "[foundational] crisis".
In science when done well, every "conclusion" is merely a working
hypothesis that needs to tested further (logically, empirically).
There are no final conclusions. (This, specifically, is what I was
talking about in my parenthetical comment.)
It is true that tremendous amounts of respect are given to "axioms and
prior results" (summarized by the phrase "research program" or the
word "paradigm"). This is because these have survived a long process
of testing and represent the current consensus or near-consensus among
scientists, representing the accumulation of past work by scientists.
Scientists can be very arrogant (as can people in most walks of life),
defending the currently reigning paradigm and their own expertise.
Luckily, many scientists have been pushed away from this. I've seen a
greater willingness to accept the results of "folk science," for
example, rejecting the old arrogance of assuming that "Western
Science" was _a priori_ correct. (Unfortunately, part of this is
because "folk science" sometimes leads to products that can be
patentable, allowing pharmaceutical companies, etc., to earn big
bucks.)
One of the reasons for the attachment to the paradigm -- and thus the
arrogance of many or most official scientists -- is the arrogance of
some unofficial or fringe scientists ("cranks" or "pseudoscientists").
The latter can involve rejecting the whole paradigm -- provoking a
"foundational crisis" -- because of some small empirical or logical
hole, often without presenting a coherent alternative, even though the
official scientists think it's still possible to fill the holes by
adding epicycles. Or the unofficial scientist is proposing some
half-baked new paradigm (the way the business types do all the time,
destroying the meaning of the word "paradigm"). That is, the
unofficial scientist is seen as wanting to scuttle the hard work done
by previous scientists, while sometimes being unconscious of the
nature of that work.
To my mind, science involves a constant tension between scepticism
(see my first paragraph) and the current paradigm. Even better would
be competing paradigms, as with cosmology. You have to respect the
work done by previous scientists, without reifying their conclusions
as automatically true.
This is especially true in economics, where there is a dominant
paradigm which has none of the secure bases that one has in the
natural sciences.
> There's no reason why we should emulate the
> Bush League's antagonism toward science that doesn't fit their
> political and economic goals.
I agree. I think we should be antagonistic towards science at all times.
It is one of the greatest dangers (next only to conservatism, perhaps)
facing [freedoms and dignity of] the common person and his/her community.
you agree? you agree that we shouldn't emulate Bush's trampling on
science? That doesn't fit with your next sentence.
I think you're referring to the posivistic science of "Doctor Knows Best." I'm
against that too.
Support something better than yourself: ;-)
PeTA: http://www.peta.org/
GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/
PeTA and GreenPeace don't use science?
--
Jim Devine / "In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over
communism. In this country, capitalism triumphed over democracy." --
Fran Lebowitz
