Science in the 21st Century

[Trevor Watkins]

Occasionally one comes across an article that explains one's own
position so well, so elegantly, that there is no reason for further
elaboration. On the subject of science and its failings in the 21st
century, I recommend the following article:
http://henryhbauer.homestead.com/21stCenturyScience.pdf
regards
Trevor Watkins

[Garth Zietsman]

Oh my word Trevor.  While I think there could be problems with subjecting universities (and knowledge) to what J.M. Coetsee calls the 'business model' I can also see advantages to it - as there must be when you rely on the market over government bureacracy. 

 

Also I can't think of anything worse than mandating the presence, influence and funding of 'alternative' views.  The idea of a sangoma on a medical board, for example, makes me come out in a rash.  Apart from the insanity of lending support for stuff that is obvious rubbish the practice would lead to the immediate multiplication of 'alternative' and crackpot views demanding funding and representation.  I know the idea was to allow fresh ideas a fair hearing but that is not the way to achieve that.

 

Statisticians talk about two types of error - rejecting what is true or accepting what is false.  You almost always have to trade one off against the other so you have to make a choice about which one is most serious.  Is it so important not to miss any scrap of truth that we are prepared to swallow a large amount of rubbish in order to ensure all truth gets a hearing?  Or is it so important to avoid rubbish that we are prepared to stop a lot of truth coming through by keeping the entrance narrow?  I (and I suspect the scientific community at large) prefer the latter.  You no doubt prefer the former.  I prefer the latter because I think operating on a falsehood is disasterous whereas missing out of a truth isn't. 

 

Garth

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa?hl=en.

[Trevor Watkins]

I assume you "skimmed" the article at high speed, since your reply makes little reference to the points in the article, apart from the points in the conclusion regarding funding of alternate points of view.

I agree that state funding of anything will always be, by definition, unfair. However, in the current environment where state funding defines the direction and nature of much research, it does seem unfair to single out some areas for funding while ignoring others, based on questionable science, questionable interests, and questionable agendas. The whole point of the article is to say that it is not good enough for some people to set themselves up as experts, based on a particular narrow set of views, who then close down the debate in wide areas of discovery, denying access, funding, employment, respectability to any so-called "denialists" who oppose them or their views. Based on your reply, I must include you in this set.

You say "The idea of a sangoma on a medical board, for example, makes me come out in a rash." This would be a psycho-somatic reaction, best not treated with modern medicines. Perhaps your rash might be better relieved if you had a sympathetic and thoughtful discussion with an elder member of your community with many years of experience in illnesses brought about by strange beliefs. Some communities refer to such a person as a sangoma.

You say "Apart from the insanity of lending support for stuff that is obvious rubbish". Here lies the nub. How do you decide what is "obvious rubbish"? Do we take your word for it, because you have a high IQ? Does that mean that we (and you) must take the word of anyone with an even higher IQ, without question?

Should we rely on scientists and the scientific method? The article suggests why this might be a bad idea nowadays. Should we rely on a majority opinion? Well, you know where that ends...

No - the only way to decide what is "obvious rubbish" is through the test of time and the market, the original "scientific method". If an idea survives, if it is adopted, if it is useful and used (replicated), then (as Hayek suggested) it is not obvious rubbish, no matter how weird. However, if the idea is deliberately throttled at birth because it is not the right colour, or gender, or size, or shape, then all that triumphs are our prejudices.

Trevor Watkins - Base Software
bas...@gmail.com 083 44 11 721 - 042 293 1405 - (fax)0866 532 363
http://sketchesbyboz37.blogspot.com www.libertarian.org.za
PO Box 3302, Jeffreys Bay, 6330

[Stephen vJ]

I have not had time to read the article in detail but;

 

a) A medical board would either not exist under purely private enterprise, or it would be driven by profits... so under purely private ownership, whether  a sangoma would be given a say on such board would be determined by his / her adding of value to the board, not some subjective agenda... unless there is some government intervention. Thus we conclude the problem with a sangoma on the board is not related to the validity or the level of the "science" behind his career, but rather the level of government involvement in the process i.e. the driving force behind the board (profit vs. some "higher" goal).

 

b) Maybe I should have swapped (a) and (b), because... I see the funding debate as useless, which probably needs a prelude... Either government funds stuff (whether arts, scientific research or building railroads) and we have a problem, or they don't and we don't. How does the validity of a science enter into a pricing system and its indicative value of what people really want ? If people find value in Astrology, surely the daily papers should fund it. As long as they don't forceably take my money to do it, I think there is nothing wrong with a corner of my morning paper being devoted to lunatics. Now re-read (a) above.

 

c) Judging by the frequency of pro-government propaganda hitting the front pages (of any given paper) the rest of the paper is not much different to the astrology corner anyway... and that is okay. If it gets too much, I'll stop buying the paper. And if enough people are not convinced, they will too. And then the paper will die. If it doesn't, who am I to say that it shouldn't ?

 

That's how it should work, exactly so that people like us do not make individual calls on the correctness of the choices being made. The allocation of scarce resources should not be determined by the scientific validity of it's application. That was called Socialism and it failed. If my good neighbours all want the paper filled with daily devotionals to the Flying Spagetti Monster and inaccurate references to "this day in history", then so be it. I can't force my little concept of right and wrong onto the rest of my community, and neither should scientists, politicians, preachers or small juries of our peers. That's what the price system is for.

 

S.

[Garth Zietsman]

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> wrote:

I assume you "skimmed" the article at high speed, since your reply makes little reference to the points in the article, apart from the points in the conclusion regarding funding of alternate points of view.

 

Garth: I confess I only read the abstract.

I agree that state funding of anything will always be, by definition, unfair. However, in the current environment where state funding defines the direction and nature of much research, it does seem unfair to single out some areas for funding while ignoring others, based on questionable science, questionable interests, and questionable agendas. The whole point of the article is to say that it is not good enough for some people to set themselves up as experts, based on a particular narrow set of views, who then close down the debate in wide areas of discovery, denying access, funding, employment, respectability to any so-called "denialists" who oppose them or their views. Based on your reply, I must include you in this set.

 

Garth: I guess I am one of that set.  On the other hand it seems a bit much to say that insisting on logical consistency and empirical support is a 'narrow view'.

You say "The idea of a sangoma on a medical board, for example, makes me come out in a rash." This would be a psycho-somatic reaction, best not treated with modern medicines. Perhaps your rash might be better relieved if you had a sympathetic and thoughtful discussion with an elder member of your community with many years of experience in illnesses brought about by strange beliefs. Some communities refer to such a person as a sangoma.

 

Garth: You know very well its a figure of speech.  Sangomas are dangerous and as for calling on the ancestors ....well...

You say "Apart from the insanity of lending support for stuff that is obvious rubbish". Here lies the nub. How do you decide what is "obvious rubbish"? Do we take your word for it, because you have a high IQ? Does that mean that we (and you) must take the word of anyone with an even higher IQ, without question?

 

Garth: Not at all.  Its rubbish if there is no plausable mechanism for action and empirical tests fail to show evidence of the existence of any effect and is completely inconsistent with principles which do have empirical support i.e. scientific knowledge.

 

Should we rely on scientists and the scientific method? The article suggests why this might be a bad idea nowadays.

 

Garth: Yes I think that would be a good idea but we should take into account the interests of the scientists and those who back them.  I am not convinced the article makes its case (but will have to read the article through to check).  

 

Should we rely on a majority opinion? Well, you know where that ends...

 

Garth:  No - not even amongst scientists.

 

No - the only way to decide what is "obvious rubbish" is through the test of time and the market, the original "scientific method". If an idea survives, if it is adopted, if it is useful and used (replicated), then (as Hayek suggested) it is not obvious rubbish, no matter how weird. However, if the idea is deliberately throttled at birth because it is not the right colour, or gender, or size, or shape, then all that triumphs are our prejudices.

 

Garth:  I am not convinced that survival (without rigorous critical empirical tests) rescues an idea from being nonsense.  Neither am I convinced that something that does best in the marketplace is best.  All that this proves is that the idea is popular and remains popular for some time.  Your assumption is that the sole reason for long term popularity of an idea is that it has some semblence of truth to it.  I will admit it does mean that the idea 'works' for those who retain it long term, but you have to ask in what sense does it 'work'.  Delusions have a way of making people happy, and truth can be unsettling, so there is an incentive to retain the delusion - and I think this happens quite often.  For example prayer 'works' for a large percentage of people but it doesn't make it rain, extract you from difficult circumstances or save lives.

 

I guess for you the enormous shelf space given esoteric and religious subjects (relative to science, history, economics, classical literature) in bookshops is evidence of their validity.  In my mind its evidence that the market isn't necesarily good at spotting truth.  For you if an idea is still around a century after it was first muted it must be good.  For me the fact that this has happened with certain ideas means that the test of time isn't in itself reliable.  

[Trevor Watkins]

Responses below:

Garth:   On the other hand it seems a bit much to say that insisting on logical consistency and empirical support is a 'narrow view'.

Trevor: In many areas, this is a narrow view. For example, there is a distinct shortage of "logical consistency" in many areas of quantum physics, chaos theory and climate science, to name a few. There is very little empirical support for supernovae (last observed one was a thousand years ago), dark matter, gravity (don't know what causes it, can't reproduce it (as we can with electricity, for example), don't have a good theory for it. Simply detecting a force between 2 masses doesn't really count.)  

 

Garth:   Sangomas are dangerous and as for calling on the ancestors ....well...

Trevor: I presume you mean some other group's ancestors. Our ancestors, like Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Von Mises, Hayek and Rand we call on constantly.

 

Garth: Not at all.  Its rubbish if there is no plausable mechanism for action and empirical tests fail to show evidence of the existence of any effect and is completely inconsistent with principles which do have empirical support i.e. scientific knowledge.

Trevor: So, on this basis, I guess gravity, most cancers, dark matter,  is rubbish. We do not have a plausible mechanism for action, empirical tests do not show existence of a causative agent (how is the gravitational force conducted between masses?), no current useful explanatory theory. 

 

Garth:   I am not convinced the article makes its case (but will have to read the article through to check).  

Trevor: Do you mind if I endlessly quote this in future correspondence? You reach a conclusion without first ascertaining the facts - that's the whole point about the dangers of modern science.

 

Garth:    Your assumption is that the sole reason for long term popularity of an idea is that it has some semblence of truth to it. 

Trevor: What I actually said was "If an idea survives, if it is adopted, if it is useful and used (replicated), then (as Hayek suggested) it is not obvious rubbish, no matter how weird." 

An idea may have no truth at all, yet still be valuable. A weak example is the idea that you fall off the edge of the earth if you sail too far from land. Although untrue, it discouraged sailors from losing sight of land in the days before useful navigational aids.  Likewise, the act of praying may help to reduce panic in a dangerous situation, thereby "extracting you from difficult circumstances or saving lives..". 

The criterion is not truth alone, but also value.

[Stephen vJ]

Every man has the right to think that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart, regardless of any scientific or objective evidence you may have to the contrary. Let the poor buggers be.

 

S.

----- Original Message -----

From: Trevor Watkins

To: li...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 6:41 PM

Subject: Re: [Libsa] Science in the 21st Century