 |
| Searching for the truth. Photo Pavel Danilyuk |
My previous post on this blog, Scientists's theories thrown into confusion, describes how the Standard Model of quantum mechanics is in being chipped away at as new findings raise doubts about it.
Such misgivings about the solidity of established models must sear from the broad scientific community any conceit held as to certainty concerning findings, eliciting an attitude in social discourse of humble service.
There is conceit but also corruption within the scientific community:
In their [2010] book, Merchants of Doubt, historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway explain how a loose-knit group of high-level scientists, with extensive political connections, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. In seven compelling chapters addressing tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and DDT, Oreskes and Conway roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how the ideology of free market fundamentalism, aided by a too-compliant media, has skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era. [Source]
Corruption in science is not only for monetary advantage, but also for ideological ends, as we can see with the civilization-ending transgender ideology sweeping through the "science-based" professions. These capitulate if not through simple cowardice at bucking the professional fashion, then because members do not care enough about the truth.
Naomi Oreskes, saw her work Merchants of Doubt, referred to above, make a valuable impact, particularly through a film sequel, in establishing the forces at play over the climate crisis. She is professor of the History of Science and affiliated professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. A world-renowned geologist, historian and public speaker, she is a leading voice on the role of science in society and the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
In our context of the role of science in social discourse, her 2019 text Why Trust Science? warrants fresh attention.
As Nick Spencer notes in a piece this month, Oreskes offers many examples in the history of science where science was not worthy of our trust. Neither the "absurdities" of phrenology (taking the skull as indicative of mental faculties and traits of character) nor the "horrors" of eugenics did not prevent both being "considered serious and established disciplines in their own time".
He reports on further areas where scientists' mindset got in the way of good science:
Limited Energy Theory, from the late [1800s], argued that women were not suited to higher education on the grounds that it would adversely affect their fertility. Building on the ideas of thermodynamics, medics argued that the female of the species had only a limited supply of physical energy, much of which was needed for reproduction. Higher education would shrivel their ovaries and uteri. The medics who propounded the theory were all men.
Continental Drift, the idea that Earth’s continents had drifted over its surface in geological history, was well established in Europe by the end of the nineteenth century, but American geologists had methodological objections to it:[...] too much theory, not enough observation. By why was this an issue in America and not in Europe? According to Oreskes: “American geologists…explicitly linked their inductive methodology to American democracy and culture… deduction was consistent with autocratic European ways of thinking and acting… [the Americans] methodological preferences were grounded in their political ideas.”
So how can we accept anything that scientists proffer as a fact? Oreskes answers that in recent times method has won through as the main means to quieten sceptics. The popular view was that "the processes of science enabled theories to be verified, or they enabled theories to be falsified, or they enabled things to be predicted", as Spencer phrased it, adding: "Science was trustworthy because of its commitment to a reliable method."
However, complete acceptance of that principle has faded, with method being seen as necessary, but not necessarily sufficient. Distrust of science is rearing its ugly head again, as anti-vaxxers pick up on any inconsistencies in official scientific pronouncements, or as medical and psychological services leave young people mutilated as the transgender fad sweeps many Western societies.
Central to the trustworthiness of science is this, as Spencer explains, drawing on Oreskes:
“It is not so much that science corrects itself, but that scientists correct each other.” And, as the growing body of sociology of science shows, when scientists are too homogenous, too similar, too close to outside interests, or too vested in certain ideologies, their ability and inclination to correct one another is blunted. “Objectivity [emerges] as a function of community practices rather than as an attitude of individual researchers.” (52)
Spencer adds: "It may be that the importance of [gender] diversity among scientists matters more for some disciplines – particularly those closer to the questions of human nature and society – than for others."
He states that "none of this amounts to a wholesale rejection of scientific method, so much as a question mark over its sufficiency".
In her conclusion, Oreskes outlines five “themes” that combine to produce scientific knowledge:
1. Method
2. Evidence
3. Consensus
4. Values
5. Humility
It is striking, says Spencer, that the last three direct the question of why we should trust science "away from the narrow confines of what most people consider to be science, and towards the wider social and ethical context in which science takes place".
Oreskes uses her depth of knowledge of the history of science - all the wrong paths taken, personal preferences and delusions, the conceit and unwillingness to face new evidence, the blindness to ethical issues - to plot a course for us as we open the door, with too little care, to the world of AI, the pursuit of immortality, and genetic manipulation for reasons of vanity - designer babies.
To borrow from Spencer's language, Oreskes states that matters of import to society cannot be left to just the scientist. Scientists should work in association with others who are suitably educated, learned, and informed. But education alone is not enough. We need the community to be involved, with members bringing to the fore their various backgrounds and experiences.
Community participants, like scientists, must be characterised by integrity, patience, diligence, and responsiveness. Their work should be marked by humility, a refusal to foreclose on answers, an openness to new ideas, a reluctance to claim that you have somehow finally fathomed the mind of God.
But above all, the community should be varied, so that just as scientists correct each other to make better science, so members correct each other to make a better interpretation of the evidence.
Science is a process, and the material world is the usual ingredient of that process. As the leading agent in that process, the scientist must not be closed from the real world. Ideological filters must be removed in conducting research so that a wider reality is not excluded. Here, I'm thinking of those prominent WEIRD neuroscientists who take what they know - so far- of the brain and go on their way mocking the more than 85 per cent of the world's population who acknowledge a spiritual dimension in their life.
Three takeaways: Science is essential in knowing our world; science does not stand alone; science is one part of the warp and woof of our human experience.
And a fourth: Scientists belong to a community that is devoted to the truth, and whose members are willing to fight for the truth.
Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.
No comments:
Post a Comment