On the great value of science, and the many challenges it faces

This is a long but excellent discussion centering on the value of science. D.J. Grothe leads the panel discussion; the panel includes Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Ann Druyan and Victor Stenger. The values of science go well beyond the practical benefits of understanding how the world works. Those benefits include the following: Science keeps us from pretending that we are the center of the universe. It keeps us from fooling and misleading ourselves. Neil deGrasse Tyson argues that science shouldn't be considered as a specialized endeavor; it should be considered the study of reality. The challenges to science include pop culture, post-modernism, religion and fear of death. At the 40-minute mark Richard Dawkins argues that a huge challenge is helping students to understand the vast scale of the universe-he gives a terrific illustration. Note the exchange between Dawkins and Druyan at the 45-minute mark. The question is how vigorously should one push back against people who attack science because it conflicts with their religion. Dawkins, as is clear from his books and many media appearances, has little patience with religious people attacking science. Druyan insists that no progress can be made by calling religious people "stupid." She advocates taking the time to cultivate a relationship, because this is more likely to result in a believer who starts to listen. She adds that the fact that there are religious scientists demonstrates that religion is not amenable to logic. Tyson indicates that he strenuously avoids discussing religious dogma; instead, he works hard to keep nonsense of all types out of science discussions and science classrooms, and to make scientific discussions only about science. If people want to talk religion on their own time, that's their prerogative, and he doesn't have a stake in that. Moderated by D.J. Grothe (of Point of Inquiry), this conference took place at the New York Academy of Sciences at a Center for Inquiry conference titled "Secular Society and its Enemies."

Continue ReadingOn the great value of science, and the many challenges it faces

The frustrating scientific method

I just finished reading an excellent article by Jonah Lehrer of Wired: "Accept Defeat: The Neuroscience of Screwing Up." The article focuses on the scientific method. We all know that science makes steady progress as it spins its ideas and conducts experiments, right? Wrong.

Science is a deeply frustrating pursuit. Although the researchers were mostly using established techniques, more than 50 percent of their data was unexpected. (In some labs, the figure exceeded 75 percent.) “The scientists had these elaborate theories about what was supposed to happen,” Dunbar says. “But the results kept contradicting their theories. It wasn’t uncommon for someone to spend a month on a project and then just discard all their data because the data didn’t make sense.” Perhaps they hoped to see a specific protein but it wasn’t there. Or maybe their DNA sample showed the presence of an aberrant gene. The details always changed, but the story remained the same: The scientists were looking for X, but they found Y.
Sometimes, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the entire theory needs to be revamped or discarded, breaking the conceptual continuity. Therefore, the practice of science is often not smooth sailing, contrary to popular conceptions. A good approach to dealing with the uncooperative data is for the scientist to make sure that he or she doesn't work alone:
While the scientific process is typically seen as a lonely pursuit — researchers solve problems by themselves — Dunbar found that most new scientific ideas emerged from lab meetings, those weekly sessions in which people publicly present their data. Interestingly, the most important element of the lab meeting wasn’t the presentation — it was the debate that followed. Dunbar observed that the skeptical (and sometimes heated) questions asked during a group session frequently triggered breakthroughs, as the scientists were forced to reconsider data they’d previously ignored. The new theory was a product of spontaneous conversation, not solitude; a single bracing query was enough to turn scientists into temporary outsiders, able to look anew at their own work.
[caption id="attachment_21014" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image by Nicholas_ at istock (with permission)"][/caption] These comments ring true to me. Once again, skepticism to the rescue, and we need to turn to "outsiders" because we hesitate to murder our own children (this is a phrase I heard in a writing seminar--a reason for a separate editor). It's important to remember, though, that bringing others into the conversation doesn't always work. It has to be the right chemistry, where everyone is geared to the end result and where the criticism of the work needs to be savage though each of the participants nonetheless shows appreciation for each others' hard work. We should strive for the benefits of group endeavors while avoiding groupthink:
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within groups of people. It is the mode of thinking that happens when the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints.

Continue ReadingThe frustrating scientific method

How Atheism Happens

There is a new series on the Pharyngula blog: Posts confessing "Why I Am An Atheist" gleaned from comments and responses. Some are well written, others not so much. But each is selected for showing a particular path into the light for people who have recovered from invisible friend addiction. The most recent post, Why I am an atheist – Adam, shows how an upbringing under the Ken Ham school of Young Earth Creation and science denialism eventually led him to an understanding of the willful ignorance and dishonesty that pervades that culture. Once he began to question the "facts" that he was raised with, he quickly climbed up toward rationalism and lost his religion.

Continue ReadingHow Atheism Happens
Read more about the article The function of reason

The function of reason

Chris Mooney reports on the work of Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber, who have argued that (in Mooney's words): "the human capacity for reasoning evolved not so much to get at truth, as to facilitate argumentation." I haven't yet heard Mooney's interview of Mercier, which will soon be posted at Point of Inquiry. I do look forward to this interview, because the conclusions of Mercier and Sperber (which I scanned in their recent journal article, "Why do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory") make much sense in light of the ubiquitous failings of human reason-in-action. Here is an excerpt from the abstract from their article:

Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of evidence in the psychology of reasoning and decision making can be reinterpreted and better explained in the light of this hypothesis. Poor performance in standard reasoning tasks is explained by the lack of argumentative context. When the same problems are placed in a proper argumentative setting, people turn out to be skilled arguers. Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views. This explains the notorious confirmation bias. This bias is apparent not only when people are actually arguing, but also when they are reasoning proactively from the perspective of having to defend their opinions. Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion, and, ceteris paribus, favor conclusions for which arguments can be found. Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought.Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade.
These ideas resonate strongly with me. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingThe function of reason

Conservative science and liberal science

At American Prospect, Chris Mooney has a lot to say about the diverse ways liberals and conservatives react to expertise and science.   It's a good, thoughtful read, that includes this discussion of linguist George Lakoff's explanation:

[T]he Berkeley cognitive linguist George Lakoff, views this as a central factor in our fights over science and expertise. In an interview for this article, Lakoff suggested that left-right divides over science have their roots in the cognitive structures and metaphors that, he argues, drive our political schisms in general. Conservatives don’t dislike science or expertise inherently, Lakoff says--but for them, these are not the chief source of authority. Instead, conservatives have a moral system based on a “strict father” model of the family, which is then exported to various other realms of society--the market, the government. All are meant to be governed in a ruggedly individualistic, free-market way--where you either succeed or you don’t, based on your own mettle. In this context, science and expertise can be very good for supporting some views--the science of drilling, the science of nuclear power--but they can also be an unruly guest at the party. Scientific evidence “has a possible effect over the market, foreign policy, religion, all kinds of things,” Lakoff says. “So they can’t have that.”

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingConservative science and liberal science