Science really is a popularity contest
Found in the Washington Post Letters to the Editor:> >
Leave Science to the Scientists> Saturday, May 21, 2005; Page A17--snip-->
"The real issue is that unlike religion, politics and law, science is not a popularity contest of ideas. Scientists seek the best explanation for data, not the story that makes the most people happy. That is why science has been spectacularly successful at explaining the physical realities of the universe, and theology has been spectacularly unsuccessful at the task."
....
I argue that ultimately, science is a popularity contest. A scientist can present a theory or propose something as fact, but it is meaningless unless the audience (peers/society/funders) accepts it as valid.
We really cannot do as the letter says and "leave science to the scientists" when, given a single data set, different scientists will come up with different theories and predict different phenomena. Let's not substitute a scientist for the role that shamans, royalty or war generals had in ancient civilizations.
Scientists do "seek the best explanation for data." However, "best" is a subjective term. Your physicists and mathematicians will likely use logic to explaindata. They use randomized controlled trials (RCT's) to eliminate human variables and predict phenomena. Then, there are other scientists who won't put much emphasis on RCT's. They suggest that since science is done by and for humans, trying to remove the human variable from science is not only impossible but renders the end product less valuable. They see science more as a social process, than a prediction of nature.
So, what do we have? Science Wars! (Episode III, Revenge of the Stiff)
There is a purist version of science, that's shared by most physicists, mathematicians, evidence based medicine (EBM) advocates, etc. Many proponents of so-called complimentary and alternative medicine (sCAM) see science from a relativistic, or social science point of view. Many are not all about deceit or fraud as is often characterized. They are American Chiropractic Association (ACA) members, Harvard medical school professors, social anthropologists(?), etc.
There is much at stake for both types of scientist in convincing us (society) of their version of science, especially in medicine or healthcare. We purists have the better influence over those with lots of money; those that need to predict a return on an investment. Government, third-party payors, investors, etc. understand math, so they understand, and often side with EBM.
Relativists in the sCAM camp are usually better at influencing the common man. Understanding science as a social process, their appeal is better among the masses.
Science war battles are seldom openly fought among scientists. (The Sokal Hoax was an interesting exception.) They are fought among bureaucracies, politicians, congressmen, courtrooms, and the press. Purist tactics are to use logic, math, and objective reason.
Relativists typically counter purist "logic" two ways. One is to lump both perspectives of science together under the recognized umbrella of "science". Thus, by claiming that a different interpretation of data is equally valuable, they hope to gain the same legitimacy and respect afforded to the tried-and-true theories of the purists. The second tactic is to point out the flaws in 'pure' science, and thus weaken the ascendancy of the purist's logic base.
The shortcoming of the purists is that they're not able to eliminate, or even adequately calculate or agree upon the human factor of influence in their analysis'. They must predict a probability when society demands the definitive. The bane of the relativists is that their scientific views or conclusions can't maintain the same kind of intellectual or mathematical integrity as that presented by purists.
Who will win the Science War? Purists predict that they will. To the opposit camp, it's all relative.
-dras
Leave Science to the Scientists> Saturday, May 21, 2005; Page A17--snip-->
"The real issue is that unlike religion, politics and law, science is not a popularity contest of ideas. Scientists seek the best explanation for data, not the story that makes the most people happy. That is why science has been spectacularly successful at explaining the physical realities of the universe, and theology has been spectacularly unsuccessful at the task."
....
I argue that ultimately, science is a popularity contest. A scientist can present a theory or propose something as fact, but it is meaningless unless the audience (peers/society/funders) accepts it as valid.
We really cannot do as the letter says and "leave science to the scientists" when, given a single data set, different scientists will come up with different theories and predict different phenomena. Let's not substitute a scientist for the role that shamans, royalty or war generals had in ancient civilizations.
Scientists do "seek the best explanation for data." However, "best" is a subjective term. Your physicists and mathematicians will likely use logic to explaindata. They use randomized controlled trials (RCT's) to eliminate human variables and predict phenomena. Then, there are other scientists who won't put much emphasis on RCT's. They suggest that since science is done by and for humans, trying to remove the human variable from science is not only impossible but renders the end product less valuable. They see science more as a social process, than a prediction of nature.
So, what do we have? Science Wars! (Episode III, Revenge of the Stiff)
There is a purist version of science, that's shared by most physicists, mathematicians, evidence based medicine (EBM) advocates, etc. Many proponents of so-called complimentary and alternative medicine (sCAM) see science from a relativistic, or social science point of view. Many are not all about deceit or fraud as is often characterized. They are American Chiropractic Association (ACA) members, Harvard medical school professors, social anthropologists(?), etc.
There is much at stake for both types of scientist in convincing us (society) of their version of science, especially in medicine or healthcare. We purists have the better influence over those with lots of money; those that need to predict a return on an investment. Government, third-party payors, investors, etc. understand math, so they understand, and often side with EBM.
Relativists in the sCAM camp are usually better at influencing the common man. Understanding science as a social process, their appeal is better among the masses.
Science war battles are seldom openly fought among scientists. (The Sokal Hoax was an interesting exception.) They are fought among bureaucracies, politicians, congressmen, courtrooms, and the press. Purist tactics are to use logic, math, and objective reason.
Relativists typically counter purist "logic" two ways. One is to lump both perspectives of science together under the recognized umbrella of "science". Thus, by claiming that a different interpretation of data is equally valuable, they hope to gain the same legitimacy and respect afforded to the tried-and-true theories of the purists. The second tactic is to point out the flaws in 'pure' science, and thus weaken the ascendancy of the purist's logic base.
The shortcoming of the purists is that they're not able to eliminate, or even adequately calculate or agree upon the human factor of influence in their analysis'. They must predict a probability when society demands the definitive. The bane of the relativists is that their scientific views or conclusions can't maintain the same kind of intellectual or mathematical integrity as that presented by purists.
Who will win the Science War? Purists predict that they will. To the opposit camp, it's all relative.
-dras
posted by nawledge at
11:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home