Skip to comments.Philosophy Puts Brakes on Simplistic Science
Posted on 10/06/2009 8:38:25 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Oct 5, 2009 Three stories touching on philosophy of science were reported recently. They show that simplistic ideas, and even terms deployed, can be misleading. Thats why philosophers still have a role in curbing the pretensions of scientists, and clarifying scientific issues and terms lest policy-makers and the public get wrong ideas.
Scientific disciplines are often guided at their outset by a few simple ideas. However, as the field matures, participants typically recognise the complexity of their subject and the need for a more nuanced approach. This is what is happening in invasion biology.Davis was quick to point out that these ideas do not minimize the need to carefully monitor invasive species. Make no mistake, he clarified; some introduced species have caused great harm. If a snake on a plane made it to Hawaii, for instance, many native birds would be severely threatened. To Davis, though, this does not justify message enhancement (exaggeration) as a scare tactic. Calling species alien or invasive or exotic fails to recognize the global nature of the ecology. As long as the harm is real, he said, it should not be necessary for us to overgeneralise, exaggerate, use incendiary language or misrepresent data in order to attract attention.
Philosophers, social scientists and some invasion biologists have challenged the choice of language used to describe non-native species and have argued that conclusions about them sometimes rest more on prejudice than science. Others have criticised the preference for native species as scientifically unsound, arguing that invasive species do not represent a separate category, evolutionarily, biogeographically or ecologically. Others have pointed out flaws in the claim that non-native species are the second-greatest extinction threat after habitiat [sic] destruction. In fact, with the exception of insular environments such as islands and lakes, there are very few examples of extinctions being caused by non-native species.
Perhaps stemness is a property of biological systems, not individual cells, Lander suggested. Surprisingly, he referred to the standard philosophical story about phlogiston as an example of how scientific concepts can mislead research. Dont tell this story to California voters. The bankrupt government is still wondering where to get the $3 billion voters approved for stem cell research after a hyped initiative promised all kinds of miracle cures. The upside of phlogiston theory is that it did eventually lead scientists to a correct understanding of oxygen. Maybe a systems approach to stemness will continue to light the path toward understanding, Lander hoped.
The scientific method has driven conceptual inquiry for centuries and still forms the basis of scientific investigation. Yet, the hypothesis-based research paradigm itself has received scant attention recently. Here, I propose an alternative model for this paradigm, based on decision, information, and game theory. Analysis of biomedical research efforts with this model may provide a framework for predicting their likely contributions to knowledge, assessing their impact on human health, and managing research priorities.But what is the scientific method?
The scientific method provides a rationale upon which scientific principles are developed, tested, and validated or rejected. For any natural phenomenon, there is a fundamental solution or truth that explains its basis. This solution exists in nature, regardless of whether the observer formulates the best hypothesis to explain it. It may thus be viewed as a set of coordinates in a multidimensional space: the coordinates of truth (see the first figure, panel A). By proposing hypotheses and testing their statistical validity, the hypothesis-driven experiment allows testing and validation of a scientific principle.Nabel seems to be helping himself to the correspondence theory of truth and to the concept of truth itself. He also seems to suggest that all scientists and philosophers are in agreement about the scientific method. He did mention the paradigm shift terminology of Thomas Kuhn and talked about anomalies and falsification, but the tone of his article was progressive as if following the scientific method necessarily guides science to the truth.
Nabel contrasted hypothesis generation with hypothesis testing. Hypothesis generation can create an organized body of knowledge from which insight can emerge, he said. This seems to confuse data with knowledge and interpretation with insight. He gave examples such as the Human Genome Project and the CERN Large Hadron Collider. Such projects are not testing a hypothesis so much as gathering data from which hypotheses can be generated. The other approach is to start with a hypothesis and run experiments to test it. He suggested both approaches are valid in science but need to be balanced against each other. It may be surprising to readers that the scientific method does not factor much in peer review or funding decisions:
These considerations have implications for scientific funding. For example, the investigator-initiated grants at the National Institutes of Health allow investigators to propose and test any hypothesis as long as the rationale is justified to a set of peers. The process begins with the vision of the individual scientist and ends with a judgment of its scientific merit. Recently, changes have been proposed for rating these proposals, stressing their impact, but the evaluation remains largely subjective. The meaning of impact is ill defined, and there is no systematic way to assign value. In this and many other systems for awarding grants, the scientific community does not take full advantage of the scientific method to prioritize its research portfolio. For example, formal evaluation of hypotheses is not an inherent part of the review. Also, there have been few criteria by which to judge and prioritize grants for hypothesis-generating research.Subjective human opinion, therefore, plays a big role in what is valued in science. The value of hypothesis-generating efforts should be analyzed critically for the pertinence of the methodology to the question, the overall significance of the problem, and the likelihood of generating a viable and high-impact hypothesis, he said. But if each of those criteria are all subjective, whose pet project ends up with the money? Nabel did not get down to answering that question. He just ended optimistically, A modern and rigorous view of the hypothesis-driven research paradigm can similarly help to consolidate a foundation that fundamentally transforms biology and medicine. It would seem this article begs more questions than it answers.
Everyone does philosophy, but not everyone does it well. So said Greg Bahnsen, a Christian philosopher of science and theologian. Even saying I dont have a philosophy is a statement of philosophy. Scientists are often better at exposing flaws in others research than in thinking consistently and logically themselves. Thats why philosophers of science, who ask the questions that scientists dont ask, and who strive for clarity and consistency, are often considered gadflies and troublemakers by the science department. When billions of dollars of research funds are at stake, though, the importance of clarifying the terms, values, and logical coherence of scientific claims must be examined critically. With limited resources it also becomes important to identify which scientific questions are worth investigating.
One of the best skills you can develop to see through the pretensions of triumphalist science is the ability to detect question-begging arguments. Begging the question is the logical fallacy of arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise. An example would be claiming evolution is a fact because the Origin of Species says so, or claiming materialism is true because scientists only work with particles and forces. It amounts to helping oneself to concepts without paying the price. Gary Nabel talked about the coordinates of truth in his article without defining truth. Moreover, he assumed that truth is out there in the world, and that we can discover it by the scientific method. That begs all kinds of questions. If he were among a group of Christians, he could probably get away with it. Materialists, though, would be hard pressed to explain these concepts emerging from fundamental particles and forces. Postmodernists, also, would be quick to ask, whose truth? Because most readers of Science are positivists or scientific realists, who believe the public should fund their projects, he can probably get away with his simplistic views in that forum. He would face a barrage of questions in the philosophy, theology and political science departments.
The stem-cell and invasive-species articles remind us that simplistic answers to complex questions can be misleading. Take the current political hubbub about human-caused global warming. Much of the discussion revolves around average global temperature. Is there such a thing? How would you go about measuring it? At every point on earth, temperatures fluctuate from hour to hour, day to day, year to year, decade to decade. Do we measure temperature at the south pole, or Death Valley, or Rio de Janeiro? OK, you say, we take thousands of measurements all over the globe. But humans cannot possibly have thermometers at every point on the earths surface. Selection effects loom large in the discussion. How many points are enough? Are some points given more weight than others? Do we take the measurements at ground level, or at 10 feet or 100 feet off the ground? Do we use the arithmetic average, or the median, or the mode? Do we clip off anomalous measurements? How many significant figures do we use? What statistical methods and error analyses are being performed on the raw data? Do we use a mercury thermometer, an alcohol thermometer, a thermocouple, a bimetallic strip, or a laser thermometer? If we choose one, or combine them, are they responding to the same external reality? Whats the effect of humidity and wind on the measurements? What uncontrolled influences, like the amount of pavement below the thermometer or proximity to urban pollution, could be altering the readings? Have all the thermometers been calibrated to each other? Have all the humans who take and record the measurements received the proper training? Are any of them liars, incompetents, or members of groups with a political agenda? What does the term temperature signify, anyway? What is its relation to theories about climate change?
Here we have taken a simple example, the temperature of the earth, and asked just a few questions that have turned it into a philosophical mess. A scientist might respond that a single station, like the Antarctica thermometer, has been the same instrument used for decades and it shows a clear trend of warming. Even so, many of the same questions could be asked and additional ones, too. Theres no way to eliminate all subjectivity that goes into measurement and interpretation. The only way to provide protection for taxpayers who end up funding research and paying for political decisions made on scientific consensus is vibrant, active debate. That debate has to include researchers outside the paradigm. History shows that consensus science is no guarantee of truth. Before you get stuck with the bill foisted on you by gullible politicians swallowing consensus science, learn to ask tough questions and demand answers that dont beg the question.
Are you daring to question Global Warming?
Not unless there was a lady snake along for the ride as well.
The snake could already be pregnant. Also, it is a little known fact that divergent species of snakes have been known to hybridize.
We can question, so long as it doesn’t lead to a debate, because “the debate is over.” Yeah right.
Thanks for the ping!
Also, it is a little known fact that divergent species of snakes have been known to hybridize.
You are confusing this with asexual reproduction.
[[The snake could already be pregnant. Also, it is a little known fact that divergent species of snakes have been known to hybridize.]]
Tiz True- just have a look at congress- lots of hybridized snakes running our country
[[Pythons in the Everglades? That can’t be good.]]
C’mon- why are you so biased against pythons? Or is it the everglades you a biasd against?
Philosophers know that scientists don't know as much as they think they know.
The author is not a philosopher, he is the Jet Propulsion Laboratories’ Systems and Network Administration Team Lead for the CASSINI-HUYGENS mission to Saturn.
Thanks for the clarification. Makes me feel better about philosophers.
In college , my roommate was a Philosophy major (stuck in the dorms with him). All he did was drink and flunk out.
Probably major depression caused by the horrifying realization that he was surrounded by people who don’t know what they think they know and don’t even want to buy a vowel.
Outstanding article, GGG! Thank you ever so much for posting it!
My pleasure :o)
Great post. I concur 100%.
Is your argument?
1. My roomate was a philosophy major
2. My roomate was a loser, i.e. he just drank and flunked out.
3. Therefore all philosphy majors are losers.
If so, then you have committed the 'hasty generalization' fallacy. You can read up on it here:
Yes. They don’t have to actually do any studying. Just pontificate.
Here is a song to back up my point:
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
There’s nothing Nietzsche couldn’t teach ya
‘Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away—
Half a crate of whisky every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
‘I drink, therefore I am.’
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he’s pissed.
Here’s a video link:
Scientists still trot out the falsifiability principle, which BTW was developed by logical positivist philosophers, even though the falsifiability principle fails its own falsifiability test. This puts them in the same intellectual league as liberals who believe in relativism because some guy named Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity.
Scientists depend on a large percentage of their confreres being honest and competent to validate proposed theories, and yet there is no scientific reason for people being honest or competent.
In order to postulate and validate theories scientists need to utilize concepts. The importance of a concept is in the information it contains rather than how it is materially represented. 'Two and two are four' is a concept that expresses the same information whether it is sound waves emitted from a person's vocal chords, a particular arrangement of atoms in a person's brain, graphite markings on a piece of paper, or magnetic recordings on tape.
It may be the case that without any matter (or energy) there would be no way to record any concepts and there would be no concepts. However, it is the case that there is matter and energy, and it is the case that the nature of concepts is such that the particular material representation is ... for lack of a better word ... immaterial.
So basically scientists rely on immaterial objects to conduct research on the material world, while at the same time disparaging those who utilize immaterial objects to theorize about concepts themselves.
If there is a more self-serving group out there than philosophy-hating materialist scientists, it would be hard to find it.
BTW, I love that song.
Thanks for the ping, dearest sister in Christ!
"[scientists] disparaging those who utilize immaterial objects to theorize about concepts themselves."
You are, as many philosophers in this area, being needlessly defensive. Most scientists (theoretical physicists in particular) simply ignore what philosophers say; they have no opinion of philosophers and certainly do not disparage them. It is true, they chuckle on occasion when they read some philosophers theorizing about this or that construct and wonder why they, scientists dealing with that concept every day, cannot even recognize under the pen of the philosopher. I've never heard it gone farther than that.
My philosophy friends, and the attendees of a few of philosophy seminars to which I went, exhibit however a visible insecurity. I think it is rooted in a simple fact that a physicist working on X can read whatever scientists and philosophers write about X, but not the philosopher. It's hard to tell yourself that you have mastered a certain view of a concept when you cannot even read what others have written about it.
I find it somewhat entertaining that the nonexistent "disparaging" is also ascribed within physics: some beginning experimentalists are sure that theorists look down upon them. The relationship is similar: a theorist can read an experimental paper, but not conversely. And the attribution is equally false.
What I meant by that was those particular scientists that hate philosophy and are materialist.
I myself am a philosophy loving scientist who is not a materialist.
All of the philosophers I have met, unlike those you seem to hang out with, do not exhibit any 'visible inecurity'. The philosophers I have met are quite content with their lot. After all, they are freely choosing to pursue a career that is generally looked down upon and trivialized. They only chose philosophy because they are truly interested in the subject.
I look forward to any rebuttal of my opinion. I am not a philosopher, I don't even play one on TV. I have just taken a few courses and read a number of philosophy books.
Your initial assessment of my critique of your opinion is spot on: I do philosophy like I play chess, I make bold moves that seem promising and even intelligent, but ultimately result in an embarrassing defeat.