On "Trust Science"
Medicine is also a sort of ministration or service, having in view the attainment of some object-would you not say of health?
-Socrates
Trust science.
What is science?
Science is a social construction. Science is made by us and includes our human flaws, like pride, like error, like conformity.
Socrates identified a primitive essential element of science, empirical observation:
And what sort of difference creates enmity and anger? Suppose for example that you and I, my good friend, differ about a number; do differences of this sort make us enemies and set us at variance with one another? Do we not go at once to arithmetic, and put an end to them by a sum?
Euthyphro. True.
Socrates. Or suppose that we differ about magnitudes, do we not quickly end the differences by measuring?
Euthyphro. Very true.
Socrates. And we end a controversy about heavy and light by resorting to a weighing machine?
Euthyphro. To be sure.
Descartes defines science as “certain and evident cognition” (omnis scientia est cognitio certa et evidens).
Descartes provides us with four rules: The first was never to accept anything as true if I did not have evident knowledge of its truth: that is, carefully to avoid precipitate conclusions and preconceptions, and to include nothing more in my judgments than what presented itself to my mind so clearly and so distinctly that I had no occasion to doubt it.
The second, to divide each of the difficulties I examined into as many parts as possible and as may be required in order to resolve them better.
The third, to direct my thoughts in an orderly manner, by beginning with the simplest and most easily known objects in order to ascend little by little, step by step, to knowledge of the most complex, and by supposing some order even among objects that have no natural order of precedence.
And the last, throughout to make enumerations so complete, and reviews so comprehensive, that I could be sure of leaving nothing out.
Today we rely on science that is incapable of meeting the Descartes rules.
In the hopes that comprehensive reviews will prove sufficient.
Today's science relies more heavily on computer modelling than on observation. A model of this nature cannot be confirmed by observation since it provides forecasts, sometimes far into the future or at least forecasts for things that have not happened. According to Karl Popper, science dis-confirms, while pseudoscience confirms. A forecast into the future is irrefutable. A theory that cannot be debated is not science, it is religion.
Our science today will look to a future observer a mix of scientific observations and psuedo-scientific claims. That both observation and claim are dressed in scientific garb leaves the people even more confused. Let's also remember that scientific consensus has delivered abhorrent un-truths. For example Dr. Samuel Cartwright discovered a medical condition, Drapetomania, which is the uncontrollable desire of slave to runaway from their master. Or more recently, Trofim Lysenko made a whole theory of genetics, vernalization, which was made law, resulting in disastrous harvests and the execution of scientists who did not share his zeal for imagination.
Even weaker thinking underpins the anti-science viewpoints that rely entirely on the opinions of charlatans and zealots. These peddle easy answers and simple explanations. A search engine will bring us the evidence to support any opinion we'd like. For example, the Qanon shaman’s views on aliens or interdimensional beings and their role here on the planet.
The implications of scientific knowledge are deadly serious for 21st century society. Whether a disease is a fatal plague or a dangerous cold. Whether costly and dangerous measures are necessary or meaningless. The stakes are incredibly high. Our economies are fragile. Our social bonds are fragile. Our bodies are fragile. Everything about humanity is fragile.
Skepticism is scientific.
We are told to trust science. Trust is a religious concept.
We are better served to listen to Charles Deming:
Trust God, everyone else must provide data.
Sources:
Czerski, H. (2017, January 27). A crisis of trust is looming between scientists and society – it’s time to talk. The Guardian; The Guardian.
Dika, Tarek R., "Descartes’ Method", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/descartes-method
Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLOS Medicine 2(8): e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Thornton, Stephen, "Karl Popper", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/popper
Plato, G. M. A. Grube, and John M. Cooper. The trial and death of Socrates : Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, death scene from Phaedo. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub, 2000. Print.
Is Most Published Research Wrong? (2016). [YouTube Video]. In YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q
Q Shaman Prison Interview. (n.d.). (2016). [YouTube Video]. In YouTube.
Retrieved February 12, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwdkng6ZGp8
Note:
Socrates identified a primitive essential element of science, empirical observation:
Not correct, “empirical observation” is an essential element of science not its essence. Einstein developed his theory of Relativity from theories that had been developed on a base of empirical observation. Proof of his theory is very recent, while use of Relativity Theory has a history off over a century. Derivative theories could be verified based on limited observations, while Relativity Theory awaits universal acceptance.
Everything about humanity is fragile.
That seems a trivial statement. Reliance on Science in formulation of statements regarding either observation or speculation is accepting rules that are currently generally accepted by persons involved with defining or exploring the knowable. That does not require that all experiences have a scientific explanation. “Offense” implies a personal response, which is irrelevant to the commitment to the discipline of Science.
Trust God, everyone else must provide data.
That seems cute, what other use it have? “Trust Science” should indicate the use of established methods of evaluating statements, until these methods lead to internal contradictions; then seek new methods that do not. Both methods of observation and of logic are subject to change. Epistemology is subtle.
Comments