Arguments from authority
In humans, the traits of high intelligence and good judgment are unlinked. There are many such examples; viz:
• Kary Mullis, who won for co-inventing the technique behind PCR testing, went on to deny that HIV causes AIDS, helping to sway South African president Thabo Mbeki into rejecting antiretroviral therapy, costing hundreds of thousands of lives;
• Linus Pauling went from two-time Nobelist to full-time quack, a brilliant peace activist and investigator of chemical bonds who became convinced that everything from colds to cancers should be fought with vitamin C;
• James Watson co-discovered DNA’s double-helix and turned out to be irreparably racist;
• William Shockley co-invented the transistor and became an ardent eugenicist.
With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, another smart but deeply foolish voice was heard. Michael Levitt, a Nobel Laureate and self-styled viral epidemiologist predicted:
• there would be no more than 10 COVID deaths in Israel (he was wrong by over two and a half logs);
• the coronavirus would not will stick around for months or years and cause millions of deaths.
Oops. Not just wrong, but wildly (and dangerously) wrong.
And this is something I stress over and over: the difference between arguments from evidence and arguments from authority. Science deals with arguments from evidence. Where Levitt went wrong was when he abandoned that strategy and used his status to advance an argument from authority.
Let’s leave the arguments from authority to religion, m’kay. Levitt was playing the role of Old Testament prophet, and he went off the rails, just like all the fools who believe in creationism or Noah’s flood or the “predictions” of the Book of Revelation.
Stanford professor and a Nobel laureate. Critics say he was dangerously misleading on Covid, Eric Boodman
Joel
although I probably agree with you on the facts and the characterizations, I think you miss a point: what for you is “science based on evidence” is for others “science” based on authority.
you also mightnot be aware that Paul (the guy in the Bible) said “test all things,” and some modern day Christians insist they base their “belief” on evidence. i’t’s a different kind of evidence than what you would call “scientific”, it’s “personal experience.”
nothing wrong with you “believing in” science..since it probably agrees with your personal experience enough the common sense kind of forces you to accept it. but even you may not notice when you stray from something you know about to something you don’t really know about. I know I do it all time. and I know I am at least as careful about “testing all things” as many (was going to say “most” but i wouldn’t know about that) people who call themselves scientists.
no animus here. just a thought. [and an afterthought: from reading the stories about Jesus in the Bible I am fairly convinced he was trying to save people from the superstitions they thought of as “religion”.]
Glad to see a wider variety of posts here; this one including its first comment, is particularly on point IMHO.
We (homo sapiens) are what Brad DeLong likes to characterize as “jumped-up plains apes”. As such, each of us is simply another animal struggling to understand and cope with the world we find ourselves in. If science and religion can agree on one point, it is likely that our perceptions of this world are inaccurate, very often grossly and dangerously so.
How is it then, that we are call ‘sapiens’? Is it from rigorous testing, or merely an argument from authority?
Our hubris and solipsism seem to explain better than either science or religion why our flawed socio-political structures are what they are.
Perhaps the evolution of AI will guide us beyond our limited understanding of ourselves. Or perhaps our little species will go extinct in the way of most forms of life have.
We do seem to have a choice – but can we live with our choices?
@SD,
“If science and religion can agree on one point, it is likely that our perceptions of this world are inaccurate”
My experience with religion is that its practitioners assert truth and find “proof” in texts. My experience as a professional scientist for over 40 years is that all scientific conclusions are provisional and subject to falsification by experiment.
It amuses me to see people who obviously don’t know how science works critique science and pretend that there’s no daylight between science and religious belief. You can easily spot them when they refer to the conclusions of science as “belief.”
To be fair, most non-scientists acquire their expertise in science from the popular press, where the reporters know nothing about how science works. They quote the scientists as though they were oracles, rather than summarizing the evidence, which is hard and doesn’t make for engrossing copy. tl;dr
Are there scientists who exceed their remit and make arguments from authority instead of arguments from evidence? Sure. Look downthread for several examples that I posted. That’s not the fault of science, that’s the fault of men (they’re mostly men) who came to see science as secular religion.
maybe not entirely fair. i’ll restrict myself to reasserting that “science” is “belief” in the hands of most people who think they are being scientific.
oh, darn, i did it again. i obvously don’t know any more about “most” than Joel does. i should have said “many” or “some”
or “there exists an X such that X is …” but then I’d be pretending to be a logician.
Silva:
As I find them, read them, and attempt to make a part of them more of my own, and attributing, I post them. Joel has been a long time commenter. You will probably see more of him in the future.
Absolutely understood, Joel. Yet, and I think this is the key point, your personal experience of both science and religion is an extremely limited sample of what is and has been occurring only in the present. Our misunderstandings of how the world actually works is indeed the fault of men (humanity), and no matter how well versed one may be in modern science, the view of ANY individual human is, by definition, incomplete and therefore, ultimately inaccurate. And by the logic of infinites, the combined views of any size population are also incomplete. We are animals that live and work within a world of limited knowledge, and at some point, our vast ignorance requires us to rely on our faith in what we think we know. To paraphrase Shakespeare, the fault lies not in our science, or our religion, but in ourselves.
Religion likely began in our ape brains as an attempt to explain what was not well understood. Possibly even before we had fully acquired spoken language. As such, it is likely the precursor to what we now call science, and used the same tool of telling non-believers that their understanding of “reality” was not accurate. I am not suggesting that religion has ever been “right” – simply that, like science, they often claim that those who do not adhere to their understanding of how the world works were “not right”. I would also suggest that both science and religion were correct to make that claim – although by my logic above, that claim is quite trivial.
The provisionality of modern science is probably one key part of why current science is often more “accurate” than current religion. The other being our technological advances in the ability to observe and measure our world.
However, your reliance on falsifiability as the key to scientific knowledge, while understandable and very powerful, ultimately rests on Popper’s ideas, and is not as solid a foundation as you may think, hope, or believe. Also, the continuing tensions between the Newtonian, Einsteinian, and quantum theories put assertions of the “proofs” of those critical forms of science far beyond the reach of most of the apes with whom we share this planet – which for all intents and purposes, makes them articles of faith for all but the hyper-initiated priests of modern science.
Hubris and solipsism seem to me to be deeply ingrained in the rise of our particular species of plains apes. Uncontrolled, they may also be a primary cause of our extinction. Or, on a slightly more optimistic note, they may prompt the evolution of a new branch of homo – homo technica?
@SD,
Thanks for your comments. I don’t think they falsify anything I posted.
While I’m not a theologian and have not surveyed in depth every religion on the planet, I have yet to encounter a religion whose core tenets can be falsified by experiment. While there may be limits to the original Popperian definition of science, the idea that a scientific theory is one that can be tested and potentially falsified by experiment is (a) the best I’ve seen so far and (b) has sustained science. In science, there is no such thing as “proofs,” only the weight of evidence.
I agree with S. J. Gould, that science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria. To pretend that science is “belief” in the sense that the leap of faith demanded by religion is “belief” is bothsidesism. It appeals to a misplaced sense of fairness, but belies the core differences.
Joel, it is the hubris and solipsism of your position that, for me, has the effect of falsifying the idea of “science” as the sole arbiter of truth. It is because “science” is based only on the weight of evidence that scientists are required to make their own leaps of faith. For me, as I think for you, these leaps are much smaller, and far more firmly grounded in reality, than the leaps made by religious devotees – but however small, they are articles of faith that what we have learned so far will remain true in the future. Which is somewhat odd for scientists, since our scientific past is littered with counter-examples.
There is not really any such thing as “science” – there are only flawed individual human animals pursuing a dream of certainty in an inherently uncertain existence. Some of them are very organized, and very, very good at what they do – but what each of them do is, by conscious design, very, very limited. There are some mechanisms for coordinating these efforts, and increasingly we are finding benefit in pursuing interdisciplinary studies. But there is no overarching theory of “science” – there are many disciplines, and there are many contradictions across disciplines. There is the scientific method of experimentation and falsification (which has generally worked so far, but not in every instance) – but by its very nature, this leads to a fragmented picture. Which disconcerts the uninitiated to no end.
There are many “religions”, each organized in their own ways and each with their own theology espousing a grand theory of everything. I do not advocate for any of them, partly because they lack the amazing tool of the scientific method. I simply acknowledge that there appears to be in our species, in our brains, an impulse toward what we call religious belief, which pushes us to find answers to questions of ethics and morality. Why would brain structures evolve to do that, if it was not somehow, at some point, critically important to individual and/or species survival?
Gould’s assertion suggests that these questions do not overlap with scientific endeavor, which to me is a rather absurd proposition, since human brains are what drive the scientific method. I would also point out that the scientific method has yielded a number tools that may enable us to extinguish all life on the planet – but has not provided any significant guidance on the question of the degree to which we should choose to use those tools. (Perhaps our science has developed to the point where more overlap is an evolutionary imperative?)
The scientific method is an immensely powerful tool; when millions of flawed human animals pursue it in concert, it may be capable of helping our species survive indefinitely. But neither “science” nor the scientific method currently illuminate questions of social values – it is limited to allowing comparisons of quantities, but does not, and cannot, speak to qualities.
The choice of human actors to pursue one course rather than another is not a scientific question, but it is a question must be answered, by each individual, frequently, and continually. I would submit to you that the individual’s ultimate sense of the quality of their own existence depends far more on these decisions than on any information that can be derived from the scientific method.
But perhaps you are not comfortable with the idea that an individual’s feelings about their own existence are important enough to warrant consideration or provide significant information as part of the scientific enterprise. Understandable, but considerably less than a rigorous scientific approach. IMHO the weight of the existing evidence in the human world strongly suggests otherwise.
@SD,
” science” as the sole arbiter of truth.”
Please point out where I posted that science is the sole arbiter of truth. Take all the time you need.
“But perhaps you are not comfortable with the idea that an individual’s feelings about their own existence are important enough to warrant consideration or provide significant information as part of the scientific enterprise. Understandable, but considerably less than a rigorous scientific approach. IMHO the weight of the existing evidence in the human world strongly suggests otherwise.”
Please point out where I said anything about whether I’m “comfortable” with “an individuals feelings.” Take all the time you need.
I’m not interested in feelings, I’m interested in facts and evidence. I’m interested in how the scientific process leads us to provisional conclusions that can improve our understanding of the world. YMMV.
Ah! My choices of language are perhaps not functioning as intended. I come from a far less technical background in the humanities.
In re “science” as the sole arbiter of truth, it is merely my overall impression of your ideas as rather strongly expressed above. It is helpful to know that you may acknowledge some other arbiters of truth which are non-scientific in nature (again, my impression derived from your apparent disclaimer above).
In re being “comfortable” with individual feelings providing significant information to the scientific enterprise, again this was an impression I received from the overall tone and intensity of how your ideas were expressed.
It is not my intention in our colloquy to win an argument, or to establish truth. Allow me to return to the initial question raised in my initial comment:
“How is it then, that we are call[ed] ‘sapiens’? Is it from rigorous testing, or merely an argument from authority?”
My point is that, as human animals, the sole basis of all of our understanding of the factual evidence of which we are aware is the human brain, which evolved along with all other life from the initial conditions on our planet (which itself “evolved” as it were from the initial conditions of the Big Bang – insofar as we actually understand at this point).
It is a fact that within the structures of the human brain, emotions and feelings play a significant role in shaping our understanding of our world. The weight of evidence from neurology suggests quite strongly that our initial reactions to any stimuli are emotional rather than logical.
Like you, I have a high level of trust in the scientific method. However, as a (reasonably well-educated) non-scientist reading the history of science, as well as a limited array of the popular scientific literature (including Dawkins, Gould, Feynman, Greene, Rovelli, James Gleick, Martin Rees, and a relatively broad variety of others) it has seemed to me very clear that human emotional biases exist in some of the core assumptions in “science” – among them, the idea that our species is uniquely “sapient”.
Another core assumption is the idea that we can only derive a sufficiently complete scientific understanding of the world by ignoring our feelings and focusing on objective facts.
I do not know scientifically that these assumptions are incorrect – but I am reasonably confident (i.e. I “feel”) that both these assumption have not yet been scientifically explored in a manner that provides sufficient weight of evidence to allow a reasonable conclusion.
Further, I am not at all certain that either of these assumptions can be subjected to the test of falsifiability.
I recognize completely that my very amateur and didactic scientific education does not hold a candle to a career scientist like yourself.
But I do have a very sincere interest in finding methods of speaking to my non-scientific and sometimes very anti-academic friends and acquaintances about how to bridge the huge chasm in our time between those dedicated to the scientific method, and those who are not.
In that endeavor, an appreciation and understanding of “feelings” is not simply important, it seems to me to be essential to an understanding of how the human animal functions – which animal, I assert, is a significant part of the world that science explores.
Thus, I am particularly interested that your recent comment above suggests that you may not hold “science” to be the sole arbiter of truth. In my endeavor to build bridges, it is always useful to be able to articulate, with confidence, other human disciplines (academic or otherwise), that can be accepted as provisional arbiters of truth. Any help you can provide in that regard would be appreciated.
@SD,
Google is your friend.
“The name Homo sapiens was applied in 1758 by the father of modern biological classification (see taxonomy), Carolus Linnaeus.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Homo-sapiens
@SD,
“How is it then, that we are call[ed] ‘sapiens’? Is it from rigorous testing, or merely an argument from authority?”
It’s a taxonomic designation. The late poet John Ciardi argued that our species should be designated “Homo loquens,” since it is certainly distinguished by speech, if not by sapience.
As for the rest, I am a scientist. I cannot objectively measure feelings, not has humanity been well-served by feelings. I don’t doubt that feelings exist. I have feelings, too. But I don’t debate feelings, any more than I debate taste in art or interpersonal relationships. I find such debates tedious and a waste of my time. YMMV.
Science isn’t the sole arbiter of truth, simply because the conclusions of science are always provisional and subject to falsification by experiment. Science makes not claims of truth. Nor do I trust any discipline or religion that makes such a claim. YMMV.
Hope that helps.
“makes no claims”
Hmm. I will not tax you further, but IMHO your logic, which mirrors the standard response, is both faulty and circular – “science isn’t the sole arbiter” simply b/c it will self-correct, so it really is the sole arbiter?
No reference to the fact that Linnean classifications have quite frequently been shown to be incorrect on the facts?
And feelings are a waste of time? You have my sincere pity. No way to live a life.
I will close by saying that your stated position is likely a very good illustration of why so many non-scientists have such extreme difficulty trusting scientists. Trust, of course, being a feeling that is apparently a waste of time for scientific purposes despite the fact that it is the basis of all social and economic relationships.
SD:
I do not often interject as my field of endeavor is different than yours. Are you not being unprincipled in your critique? Please withhold the Ad hominems.
@SD,
“And feelings are a waste of time? You have my sincere pity. No way to live a life.”
Please point out where I said that feelings are a waste of time. Take all the time you need.
“No reference to the fact that Linnean classifications have quite frequently been shown to be incorrect on the facts?”
You asked “How is it then, that we are call[ed] ‘sapiens’?” I answered your question fully.
“Trust, of course, being a feeling that is apparently a waste of time for scientific purposes”
You obviously know nothing about science or scientists if you believe that.
@SD,
I deleted your last comment. I will not permit personal attacks on the threads that I control. If you have something to say about the topic, even if I don’t agree with it, post it. But the topic of this thread isn’t me, so I won’t allow you to try and make it about me.
(My paraphrase):
“His disciples asked him why he spoke always in parables. He replied “lest the wicked hear, and hearing turn, and I should save them.”
It took me about seventy years to understand that, if I do. On a personal level it has been a much more rewarding subject than that called science which I studied previously. Which does not mean I despise science. Far from it. I just feel sorry for people who are blind to that which they lack.