Galileo Redux - Science and Authority
Over at Reddnight, fellow blogger Chris McCarley posted a follow up to my Galileo and Englightment post below. In the course of relaying some anecdotal examples of people ignoring empirical evidence in favor of party dogma, he included this astute passage:
This is an interesting point which begs further discussion. On a basic level, for many people this is precisely the issue. Which authority to trust? No one person can possibly personally confirm every fact, idea, theory and philosophy in the world.
For some, this leads to the notion that science is just another belief system. However, this notion is false. Once the methods of science are understood, it becomes clear that science is not a belief system, but a collection of methods geared to evaluate hypothesis about the objective world.
Unfortunately, most people do not understand the philosophical underpinnings of science, so while they reflexively believe the majority of scientific facts, they often ignore/suppress whatever facts and theories that are in conflict with their religious, political and ideological beliefs.
But back to the question at hand: I myself have not personally confirmed the heliocentric model, so why do I believe the currently held scientific view that the Sun is the center of our solar system and not the Earth as expert authorities once claimed?
More generally, why do I accept the findings of science orders of magnitude more than I accept “facts” put forth by other authorities and “experts”?
On the most basic level, this trust arises because we live in a world where a lot of everyday evidence exists for concluding that the methods of science (and hence most conclusions) works.
Televisions, cell phones, internal combustion engines, antibiotics and airplanes all validate that scientific assertions such as the theories of electromagnetic waves, thermodynamics, micro-biology and fluid dynamics are true or correct to a large extent. This is particularly reinforcing for things that we cannot see, hear or feel (such as EM waves), but that science tells us exists. Any initial skepticism disappears when a technology comes along that exploits the phenomenon in question, thus proving beyond a doubt that it exists.
Of course, there are many incorrect scientific theories as well, but we also witness in our everyday lives the fact that science is self-correcting. We see this in news stories about new studies replacing conventionally held beliefs from previous studies. [There is also a lot of bad science, particularly in the "soft" sciences. Subsequently, a lot of bad studies are generated causing much confusion, but over a long period of time, science is generally self-correcting]
Science encourages (demands really) that its practitioners challenge and question every currently held theory. No theory is sacred and, in fact, overturning a long held theory just might bring a scientist accolades and fame.
Conversely, arguments from authority produce very little in the way of practical evidence. Not many of us have witnessed genuine miracles, for example. And in the case of many political and religious leaders there is often evidence (perhaps uncovered years later) that outright lies and deception have been employed. Furthermore, we are taught by experience that questioning or challenging authority (political, religious) is taboo – the direct opposite of science.
The resulting dynamic is interesting. While most rational people learn to reflexively trust scientific knowledge, it seems that learning to be skeptical of arguments from other types of authority is a separate skill that is not always realized. That is why so many people suffer from “cognitive dissonance” when integrating the scientific world view with their political and religious beliefs.
Note, that I said “their” political and religious beliefs. It’s easy to dismiss arguments from authority when the authority in question represents an opposing or foreign ideology or belief system.
Relating this back to the current culture war, note how Conservatives and Liberals accept almost blindly their respective party dogmas, while entirely dismissing dogmas of the other side. They vigorously support empirical data that supports their viewpoint, while mysteriously dismissing or minimizing empirical data that conflicts with their viewpoint. Additionally, the previously described impulse to trust science is such that they also tend to create pseudo-scientific institutions that are biased to support their viewpoint.
If education were improved, then perhaps one day the population will be sufficiently educated in the philosophy of science and critical thought such that empirical data (when it can) will always replace arguments from authority regardless of the source or of one's biases. Then, just maybe, we wouldn’t have to be subjected to quite as much painfully bad public discourse of the kind that currently pollutes our TV and radio airwaves.
"Of course, the situation is complicated by the reality that an individual has to decide who or what to trust. To use the Galileo example, very few people can or have actually confirmed the heliocentric model, even if they have looked through a telescope. Most believe it either based on the current dogma or trust in the arguments of experts."
This is an interesting point which begs further discussion. On a basic level, for many people this is precisely the issue. Which authority to trust? No one person can possibly personally confirm every fact, idea, theory and philosophy in the world.
For some, this leads to the notion that science is just another belief system. However, this notion is false. Once the methods of science are understood, it becomes clear that science is not a belief system, but a collection of methods geared to evaluate hypothesis about the objective world.
Unfortunately, most people do not understand the philosophical underpinnings of science, so while they reflexively believe the majority of scientific facts, they often ignore/suppress whatever facts and theories that are in conflict with their religious, political and ideological beliefs.
But back to the question at hand: I myself have not personally confirmed the heliocentric model, so why do I believe the currently held scientific view that the Sun is the center of our solar system and not the Earth as expert authorities once claimed?
More generally, why do I accept the findings of science orders of magnitude more than I accept “facts” put forth by other authorities and “experts”?
On the most basic level, this trust arises because we live in a world where a lot of everyday evidence exists for concluding that the methods of science (and hence most conclusions) works.
Televisions, cell phones, internal combustion engines, antibiotics and airplanes all validate that scientific assertions such as the theories of electromagnetic waves, thermodynamics, micro-biology and fluid dynamics are true or correct to a large extent. This is particularly reinforcing for things that we cannot see, hear or feel (such as EM waves), but that science tells us exists. Any initial skepticism disappears when a technology comes along that exploits the phenomenon in question, thus proving beyond a doubt that it exists.
Of course, there are many incorrect scientific theories as well, but we also witness in our everyday lives the fact that science is self-correcting. We see this in news stories about new studies replacing conventionally held beliefs from previous studies. [There is also a lot of bad science, particularly in the "soft" sciences. Subsequently, a lot of bad studies are generated causing much confusion, but over a long period of time, science is generally self-correcting]
Science encourages (demands really) that its practitioners challenge and question every currently held theory. No theory is sacred and, in fact, overturning a long held theory just might bring a scientist accolades and fame.
Conversely, arguments from authority produce very little in the way of practical evidence. Not many of us have witnessed genuine miracles, for example. And in the case of many political and religious leaders there is often evidence (perhaps uncovered years later) that outright lies and deception have been employed. Furthermore, we are taught by experience that questioning or challenging authority (political, religious) is taboo – the direct opposite of science.
The resulting dynamic is interesting. While most rational people learn to reflexively trust scientific knowledge, it seems that learning to be skeptical of arguments from other types of authority is a separate skill that is not always realized. That is why so many people suffer from “cognitive dissonance” when integrating the scientific world view with their political and religious beliefs.
Note, that I said “their” political and religious beliefs. It’s easy to dismiss arguments from authority when the authority in question represents an opposing or foreign ideology or belief system.
Relating this back to the current culture war, note how Conservatives and Liberals accept almost blindly their respective party dogmas, while entirely dismissing dogmas of the other side. They vigorously support empirical data that supports their viewpoint, while mysteriously dismissing or minimizing empirical data that conflicts with their viewpoint. Additionally, the previously described impulse to trust science is such that they also tend to create pseudo-scientific institutions that are biased to support their viewpoint.
If education were improved, then perhaps one day the population will be sufficiently educated in the philosophy of science and critical thought such that empirical data (when it can) will always replace arguments from authority regardless of the source or of one's biases. Then, just maybe, we wouldn’t have to be subjected to quite as much painfully bad public discourse of the kind that currently pollutes our TV and radio airwaves.
posted by Alan at 2:30 AM | Permalink |
SITE FEED (XML) 
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home