Well, obviously I’ve been busy, as I see it has been nearly a year since my last post. Very sorry about that! I will try to do better (if anyone cares).
That said, I’ve no shortage of ideas for essays, so hopefully I can maintain a pace of at least one per month from here on out.
One subject that has been percolating in my mind for many years now is that of science and its bastard stepchild, technology. I’ve had a few things to say about technology here—this is, after all, a tech blog, sort of—but little to say about the “science” behind it.
Let’s correct that oversight.
Dave’s not here
For half a decade or so, I had a very good friend by the name of David. In many ways, he and I were opposites, but in important ways we were on the same page. And the ways in which we agreed were ways in which we were almost alone in our beliefs.
This tends to make for tight friendships.
Eventually, we talked ourselves out and parted ways, but before we did, some striking differences came to the fore. One of these was our individual views on science.
Dave believed that science is a religion. I agree. But we differed on why.
The fulcrum was the scientific method. I am pretty sure that David doesn’t really understand the method—and that he doesn’t really want to. One of the things I learned about David over the years is that he had very strong emotional ties to certain perspectives.
He could be brilliantly analytical. He wrote, frankly, the best political essays I’ve ever read. And I’ve read a lot of essays. But, as with most people, there were certain topics where emotion won out and it was pointless to argue with him.
The scientific method is perfect … theoretically
My argument—my disagreement—with David is that what he called “science” and decried was not actually science at all.
Science is the product of the scientific method properly applied.
David thought that all science was religious bullshit because … well, because it just is. So the scientific method was also bullshit. But I argued that most (not all) science is religious bullshit because so-called “scientists” mostly aren’t scientists at all.
That is, most people who work in “science” and call themselves scientists are actually charlatans to various degrees. And the reason this is so is because they do not correctly apply the scientific method. And most of them know that they are cheating, but they have compelling reasons to cheat.
Most laypeople have no clue what the scientific method is or how it works. If they know about it at all, then they think that it determines whether an hypothesis is true. That’s wrong.
The scientific method determines whether an hypothesis is false. The idea is that by eliminating false answers, we can work steadily toward a better and better approximation of the truth.
Note: I did not say toward the truth. I said toward a better and better approximation of the truth.
If you have something that is clearly falsifiable, but after multiple attempts you are unable to prove it false, well then it might just be true.
Most people have binary brains
Sadly, most people have binary brains. That is, they see things as either one thing or another. The idea that there might be a continuum along which a thing might be partly one and partly the other is painful to them. They prefer to push things to the extremes.
All or nothing.
I have had countless arguments with humans in which I have tried without success to convince them to back off from one or another pole a little. But if I tell them that I do not fully agree with one pole, they immediately claim that I am defending the opposite pole.
We can see this all over social media these days. Some people and ideas (and even nations) have been demonized and others lionized. If you point out either that the lionized nation has done some bad things, or that the demonized nation has done some good things (or didn’t do some of the bad things), then you are immediately tarred as a bad guy.
Again, it’s all or nothing.
There are only two options in their minds: hero or Hitler. If I do manage to coax them off the ledge, they will say something such as, “Well, of course, he wasn’t perfect! No one is.”
But the truth is that they will immediately revert to believing that he is/was indeed perfect. There is no middle ground. Everything else goes down the memory hole.
So when you tell most people that the scientific method does not produce truth but only an approximation to the truth (and then only when done properly), they just don’t get it. Either “science” is true, or it isn’t. Right?
But this is the antithesis of the scientific method, which never claims that something is absolutely true or false.
Scientists, especially the good ones, struggle with this all the time. If you actually listen to them, then you will find them saying regularly, “No, that’s not what I said.” That is the sound of a scientist trying to explain shades of gray to a black and white mind. Good luck.
The method is not the problem
This is where David and I parted ways.
I said that the scientific method is the best tool we have for approaching the truth. Because it is. But that most of what passes as “science” is the result of shocking misuse of the tool.
In fairness, the scientific method is an ideal, not a reality. In theory it works perfectly to move us steadily forward in our understanding of the world. But in practice, it is far from a perfect tool.
Partly this is a flaw in how humans must use the method. Because of our finite brains, we tend to apply the method by isolating factors. If we are testing A, then we try to hold B to Z constant. This is the only way in which we can determine which consequences are directly the result of changing A.
But that’s not how the universe works. Nothing is ever really in isolation. Everything is connected. There is always a context. And this context has a significant effect on what happens.
Also, there are combined effects. Maybe A + B is greater than just the sum of A and B.
We can test this, too, but we can’t test every possible combination of factors. That number is infinite or nearly so. And as the universe is in a state of constant change, what works today might not work tomorrow.
The upshot is that the outcome of the scientific method is always and at best an approximation of the truth under very specific and limited circumstances. We need to keep that in mind continually.
What this means is that what we believe today might be updated tomorrow. That doesn’t mean we were “wrong” today, just that we weren’t as right as we might be tomorrow.
And sometimes we actually go backwards. It’s not a steady forward progress. There are dead ends and blind alleys.
Humans cannot do science
We just can’t.
One major reason is cognitive bias. How many cognitive biases have we uncovered? It must be hundreds by now. And there is little we can do to work around them.
These biases corrupt our experiments regardless of our best intentions. We can work around this a bit by having many different teams from different cultures and worldviews repeat the same experiments, but that’s time consuming and politics comes into play.
But then politics is involved in every human endeavor. So every scientific experiment takes place in a political context. Does anyone really think that we can ignore that context?
And every bit as powerful as the political context is the economic context. Most of the “science” done today is heavily biased by economic concerns, generally with regard to what kind of technology might come out of that science.
You can see this very clearly in the health industry, where there is plenty of funding to extend and preserve the IP of drugs but little money to find cures. Mitigation, especially if expensive, is a guaranteed steady source of profits. Cure a disease and you get one big bang and then nothing.
And for all the talk of science for science’ sake, it is obvious that the major funding sources are really only interested in science that leads to new and profitable technologies.
Finally, there is the human element. Scientists are humans. Shocking, I know. And humans are mediocre. Most teachers are mediocre. Most lawyers are mediocre. Most doctors are mediocre. Why do we keep lying to ourselves that scientists are somehow an exception? Most humans are mediocre. It’s the definition of mediocre!
And humans have all sorts of motivations. Some seek fame and prestige. Some want to get rich. Some have ideas to which they are wedded and are determined to “prove” true. And all are always worried about funding.
I have worked with scientists on multiple occasions, and in every instance I watched as they cheated a bit. Some more, some less, but if the data wasn’t there and they were in danger of losing their funding, then they “found” the data. I watched as data that contradicted their findings disappeared while other data was highlighted. Cherry picking, we call it.
Was this egregious? Not in the instances I saw, although plenty such instances have been revealed in the media. But it was consistent. And there were always rationalizations provided for why it was “OK” to do what they were doing.
The media isn’t helping
Even when the science is good, the media doesn’t help. The media is interested in audience numbers. After all, audience is what they’re selling. Within limits, anything that increases audience is good and anything that doesn’t is bad.
What those limits are vary depending on the positioning of that organization. A peer-reviewed journal might (might) be a bit tighter than the New York Times, which is probably considerably tighter than National Enquirer. Some organizations appear to have no limits at all.
So even when the science is done well, the media may present it in a way that gets it all wrong. At the very least, the media tend to push everything to one or the other pole.
The consequence of this is that the lay public rushes from one belief to another, with little understanding of why they believe what they believe. And those who reject “science”, like my old friend, David, often end up believing the opposite of whatever “science” says simply because it’s the opposite.
None of these are good approaches to living.
To make all this clear with my former friend, David, I tried to make a distinction between science in theory and science as it is actually practiced. I used a capital to distinguish the latter: science is the real thing; Science is what the media sells.
Why this all sucks
David refused to acknowledge the distinction I was making. Science was bullshit in his view. The problem with this is that, despite all its flaws, without science or, at least, Science we have no honest measure for determining what is likely true and what is likely not.
Obviously, the closer we can move Science toward science the better. But even mediocre Science is better—usually—than believing whatever you want to believe.
Sadly, look around. Science has taken such a beating in Western society lately, albeit some of it well deserved, that we are now in a post-science society. Anyone can make any claim, no matter how outrageous, and we are bound not only to take such claims seriously without evidence, but to treat carefully-researched, evidence-based science as just another opinion.
Science is never opinion because if it were, it would be opinion, not science. By definition!
Most people have little or no understanding of science, so the destruction of the idea of expertise (the subject of a coming essay) means a regression back into superstition and conspiracy lunacy. I have argued here, for example, about how absurd many of the claims of the “9/11 Truthers” are.
Of course, a few of their claims might have some merit. But you can’t say that. If you grant them a few points, readers immediately rush to the “true” pole and believe all the nonsense. The sad consequence is that when discussing such issues, one can’t afford to give an inch.
We have so many problems as a species, many of which—climate change, nuclear war, pollution, etc.—are potentially extinction-level issues. But we are helpless to do anything about them because we can’t even have an intelligent conversation about the issues.
Both sides—both sides—refuse to acknowledge anything that contradicts their emotionally-held beliefs. Stalemate. But remember, stalemate means game over, and no one wins.
Science, done properly, and tempered by wisdom—another human trait sorely lacking in our modern world—is our only hope of survival either individually or as a species. To survive, we must learn how to distinguish real science from “Science” as entertainment and political/ideological nonsense, and we must act on that knowledge. Wisely.