Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific
Method,
by Henry H. Bauer
1.
Scientific
Literacy
How are scientists portrayed in TV & Movies?
Describe your High School science experience.
Astrology/Angels/ESP: Is there science there?
Definitions
1) What do we know?
2) How do we know it?
3) Why should anyone (society) care?
Measures
A little knowledge is a bad thing?
Molecule/DNA/Radiation, Earth-Sun
relation, Electrons vs. Atoms
Scientific Approach? Hypothesis/Theory
>> Open minded investigation >>
Controlled
experiments/Observations >> Confirmation?
So why do we need new
theories?
Astrology
ETI (yes) / UFO (no): Why is ufology
not a science?
Achieving scientific literacy
How much knowledge?
Concepts/Phenomena
Textbook learning >> Too much
faith in science for certain knowledge
Must understand: Textbook Science
vs. Frontier Science
STS >> How do we know it? Why
can we not get this from textbooks? Did your HS teacher help you learn this?
Why not?
STS >> Impact of science on
society.
|
Process |
12.1% |
Does this make sense to you? |
|
Facts |
28.1% |
|
|
Impact |
49.9% |
What would this measure
scientific literacy be good for?
1) Better decisions.
2) Economic good, national
progress/security
3) Supplant superstition
4) Rational behavior
5) Ethical attitude
[Does Bauer really discredit these or not?]
Do we want education or indoctrination?
Basically an argument for a liberal
education. What makes for a good education?
What should everyone learn about science? (See Fig. 1)
Process & Impact of Science =
STS (or SCI)
[Unlike other types of knowledge,
apparently a little STS is a good thing…]
Facts are theory-laden (See
rabbit/duck figure.) so we should look beyond these to a deeper
reality/process…
2.
The
So-called Scientific Method
Development: classic
Aristotelian approach, Baconian inductive work, Popper’s falsifiability,
theory-ladenness of facts; Summary of “the myth”
Are chemists not scientists? (Fig. 2)
They have theoretical or
experimental bias, may not compare theory with experiment.
Ex: Chargaff’s failure to see the import of his data (No Nobel for
him!)
Ex: Oscillating reactions need
theoretical support.
Is anyone a scientist?
Relation of theory to facts and data
misunderstood.
Scientists study different aspects of
nature in different ways: Observation vs. Experimentation, differing time
scales, availability of data…
These lead to different cultures, to
diverse views about the nature of knowledge.
Physics vs. Geology, e.g. see
extinction of dinosaurs
“… scientific knowledge is valid as
long as it is not contradicted by nature...”
Diverse aspects of science
See table (Fig 3) for comparison
categories.
Comparison of various sciences:
chemistry, physics, computer science, astrophysics and cosmology,
paleoanthropology, geology
Scientists are human
“…teaching is an art, not a science.”
And “…it cannot all be done by
formulas.”
Genesis of the myth
Fabricated in the 19th
century, see idealized history…
Leads to possibility of advance in any
field; progressive and rational society?
For the truth see Copernican
revolution, also Galileo and Newton.
The epitome of science
Physics treats the most fundamental of
subjects, most mathematical, held up as false ideal.
From myth to ideal
We should not discard the scientific
method, but hold it up as the ideal to keep science “as it ought to be.”
3.
How
Science Really Works
Cooperative action in science: the jigsaw puzzle
Individual effort, cooperation, and a
common goal lead to the end result.
Pseudoscientists work in isolation;
ideologues cannot achieve results.
Cooperative action in science: the filter (Fig. 4)
A long process starts from basic human
traits and produces reliable knowledge.
The scientific method versus the filter (Figs. 5, 6)
Explains why/how textbook science is
different from frontier science.
Disproves the classical view; leads to
imperfect knowledge.
The scientific revolution.
(Fig. 7) From the 17th century on, people began to collaborate,
exchange results and ideas, form societies and publish journals devoted to
science.
Testing hypotheses: alone or
together? One person or group alone cannot both propose a new idea and put
it to the test adequately. See room-temperature fusion…
The diversity of science.
Different science fields require different approaches, language, set of
priorities and scientific values.
Kuhn’s model of scientific
revolutions. Normal science vs. Revolutionary science; the right
person/approach for the right time. Consensus and conservatism and authority
vs. rearrangement or “paradigm shift.”
Science and pseudoscience.
Classical method should apply: yeti, Bigfoot, laetril, UFOs, mindpower,
clairyoyance…See also Nature policy, Mars effect, PEARP, Loch Ness monster,
polywater and. N-rays… Hermit scientist is susceptible to pseudoscience: see
fate of heretics. But status can change over time: acupuncture and ball
lightning vs. alchemy, astrology and creationism. See also Gyorgyi vs. Reich.
Discarding the myth of the scientific method
As the authority of science came to
supersede that of religion, it came to be viewed as infallible (absolute truth)
because based on the scientific method. But truth is based on consensus, hence
not absolute and not guaranteed; the puzzle and filter metaphors help explain…
4.
Other
Fables about Science
Science deals in facts
When science is taken as fact or
certainty, there is no room for doubt.
Science has beliefs based on the best
available evidence, and this can change over time.
Outlandish claims must be weighed
against the evidence too: What is the probability that this is true? Can we fit
it into our present scientific structure? Authority cannot decide this.
Facts are theory-laden. (See
Fig. 1, rabbit-duck.) Facts are based on interpretation and organization of
data, based on a theory or model. [See reality and model…]
Evolution: What are the facts? What is
the theory?
Young-Earth theory: Scientific
estimates have been wrong before, why rely on them?
Scientific belief changes over time.
Is it a fad? Does it change at random?
We are free to believe what we like.
Since science does not provide absolute truth, each case must be judged on its
own merits… But society values science because it is a far more reliable tool
than the alternatives.
Scientific knowledge as a map.
(See Fig. 8.) Science offers a guide to reality, not the real thing itself.
Maps can be reliable even though they are schematic; their substance is not the
same as the real world. Are electrons real? Energy? Maps change even if the
underlying reality does not. They can be used to extrapolate or interpolate
where knowledge is lacking, and are often right even so. However, when this
fails we may enter a revolutionary phase of science, with fundamental new
discoveries.
Successful prediction proves a theory right
Successful predictions as such are not
enough to declare a theory true. The frequency of correctness, the kind of
predictions and their timing are important. When a theory is surpassed by a new
one, those old predictions don’t change. And a theory that does not fit in with
the existing framework (textbook knowledge) can be rejected even though
it makes some correct predictions.
See phlogiston, heliocentricity,
Velikovsky…
Predictions must be transparent;
anyone competent in the field must be able to replicate them, so psychic
predictions are not scientific.
Science is (or should be) open-minded
As in any process of evolution, there
is a tension between innovation and conservatism in science. See Fred Hoyle and
Carl Sagan.
The known, the known unknown
and the unknown unknown are related to different kinds of science:
textbook science, normal science and revolutionary science. See Thomas Kuhn.
Science is reliable because of its
resistance to new ideas.
Many unorthodoxies appear but most
fail to catch on and disappear. Those that remain and become accepted often
eventually receive high praise, but not until they are securely in place.
Science is reliable because it
is conservative, and no one can make others read their work…
Scientists should…
… Publish all their data
… Give credit to those they build
upon
Scientists cannot but make judgments
Science is self-correcting
Science needs a code of conduct
(ethics) for its practitioners. Otherwise the corrective mechanisms cannot
work. See Hippocratic Oath, Reformation,
If success were based on following the
scientific method, such a code would not be needed, and scientific progress
could be achieved on demand. The evidence is to the contrary…
Great scientists can speak for science
Deep knowledge or accomplishment in
one field does not automatically grant a scientist knowledge, let alone wisdom,
in al fields of human activity, even in other areas of science. Scientists are
not “wise men” whose advice should be heeded in all areas of life.
5.
Imperfections
of the Filter
Scientific map is imperfect because of a) misleading parts, b) lack
of objectivity, and c) imperfect institutions.
Objectivity versus consensus
Scientific knowledge is consensual,
not objective; yet it is not arbitrary.
The test against reality is not as
direct as in the classical method.
Reality therapy provides
understanding of natural phenomena; human explanations and interpretations can
and do vary with time. This reality is communal, not self-administered; and it
is a gradual lengthy process.
Human characteristics
Reality therapy is also an ideal,
since we must take advantage of it if it is to work.
Different people pursue science
differently, may even be incompetent or dishonest.
Champions of a theory are unable or
unwilling to attack it; but competitors and detractors are motivated to prove
it wrong. The skepticism and objectivity that is the ideal of science must be
achieved collectively, not by each individual.
Robert Merton’s norms: a)
Scientific knowledge must be universal; b) It has to be shared or it cannot be
tested; c) Discoveries must be scrutinized with skepticism; and d) Science has
to be disinterested (no ideologues). Can individual scientists adhere to these
norms?
What are realistic standards of
conduct for scientists? At least one can demand honesty and integrity.
However, the growth of science as an institution has led to numerous conflicts
of interest; even scientists have to make a living… (See Fig. 9 for industrial
science.)
Conflicts of interest
Conflicts of interest are commonplace
but should be minimized to advance scientific knowledge. The notion of a merely
“apparent” conflict of interest is not healthy.
Several examples from medical clinical
trials, NIH, General Motors, Congress…
The means are not excused by the ends.
The validity of science requires
integrity and is obscured by self-interest.
Support of science
Today, progress in science can only be
made with substantial financial support.
This gives power to funding agencies
(government, industry) and leads to conflicts of interest.
Pork-barrel projects pit benefits to
constituents versus scientific progress.
Scientific communities
Communities suffering from isolation
and homogeneity are more likely to fall into error. The need for scientists
to explain themselves to the overlapping scientific communities serves to eliminate
fragile views and administer reality therapy.
Sources of isolation and homogeneity:
geography, backward technology, industrial motives, national security concerns
and other government fiat.
Progress is often made when isolation
is broken.
Bias and progress in science
Ideological control can bring science
to a standstill: Nazi and Soviet regimes, US government are examples. If
scientists are not allowed by society to pursue knowledge openly and without
bias, progress comes to a halt.
Scientists should be as varied as
possible, as long as they are honest, motivated, and willing to submit to
reality therapy. Seek affirmative action for the right reasons…
6.
Consequences
of Misconceptions
“When the nature of science is misconceived, inevitably the
influence of science on everyday affairs is also misconceived.”
Frontier science and textbook science
Textbook science is uncontroversial,
reliable and has a great range of applicability; but it is not very exciting.
Frontier science is very exciting but unreliable. We should not confuse the
two.
Fraud. When science becomes the
arbiter in society for what is truthful or not truthful, scientific fraud
becomes “treason.” But false science cannot persist. Before anything becomes
textbook science, it must be tested and seen to be reliable by the community.
Accusations of fraud against
historical figures are inappropriate: Ptolemy, Newton, Mendel.
Modern instances of fraud have no
lasting consequences: Piltdown man, child psychology, Christian Science, homeopathy…
But wishful thinking leads us to accept quackery.
Government efforts to mandate
immediate exposure of scientific falsehood are doomed: Office of Scientific
Integrity, 1984. We want to believe science is different, but fraud should be
dealt with as in any other profession.
Scientific fraud can have no lasting
harm, but only because of “eternal vigilance,” the competence and integrity of
the community.
Medicine. Here the distinction
between textbook and frontier science is crucial. New drugs and procedures are
risky, and only become safer through lengthy clinical trials. There is a
conflict of interest between caring for patients and acquiring new knowledge,
so people should know where a treatment lies, between textbook and frontier.
See AIDS , UK pigeons and rats, thalidomide, spirit healers, psychic surgeons,
iridology, reflexology, homeopathy.
“Do no harm.” The less reliable the
knowledge, the greater the risk.
Scholarship about science. Internalist
scholars see science as reflecting nature, not the qualities of individual
scientists or their communities; this is true of textbook science. Externalists
view science as the product of the scientists’ biases, wishes and social
environment; this is true of frontier science. To truly understand the nature
of science, it must be seen that both views are correct to some extent.
Science in the news. The news media have little interest in
textbook science; they focus on the new and exciting, the latest and greatest.
This is the part of science that is least likely to be true, but the audience
usually lacks the background required to judge the story in its proper context.
Public policy. “The myth of the
scientific method, and the failure to distinguish between textbook and frontier
science have their most consequential practical effect in governmental
actions.” Scientists’ advice is not
always a reliable guide to action: Edward teller and Star Wars, Superconducting
Super Collider, cold fusion… The
frontier is not as reliable as the textbooks, and science and technology are
not the same thing.
Science and technology
The practical difference between pure
and applied science is not commonly understood. This leads to ill-advised
policies such as the “war on cancer.”
Basic research. There is a
desire by society to support creative, innovative science; in the spirit of
great scientific revolutions of the past. But this is not easily done by
government agencies, and the results are unpredictable. Private groups are more
likely to do this: starter grants, prizes for past accomplishments…
Goal-oriented research. The
widespread faith in the power of science leads to unrealistic expectations.
Technology can be developed by applied science only when pure science has
supplied the requisite knowledge base. The “war on cancer” fails for lack of
basic biological knowledge, as did the efforts of the alchemists to turn base
metals into gold.
Controlling science. Applied
science can be controlled, provided the necessary knowledge is already at hand,
but the outcome of pure science is in principle uncontrollable. See Galileo,
Nazi physics, Lysenkoism, “alternative” science. “We cannot escape the
realities of nature.”
Trans-science. Some public policy
issues are “trans-scientific,” even if they are framed in technical language:
nuclear power plant safety, Star Wars defense system… Neither scientists, nor a
specific bit of scientific knowledge can answer these questions.
Technology. Most of the public
discussion about science actually deals with technology: medicine, pollution…
Science is universal, whereas technology is particular. Science has continuity over time that
technology has not. Technology is bound up with tangible things, whereas
science is pure knowledge, insubstantial. Technology can be kept secret, whereas
science must be open and public to thrive. Science and technology have
different criteria for whether something gets done. Technology can be
controlled by society, but science cannot.
Social and behavioral science
The social sciences differ from
the natural sciences, but not just or primarily in the complexity of their
subject. Use of the scientific method is not he proper criterion to call
something a science. Reality therapy is rarely conclusive in social sciences;
therefore a consensus is not reached. The breadth and reliability of knowledge
is lacking in the social sciences.
Consensual knowledge
Consensual understanding
Reality therapy
The knowledge filter
The scientific method
Not science, yet worthy
7.
In
Praise of Science
Just because science is
carried out by human beings does not imply that is essentially the same as
other such activities: politics, art, fashion… We learn nothing about science
by pointing this out.
Vive la difference!
Science is different because
effective consensus can be reached by voluntary means, using reality therapy.
In other fields, this has not been achieved, “even through warfare and
torture.” The evidence is so plain that, in the end, no rational person can
dispute it. In other fields disagreement goes on without end.
Science is not scientism
Early success led to the belief
that science could lead to true knowledge in any field, through the scientific
method. Since this has not occurred, some believe that scientific knowledge is
not true, but a subjective human construction. The evidence shows that science
has created reliable knowledge over a great area, and is quite robust. This has
come together with great advances in technology; still, the most important
benefits of science are cultural, not material.
Scientific literacy and education in science
Scientific literacy is important
to understand the intellectual and religious history of humanity. It involves
knowing the difference between textbook and frontier science, scientific and
trans-scientific questions. Science keeps people honest, it is “endlessly
instructive,” it is excellent training for the mind, it benefits us materially
and it is entertaining, it is a part of our cultural heritage and an investment
in our future.
The scientific method as an ideal
It is worth discussing and holding
as an ideal. It is not natural for humans to pursue knowledge in a
“dispassionate, objective, systematic way,” so we need all the help we can get:
our preconceived beliefs are hard to dislodge. History of science shows that we
can learn to do otherwise, to some degree, to be less illogical and to fool
ourselves less.
“The scientific method presents an
ideal eminently worth striving for. Not only in science but in all fields.”
Even in the social sciences, reality therapy may eventually prove effective.
Even though it is a myth, it is not
worthless: “… Myth is a vital ingredient of human civilization.” Science is not
perfect but it is the best that we have, to go about learning more.