In the same vein as the post before, some argumentative help when confronted with science doubters. Eliezer rightly points to the problem lying behind calling science into question: it is not suggestive of an overly critical mind - quite the contrary - it is indicative of a mind in search of truth proclaimed by an authority.
Why is criticizing science not also critical? Because science is the institutional embodiment of the critical method. Of course one can (and should) criticize certain practices, conventions, failings, and above all the results delivered by science. But if one does that, one is already following the scientific method - science lives through criticism, it is it’s very essence.
If one says the above system is not any good, one is in essence calling into question the value of critique. Hidden beneath is the wish for certainty, security, authority.
Overcoming Bias: Absolute Authority
Arguments one could employ:
* “The power of science comes from having the ability to change our minds and admit we’re wrong. If you’ve never admitted you’re wrong, it doesn’t mean you’ve made fewer mistakes.”
* “Anyone can say they’re absolutely certain. It’s a bit harder to never, ever make any mistakes. Scientists understand the difference, so they don’t say they’re absolutely certain. That’s all. It doesn’t mean that they have any specific reason to doubt a theory - absolutely every scrap of evidence can be going the same way, all the stars and planets lined up like dominos in support of a single hypothesis, and the scientists still won’t say they’re absolutely sure, because they’ve just got higher standards. It doesn’t mean scientists are less entitled to certainty than, say, the politicians who always seem so sure of everything.”
* “Scientists don’t use the phrase ‘not absolutely certain’ the way you’re used to from regular conversation. I mean, suppose you went to the doctor, and got a blood test, and the doctor came back and said, ‘We ran some tests, and it’s not absolutely certain that you’re not made out of cheese, and there’s a non-zero chance that twenty fairies made out of sentient chocolate are singing the ‘I love you’ song from Barney inside your lower intestine.’ Run for the hills, your doctor needs a doctor. When a scientist says the same thing, it means that he thinks the probability is so tiny that you couldn’t see it with an electron microscope, but he’s willing to see the evidence in the extremely unlikely event that you have it.”
* “Would you be willing to change your mind about the things you call ‘certain’ if you saw enough evidence? I mean, suppose that God himself descended from the clouds and told you that your whole religion was true except for the Virgin Birth. If that would change your mind, you can’t say you’re absolutely certain of the Virgin Birth. For technical reasons of probability theory, if it’s theoretically possible for you to change your mind about something, it can’t have a probability exactly equal to one. The uncertainty might be smaller than a dust speck, but it has to be there. And if you wouldn’t change your mind even if God told you otherwise, then you have a problem with refusing to admit you’re wrong that transcends anything a mortal like me can say to you, I guess.”
As always, these problems arise mostly in a Western context of thought. For an Eastern approach, read for instance the book “The Wisdom of Insecurity” by Alan Watts.
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
Leave a Comment