Smash The System: The Myth of Scientific Objectivity

From Unfocusgroup.org

It is a prevailing belief that science is a rigorous, objective search for fundamental truths about our universe. However, science nowadays is highly systematized, and as such the sciences suffer from orthodoxy and groupthink. The problem is exacerbated by the assumption that peer-reviewed science is beyond reproach. Here I shall argue that the scientific world is not nearly reflective enough and not large enough to challenge its own assumptions in the way that it should, and that the sciences need an intake of fresh thinking that will best come through better education and greater open-ness.

• seems to be a belief that science is an authority - high priesthood
• It's deemed heresy to suggest that peer reviewed science is not what it's cracked up to be, but Peer Review=groupthink
• Rationalism and pragmatism - the idea that if something is "scientific", then it is a search for truth.
• just a model, not a search for truth - science is not a search for fundamental truths
• Scientists are not nearly as reflective as they believe that they are. They tend to assume that peer review is a "safety valve" that stops stupid theories from being published, and that there is sufficient open-ness such that anybody can challenge any theory if they present their evidence correctly. They believe that over time, scientific knowledge will "evolve", in a darwinian manner, towards correctness, and that eventually, we will increase our knowledge of the universe such that the fundamental questions will all be answered.

This does not seem to be happening. Whereas some areas of science have made terrific - albeit incremental - progress, other areas are being ironed out of existence. For example, there seems to be a prevailing belief that human consciousness is all but wrapped up: that consciousness is an illusion that has been created through evolution. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, consciousness is one of the fundamental mysteries of the universe.

In addition, science has yet to understand the true nature of things like magnetism, gravity and matter. Why do they act as they do, and why do they exist at all? Who made the rules? There may come a time whereby we can explain such things in terms of lower-level phenomena, but there seems to be little possibility of a "grand unifying theory" emerging that will wrap it all up. Besides, there would need to be an explanation for why the grand unifying theory holds true, if this is the case.

the world of science is not reflective enough - assumption that peer-reviewed science is beyond reproach, but unfortunately the system is flawed

• the idea is that scientific papers can be challenged - but the closed peer-review process is not a challenging enough environment. Open peer review is the only way. Decisions about scientific papers should not be done by a handful of high priests, but by a wide group of people.
• new people, fresh thinking, better education
• MHRA and their vetting of medical claims = oppressive regulation (e.g http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Safetyinformation/Generalsafetyinformationandadvice/Adviceandinformationforconsumers/Usingherbalmedicines/CON019609)
• progress in the sciences is now more iterative/cautious/incremental, rather than the leaps forward that we have seen in the past. Prevailing belief that we have a lot of things "wrapped up" and now just need to iron out the details, whereas in fact we have mountains of things untouched and undiscovered, because there is little will to change things. E.g. consciousness, mental health. Large Hadron Collider is a rare good thing, but we need more of these things.
• "forensic" truths such as evolution, archaeology etc - a "forensic" truth is a "prediction about the past", or a search for a certain truth. It is different from a "fundamental truth", which is absolute.
  • the existence of fundamental truths is disputable; forensic truths are real. A forensic truth is, for all intents and purposes, true. But a fundamental truth is something that perhaps guides morality e.g. whether humans are conscious. And are dogs sentient beings? If they are, then it is a more fundamental truth and should guide our morality (there are perhaps degrees of fundamental-ness)

Fundamental and Forensic Truths, and Models

The true nature of magnetism is a fundamental truth. The explanation of magnetism in terms of (e.g.) string theory is a model. The theory of evolution is a forensic truth.

Dawkins speaks of genes being the unit of evolution. But the the-ness implies that we are talking about a fundamental truth, whereas in fact we are talking about a model. And models work on multiple levels. There is a prevailing belief in reductionism, but a lot of this is extrapolatory, and hence not reductionism at all, but conjecture about the role of genes etc. There is no conflict between observing behaviour at a group level, and searching for genetic factors. But somewhere along the line, the group behaviour does have rules of its own that are not explained at lower levels. This is because groups have histories and external influences that are far worthier of consideration than the gene-based view which says "either it's a gene, or it's part of the environment". Models need to have explanatory power in order to be useful, and often, the group-based explanation has far better explanatory power.

For example, you could explain the rise of the Beatles in terms of genes and environments. But it's really about the fact that their music was really good.

Science and religion

The distinction between science and religion is overstated. Our understanding of any subject area changes and evolves as time goes on. Any belief system is prone to dogma and ritual. I remember being taught how to write up scientific experiments at school. One was seen as a fool for questioning the procedure, even though I could see massive flaws in the one-size-fits-all methodology (aim-apparatus-diagram-method-results-conclusion) - it was too rigid, and one often had to lie about the aim, results and conclusion in order to get the "right" answer.

Back to Smash The System