The High Priests of Science
From Unfocusgroup.org
Originated by Brendan Fernandes
Science is a well-established school, and suffers from orthodoxies as much as any other system of thought. However, the problem with scientific orthodoxies is that they tend to go largely unnoticed and unchallenged.
Contents |
Foreword
Note that I am not advocating any hippie ideas against science. The purpose of this article is to point out the current pitfalls in scientific and academic thinking, and to explore ideas for improving them.
The advantages of dogma
Although this article is anti-dogma, there are reasons why dogma prevails. These include:
- Dogmatic beliefs are more easy to teach. It is hard to teach people to question everything, because they go a bit nuts in the process.
- Dogmatic beliefs lead to zealotry, which is in many ways advantageous for advancing a cause.
- There are always going to be people who are a bit slow, and so need teaching things in simple terms and parables.
Darwinism applied to scientific theories
A lot of the problem is due to prevailing beliefs within the scientific world regarding Darwinism, and unwavering faith in the “scientific method” as an all-powerful force that weeds out unworkable or “unfit” theories, in favour of stronger, “fitter” theories. The trouble is that this is not the case in practice, because the scientific priesthood largely controls how people think.
Darwinism works in nature because natural processes occur over millions of years and in a large enough environment and with a large enough candidate set for change to happen. Candidates are tested in a large enough environment to effect true selection. Unfortunately, scientific theories often do not always undergo rigorous testing in the environment. Rather, they may either be rejected out of hand by the high priesthood, or accepted without question because they sound plausible and in line with current scientific dogma. This process is known as “peer review”, and is highly revered amongst scientists. But it is just as flawed as any other selective process that relies on human judgement.
I would suggest that all first-year science undergraduates should read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. This is not, as some suggest, an attempt at applying the theory of cultural relativism to science. Rather, it describes how science can be just as subject to cultures and orthodoxy, and that it often takes a crisis before people ever re-evaluate theories.
Peer Review
A lot of emphasis is placed on the idea of "peer review". But often, peers don't really get the chance to investigate things as thoroughly as is desirable. I would prefer a more open system of publication of reports plus inclusion of all of the relevant data and log-books, journals etc. A more open peer review system where things can be reviewed by the public at large.
By "data" I mean the raw data, rather than just statistics. Statistics can hide stuff.
Academic Objectivity
It's worth pointing out that academia itself can be quite biased. For example, there's a bias towards over-reporting in order to get funding (known as Publication Bias). There is also a bias towards results that reinforce normal beliefs.
