So, H1N1 is officially a national emergency, and vaccine production is not where it should be. Count as unworried Bill Maher, who, on his show last week told a flabbergasted Bill Frist that people should not take the vaccine because it is net harmful. In fact, the questioning of the scientific establishment by what I'll call populist lay "science" seems to be an, er, epidemic. (Examples include the linkage of other vaccines to autism and most notably the denial of global warming and evolution.) What is the proper role of the lay person when it comes to science?
In my opinion, it's one of complete deferral on scientific matters. However, the laity has an important part to play with respect to evaluating the social impacts of science. This part is especially important when enthusiasm might lead scientists to sweep larger social considerations under the rug. For example, lay worries about the potential moral pitfalls of human gene therapy strike me as valid and legitimate. I also think it's appropriate for laypersons to weigh in on economic considerations relating to science, particularly if it's government science we're talking about. Most of us would consider cost-benefit objections to, for example, a manned mission to Mars, to be legitimate (regardless of whether they're right or wrong). We should also criticize and question scientists if claims they offer are scientific really aren't. A great example of this is overutilization in the health care system; it is legitimate to worry that the amount of care prescribed by a physician is motivated by profit rather than expertise.
But the fact of the matter is most of us don't have enough expertise to evaluate the actual science of vaccines (less so global warming, and less less so evolution). In fact, it seems that the lay questioning of these theories can often be traced to some other ideological commitment - skepticism (bordering on paranoia) of the drug establishment on Maher's part or Christian doctrine on the part of evolution doubters.
I suppose I am granting scientists almost priest-like status. Bad when that's combined with the fact that the scientific establishment has, in the past, believed things that are just plumb crazy. But the operative word is "almost." Science contains within it the self-limiting safety valves of verifiability and falsifiability, unlike religion. Science is prepared to be wrong.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Am I just getting old, or like Glenn Beck (yeah I said "Glenn Beck") or do I remember a better time, when journalism was more fact than opinion? When guests came from learned educations and impressive credentials?
I was glad to read this piece, and I am hopeful that others are as annoyed at the wasted air time given to opinion.
The "Global Warming Debate" does not exist. There is a presentation of the measurements, statistics, margin of error... Done deal. What debate?
Debate policy. That has room for opinion. The "What to do about it?" part. It's inaccurate to label the ongoing circus as a "Global Warming Debate." It's embarrassing for America.
Same with the "Evolution VS Creationism Debate."
The real harm here is that news organizations that, for entertainment purposes, give air time to argumentative opposers of facts, are enabling the public to put off embracing positive change because of costs or laziness.
Regardless, I miss what I perceive as a time when news was more informative and less dramatic.
As much as I'm a fan of science, I have a fundamental disagreement with the position you're espousing. However, it may come down to a slight modification of what you argue. Where science engages in the scientific method, including repeatable, verifiable experiments that can easily be duplicated by anyone, I would largely agree with what you say. Anywhere else, you've completely lost me.
Scientists are human, and subject to the same tendencies, desires, feelings, and beliefs that we all have. Inevitably, where strict scientific method is not followed, opinion must and does reign. We can assign greater weight to sceintists than the general population, but sometimes their opinions are nothing more than that, or are based on horribly faulty data.
You acknowledge science's "crazy" behavior in the past, but what's to say they all of that is over? Moreover, where scientists disagree, who should we assume is right? Though Freud is credited with founding psychoanalysis, many of his theories are completely disregarded in the field today. Though Quantum Physics is widely accepted today, it wasn't 20-30 years ago. There are still highly respected scientists who disagree with everything from the relationship between dinosaurs and birds, expansion and contraction of the universe or the dissipation of black holes, and yes, Cowboy Wisdom, the extent of anthropogenic global warming.
So how, exactly, are we supposed to "defer" to science on these kinds of issues? Do we poll scientists on their opinions? If so, which fields of expertise qualify to be included? How many degrees would you need, or how many papers would you have to publish to be included? And keep in mind, if science is truly self-correcting, those in the minority today could easily be espousing generally accepted theory tomorrow. Scientists, like everyone else, tend to prefer their opinion and work over those of others, and especially in some fields, new ideas can take decades from proposal to acceptance.
The way I see it, if you have significant disagreement between groups of scientists, their conclusions are more belief than true science, and their opinions carry little more weight than yours or mine.
Anonymous, we both agree that science gets it wrong from time to time, and further, I somewhat agree with your characterization of scientific disputes.
I do think you've jumped a little too hastily from "there are sometimes disputes" to "let's sometimes be nihilists about science." You want us to be troubled by the three examples of scientific dispute, but there is massive, stable consensus in all those areas now - even anthropogenic global warming. (And the consensus acceptance of quantum theory is significantly older than 20-30 years, I think.) They are all examples of science working.
I couldn't disagree with your paragraphs 4 and 5 more. We ought not to learn the wrong lesson from scientific breakthroughs and revolutions. It is insane to accord disagreement with the same epistemological status as the prevailing consensus, which is what you're doing, or at least suggesting, when you write "And keep in mind, if science is truly self-correcting, those in the minority today could easily be espousing generally accepted theory tomorrow." For every one trend-bucking that turns out to be right (e.g. relativistic physics over Newtonian), there are *many* trend-buckings that go into the rejection pile. Mere trend-bucking is a lousy star to sail your ship by.
Could the minority theory eventually become the prevailing one? Yes. But who are we, as non-scientists, unfamiliar with previous and current work being done in the field, to arbitrate? Theories aren't EITHER pure scientific method or pure opinion. On the frontier, they're informed guesses, informed by expertise. Ignoring this expertise, putting our lay beliefs on the same level as those of the scientists, is at best silly and at worst perilous, especially when it comes to global warming or public health.
Those of you who've read this far, there's a great (long) piece in Wired on the subject of the vaccination "debate" that I highly recommend.
With all due respect, you're missing my point here. Perhaps my "as much as I'm a fan of science" should have been bolded, and I will step back and agree that the majority is not "easily" overturned. However, you're putting words in my mouth when you accuse me of saying "let's sometimes be nihilists about science." That's on the opposite exteme of your "complete deferral on scientific matters," and I fall somewhere in the middle.
Where I still have a problem, and something you have not addressed, is the distinction between science and scientists. Although I'm not a scientist, I happen to be in a field where I meet many and work with many. While most are incredibly intelligent and a credit to their field, for others I would defer to either Pat Robertson or Bill Maher before I would ever think about taking their advice on public policy matters.
Defering to science is like defering to religion. You can't. They don't tell you anything by themselves; they need a conduit. For religion, that can be an Imam, Preacher, Rabbi, or a holy book; for science, it's scientists. Acceding the kind of power you talk about to any person or group of persons leads inevitably to corruption, and unfortunately, scientists are just as susceptible to it as politicians. If you've read articles from scientific publications with the context of the relationships, turf battles, and fights for funding between those who write, you'll see a lot that is science, and a lot that's not.
Essentially, this is my problem with your argument: It's a lovely notion to defer to science in amoral matters of public policy, but I don't see how it can be practically viable.
I'd like to quickly address a couple of your other points. First, I completely disagree with Bill Maher on vaccines (the swine flu vaccine will no doubt save tens of thoursands), but it's hard not to see where it's coming from. If "science" develops a drug, bought and paid for by profit-seeking pharmaceutical companies, how can you safely say there aren't politics involved? Science has saved lives, but it's also cost them, and it's this fear that drives belief. People die from vaccines, and drugs that have not been fully tested (Thalidomide, for example) cause all kinds of problems.
Second, I honestly don't want to start a debate on global warming here, but I think as supporters we need to be a lot less hasty in declaring that the debate "does not exist" or that there is "massive consensus." By your own words, there is a process in science to get the right answer, yet your personal decision to declare the question answered seems to contradict your entire argument.
While the scientific data on scientists' views is spotty, I'd refer you to a 2008 survey of 489 climate scientists by Robert Lichter at George Mason. You'll obviously find a lot to support our side in this, but I'd point to the following from the survey that I think backs up my position:
"A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not 'within the range of natural temperature fluctuation,'" "Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a 'fully mature' science, but 51% describe it as 'fairly mature,' while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science," and "Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence."
As I said, the extent of anthropogenic global warming is still up for debate. Please, if you have "massive" consensus for this view, I'd love to see it. We'll get it eventually, I believe, but I don't think we're there yet.
I sense that we are driving towards a consensus of our own. You are right in saying I should clearly distinguish science from scientists. When I used "scientists" in my original post, I meant scientists writ large, i.e. science. Therefore, let me clarify: I'm not advocating that we defer to science on public policy matters - as I stated in the original post, the social, economic, and moral impacts of science are things we all can legitimately and should weigh in on. Where I do think we defer to science is on the truth/validity of scientific propositions, e.g. "if x percentage of y population is inoculated against swine flu, we should expect z infection rate" (I don't even know if that's the right concept/syntax, I'm that much of a non-expert).
I'm not making much of a claim about the debate that might occur between you and the individual dumb scientist from your anecdote (although I might, if the debate is about science and not public policy, since s/he has expertise and you don't). I've no doubt at all that scientists individually have personalities, grudges, biases towards their own work etc. But science on the whole is equipped to deal with those things (equipped namely and mainly by peer review and the generally accepted objective of, well, objectivity). Because of this, to my ear "acceding power...corruption" sounds quite overdramatic.
I fully grant that actually identifying exactly what the consensus on a particular topic can prove elusive. But the question I brought up is primarily philosophical - whether a lay person's judgment on a scientific matter can be epistemologically justified. An area where there is actual consensus, e.g. the efficacy of swine flu vaccine, is a useful one in which to look for the answer.
In other words, I'm not so much looking for the explanation behind Maher having his belief (I speculated what it was in the original post) as I am the theoretical justification of the belief. And I don't think he has one.
I agree completely with your last comment. Leaving science to scientists makes perfect sense to me. Any notion of giving them (or anyone else not voted in) control over public policy is where I took exception, and it sounds like I read far more into your post than intended.
Post a Comment