The Hubris of Science?

[ollypenrice]

I hope so! At French prices it's my round. (Generous as ever!)

Cheers,

Olly

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I'm all for pizza.

And indeed the thread should be called the "hubris of scientists"

Every scientist must walk a balancing act: he must doubt results and conclusions but have strong faith in his ability to get it right (otherwise you would give up). The latter often causes the arrogant image of scientists

[Jim M]

I am of the opinion that scientists will ignore results which don't support the theories which they hold dear. This "hubris" (new word to me, btw) attitude is one which I have often remarked upon regarding doctors, dentists, solicitors, in fact pretty much anyone whom I have personally encountered who has gained a degree at university. So much so, that I am convinced that the 1st lecture all under graduates have to attend is "how to be a smart alec* know it all who can't be told anything 'cos they already know everything that there is to know, and should there be anything which they are unaware of, it isn't worth knowing"

*word changed so as not to upset any young persons who may be reading this.

It's the class of people and the times we live in. Every ones such a jerk.

[drollere]

my first response is -- "hubristic", compared to what? to fundamentalist christians? to politicians? to government bureaucrats? to financial executives? to terrorists? to movie stars?

my sense is that, if you assign all those different types of people to teams and give them colored sweatshirts, and then follow them around to see how often and how far they annoy and disrupt and infringe on the lives of others, the scientists will have a remarkably good record of tending their own garden and minding their own business, and actually adhering to their professional ethics of honesty, evidence, logic and skepticism.

if science is used as the pretext to outlaw anything that ought not be outlawed, tell me, is that the fault of the people who make the science or the people who make the laws? and if you have to put a foundation under the laws, do you want it to be science, or would you prefer religion, or astrology, or political partisanship, or capitalist "get yours while you can", or libertarian "if you're not looking i don't have to warn you to duck"?

the claim that science is "seen as an infallible hyper rational tool" (seen by whom?) may or may not be true, but that sounds like a problem of science education to me. if you ask any scientist whether the scientist thinks that science is infallible, he or she will probably laugh (the polite ones will smile).

i share the poster's qualm about how laws and policy are being made -- i live in the usa! but i don't think science is the issue, really. we've let human population get far out of hand, we've developed institutions that are far too complex and interconnected, we've built an unsustainable expectation of luxury lifestyle, and we have a grossly overdeveloped sense of entitlement to personal freedoms. nobody knows really what is going on, or where we're all headed, but we're pretty clear that time is running out and we have to make hard choices. i think that raises the temperatures, and the rhetoric, on all sides -- but again, science has nothing to do with that.

[drollere]

and ... by the way ... is it possible to get promoted from "vacuum" to "dark energy"? i much prefer that.

[George Jones]

I had hoped to make a more serious post in this thread, but ...

and ... by the way ... is it possible to get promoted from "vacuum" to "dark energy"? i much prefer that.

Just make another 49997 posts.

http://stargazerslounge.com/welcome/77221-user-ranks-post-counts.html

[solarbreeze]

Being new to this forum....ratio-wise I'm still very much in the 95% reading to 5% talking phase.

[And what an archive]

I've found myself baited out with this one however. Simply because as I've been perusing this wing of the forum, it has struck me that science and scientists are generally at their best whenever there is some kind of immediate [pragmatic] dividend associated with their findings.

The OP [Olly] mentions GPS & microwave ovens.

I'm not sure if nuclear bombs could strictly be considered a positive 'dividend' of relativity theory, but they do adhere to the same principle.

Namely:

There is an almost immediate correlation to be drawn between scientific conclusion, and that which it has enabled.

I suppose it's a kind of 'show me the money' scenario....and all too often, science does end up showing us the money.

There is however, another element within science....which doesn't readily make that leap from discovery to 'instant benefit' in the wake of it's findings.

You'll have to forgive me, as I'm still extremely fresh out of the forum's archive here, and have been absorbing a tremendous amount of commentary about The Big Bang and suchlike.

But since I've mentioned it, I'll now cite it as an example.

Cosmic background radiation [and much more besides] strongly points to a Big Bang having been immediately pre-cursed by a singularity.

It's absolutely tremendous.

It's the progeny of extensive observation & research by some very keen minds.

However, even as a broadly [increasingly] accepted realisation, it doesn't appear to have yielded a significant societal dividend approaching anything as near as 'useful' as the [pizza cooking] microwave oven.

Hubris?

The 'actual discovery' to usefulness of discovery...ratio.... surely plays a large part in how science & scientists are generally perceived by the laity?

There is an element within science which is [arguably] often stifled by it's inability to actually convert it's observations into something pragmatic & useful.

I'd posit that it's when science and/or scientists become overly insistent about branches of knowledge that appear not to really matter, or perhaps cannot provide any immediate positive dividend....that their/it's apparent 'hubris' is readily targeted.

Embracing science as a societal utility is one thing....but embracing science as a societal authority is perhaps where accusations regarding it's 'hubris' originate from.

So long as scientists keep those [analogous] microwave ovens coming thick and fast....they will continue to stay in touch with the laity, but the moment the laity senses that science has ceased trying to serve their interests, but instead want to rule over them and tell them what their interests really ought to be....

...will perhaps be the moment when the following sentiment will begin to gain increasing momentum.

Science is amoral. Given its head it would enslave you in a way that would make the medieval church wince.

Mick

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

So what is the utility of astronomy? This is one of the oldest sciences in the world. We do it essentially out of curiosity. It is precisely as useful as great art: it creates joy and enlightenment. We do it because of a passion for science, just as any artist is driven by a passion for his art.

A materialistic "it has to be useful" attitude does not carry us to the moon, or tells us what stars are made of. Yes, science has a responsibility (just as any other publicly funded endeavour) to the tax payer. Us professional scientists had better be grateful that we are payed to do our hobby. However the main responsibility is to convince people it is worth the money. One way to do this is by providing utility, but this does not necessarily lead to the best science (check Newton, Leibnitz, Einstein, Bohr, Feynman, Darwin, .....).

However, worth is not utility. I think astronomers have done a great job in convincing people it has worth, by sharing its findings, by indeed reaching out to people. Not with new microwaves, but with stories of discovery of other worlds, of deep understanding of the world around us. Storytellers were always revered, if they had good stories to tell, and told them well.

I do not think most scientist would ever want to rule anything at all (apart from their PhD students ), or be particularly good at it. Scientists are generally unruly, neither wanting to be lead or necessarily wanting to lead. As a biographer of Einstein once said, scientists look for a solution, politicians look for a compromise.

[Jim M]

So what is the utility of astronomy? This is one of the oldest sciences in the world. We do it essentially out of curiosity. It is precisely as useful as great art: it creates joy and enlightenment. We do it because of a passion for science, just as any artist is driven by a passion for his art.

A materialistic "it has to be useful" attitude does not carry us to the moon, or tells us what stars are made of. Yes, science has a responsibility (just as any other publicly funded endeavour) to the tax payer. Us professional scientists had better be grateful that we are payed to do our hobby. However the main responsibility is to convince people it is worth the money. One way to do this is by providing utility, but this does not necessarily lead to the best science (check Newton, Leibnitz, Einstein, Bohr, Feynman, Darwin, .....).

However, worth is not utility. I think astronomers have done a great job in convincing people it has worth, by sharing its findings, by indeed reaching out to people. Not with new microwaves, but with stories of discovery of other worlds, of deep understanding of the world around us. Storytellers were always revered, if they had good stories to tell, and told them well.

I do not think most scientist would ever want to rule anything at all (apart from their PhD students ), or be particularly good at it. Scientists are generally unruly, neither wanting to be lead or necessarily wanting to lead. As a biographer of Einstein once said, scientists look for a solution, politicians look for a compromise.

Most of the politicians I have come across are looking for troughs to put their snout in. Sure some of them start out with good intentions and a few manage to keep their good intentions but the majority are just two faced pocket lining scientific ignoramuses. Moving on to scientists, the majority are honest. The remaining few are as corrupt as the politicians and in fact are in bed with them witness the AGW /Climategate carbon tax con.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Most of the politicians I have come across are looking for troughs to put their snout in. Sure some of them start out with good intentions and a few manage to keep their good intentions but the majority are just two faced pocket lining scientific ignoramuses. Moving on to scientists, the majority are honest. The remaining few are as corrupt as the politicians and in fact are in bed with them witness the AGW /Climategate carbon tax con.

Quite so. after all, if you ***** scientists, they bleed.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I see paraphrasing Shakespeare (Merchant of Venice, Shylock, during trial, for those needing hint) can get the ********* software out . It looked innocuous when I typed it, now it looks rude.

[solarbreeze]

So what is the utility of astronomy?

A good question indeed.

Going back to 'ancient' basics....Polaris as a navigational aid immediately springs to mind, and even though we have come a long way with this, I think that studying the observable universe in the context of our own sense of 'place' has always yielded some of astronomy's greatest dividends.

Both practically and metaphorically.

Then there's our general cognition of size and scale.

Both telescope and microscope contribute greatly to that.

Obviously, these are general awareness enhancements that humanity can [and has] got by without for many millennia, but I think all endeavour thusfar in each respective discipline has more than paid for itself in terms of adding tremendous value to the 'human' experience.

....worth is not utility. I think astronomers have done a great job in convincing people it has worth, by sharing its findings, by indeed reaching out to people. Not with new microwaves, but with stories of discovery of other worlds, of deep understanding of the world around us.

I remember reading Sherlock Holmes as a young boy, and being somewhat astonished to discover that 'Holmes' didn't really give a damn whether the Earth went around the Sun, or the Sun went the Earth.....declaring that his knowing this would make not a jot of difference to him or his 'work.'

He lost a lot of kudos points with me for that one....lol

Only in latter years did I realise that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was merely attempting to caricature somebody who possessed tremendous focus, dedication and appetite in some rather exclusive disciplines....and who made no room whatsoever for ANY knowledge which was incapable of adding any value to his own occupational mandate.

I cite this because it was both Holmes & Professor Challenger who originally made me fall in love with scientific methodology.

Talk about scientific 'hubris'....they both held it in abundance, but rather than being repulsed by it, I personally found it to be quite stimulating.

It's something formative which has stayed with me and is why I tend not to be overly offended by what some might describe as scientific arrogance within the real world.

To some respects, I just think it goes with the 'territory.'

Whether fictitious or real.....strong, energetic characters amuse me, and are generally quite benign and well-intentioned when you scratch beneath the surface.

In deference to forum guidelines, the scientist~politico relationship is something I'll refrain from commenting on.

Suffice to say that...as many have correctly inferred...they often prove themselves to be tremendously 'problematical' bedfellows.

Mick