How Does Science Work?

[Morrus]

But science doesn't "do" anything. It certainly isn't conscious, nor does it have motives. I can't get my head around the position. Scientists certainly don't have a big secret club where they all meet in a volcano lair and plot the destruction of "religion".

I mean - is he angry at "science" because when he steps off a ledge, he falls down? Or because when he flicks a lightswtch, the room becomes more visible?

I can't comprehend who or what he's angry at. I suspect that the issue may actually be something entirely different.

Is he angry at all scientists? Who does he define as a "scientist"? For example, is he angry at his doctor, or a mechanic, or the manufacturers of televisions - i.e. anyone who utilizes science? Or is it just researchers he's angry at? Is he mad at the folks trying to cure cancer, for example?

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

The odd thing I'm seeing here is your continued references to his "anger". Who is he angry at, and why? You can't be angry at "science", so presumably he's angry at "scientists"?

At least here in the States, there's a very strong anti-expert bias. The general opinion seems to be that scientists are bad people because they think they're smarter than you or that their opinions matter more.

We have a cultural sickness that insists all opinions are equal. Training is irrelevant. Experience is irrelevant. Unless it's your training and experience. That, of course, remains paramount and anyone questioning it is ignorant or worse.

EDIT:
On the volcano base thing....

I am a scientist. I have spent 10 years explaining to my family that science doesn't make money, especially in university. They cannot wrap their brains around this. At all. I have family members who hear me start talking about my work, and you can tell they really are picturing one of Blofeld's caldera headquarters, complete with death rays. And these are middle class people with high school educations and some college.

Media-based impressions of scientists are stronger than their memories of growing up with me in their family.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

But science doesn't "do" anything. It certainly isn't conscious, nor does it have motives. I can't get my head around the position. Scientists certainly don't have a big secret club where they all meet in a volcano lair and plot the destruction of "religion".

True, but there is nevertheless a definite habit among some people to see a conspiracy where there is none. In fact, such suspicion is practically ingrained American culture, and I've seen it in a few other countries as well. Yes, it is completely irrational, so I don't think it's possible to get your head around it; I certainly haven't. It simply is what it is, unfortunately.

At least here in the States, there's a very strong anti-expert bias. The general opinion seems to be that scientists are bad people because they think they're smarter than you or that their opinions matter more.

We have a cultural sickness that insists all opinions are equal. Training is irrelevant. Experience is irrelevant. Unless it's your training and experience. That, of course, remains paramount and anyone questioning it is ignorant or worse.

QFT. This sums it up beautifully. [EDIT: and fwiw, I've seen this among even very well-educated people-- including ones who are scientists themselves!]

However, I'd say (maybe overly optimistically?) that I don't believe this is really the view of a majority of Americans; but it is certainly the view of a very loud and influential minority.

 

[Merkuri]

I mean - is he angry at "science" because when he steps off a ledge, he falls down? Or because when he flicks a lightswtch, the room becomes more visible?

He probably doesn't know what he's angry at. It's not a logical thing. It's like how people on this board might get angry about a particular edition of D&D. They're not angry at the game, they're angry about it.

He's probably angry because he considers himself a religious person and he's been taught that science is the enemy of religion. When somebody tries to explain to him what science is and why it's good he gets angry at that person because he feels like his religion is being attacked. This is all my guess, of course.

Most of the time, in my experience, these things come down to a lack of understanding on one side or the other. You gain a bias early on in life from school or your parents and if that bias isn't challenged when you grow up then you usually end up with a very strong set of beliefs and you get offended when somebody tries to show you that those beliefs are wrong. (By "beliefs" here, I'm not talking about religious beliefs, but the belief that science is bad or religion is bad.)

People like this tend to latch onto and repeat arguments they've heard, and when somebody tries to counter those arguments they may get upset if the person has a good answer they can't respond to.

We're all guilty of this in one form or another, I think. It may not be about religion or science, it may be about a political party or a football team or even a particular person. Anything you love and find a kinship with can cause you to become blinded to an opposing argument.

It's human nature to not want to admit when you're wrong, so it's tempting to just stop listening to the other viewpoint and get offended instead.

 

[Welverin]

Here's the problem I have with the peer review process.

It makes it seem like science is done by consensus. How is it not consensus? And I can just hear him saying that because it is done by consensus, that makes it no different than a religion.

The difference is there is no way to test religion, you believe it or you don't.

With any scientific theory there's a means to test it, there's no way to test the existence of God.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

QFT. This sums it up beautifully. [EDIT: and fwiw, I've seen this among even very well-educated people-- including ones who are scientists themselves!]

Of course. Scientists are part of the culture. They are just as likely as anyone else to catch the illness.

However, I'd say (maybe overly optimistically?) that I don't believe this is really the view of a majority of Americans; but it is certainly the view of a very loud and influential minority.

Depends.

The hotter the issue, the more personal feelings and beliefs get involved, the less weight people give data and evidence. So, on small issues, only a minority ignore evidence, but on larger issues, people have deeply seated beliefs that are not subject to modification. I fear giving examples, because of board rules, but look around and you can see it. Heck, you can watch public opinion visibly track away from available evidence as issues get more media attention and political traction.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Honestly, I believe the media impression is partly to blame for some of the idea of a monolithic "Science."

Too often the media makes the scientific findings sound like fact, rather than a bit of evidence supporting a hypothesis. Medical studies are great for this and cause massive distrust of "science" when things like one study concluding that something is good for your heart and then later another study finds it is bad for your heart.

And when science and politics come together it can make things even messier. Global warming is a wonderful example of this; some good evidence of the effects of greenhouse gases exists, some of the conclusions may be overreaching as part of a political agenda, and the media can sometimes spin it all into good ol' sensationalism.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Of course. Scientists are part of the culture. They are just as likely as anyone else to catch the illness.

Sad, but true.

Which is funny, because it points to another weird disconnect in how people look at scientists. On the one hand, they are expected to be logical and impassionate truth seekers, authoritative and never wrong. On the other hand, they are often vilified for being just that-- and catch a lot of flak when something happens that demonstrates that they are in fact "only human". Damned if they do, damned if they don't!

The hotter the issue, the more personal feelings and beliefs get involved, the less weight people give data and evidence.

Agreed.

I think for any issue, there's a core of people who are truly passionate about it. For a scientific issue, that might be the scientists who work in the field, and those who feel morally threatened by their research.

I think the "hotness" of the issue is actually largely driven by different group of people: those who stand to gain from the issue-- business and political interests, for example. It's those guys who are, imho, largely responsible for the sensationalism that Thornir Alekeg mentions, largely by way of an ultra-convenient internet, and the glitzy, ratings-driven 24/7 media and its, umm, not uncommon inaccuracies.

In this way, people who ordinarily might rationally consider a given issue are emotionally manipulated into blindly taking a side, regardless of its merits or how the outcome of the debate affects their own well-being.

Of course, there's a word for this: "propaganda"

 

[LightPhoenix]

I have a different theory as to the disconnect between media and actual science. Basically, it stems from two ideas. One, in general people do not understand that correlation is not causation. Two, that what is true in one circumstance may not be true in another.

As an example of the first, we'll take cancer research. Scientist X does research and finds that expression of Gene Y is elevated in certain types of cancer, and publishes a paper about it. Note that there's a lot of qualification in just that simple sentence. As to my first point, correlation is not causation: Gene Y may be involved in a certain type of cancer, but by no means causes it. It could be that both cancer and Gene Y elevation are a response to the actual cause. It could also be that elevation of Gene Y is a response to cancer. Finally, it could be a coincidence, though this is fairly unlikely given a rigorous methodology including multiple confirmatory experiments (not always the case).

My favorite example of the second instance is from roughly a decade or two ago. Scientists doing research into obesity discovered in mice that there was a defect in a hormone that triggered the hunger response. Giving them the correct version of the hormone made them lose weight. A lot of people thought that this might be a cause for obesity. It was picked up by most media outlets, and a lot of people got rightfully excited. Except that in humans, the problem isn't with the hormone, but with a faulty receptor, which is much more difficult to treat. The thing is, mice and humans are similar, but not necessarily the same.

You see this a lot as well with potential treatments for illnesses. Just because something works in carefully controlled lab experiments doesn't mean it works in humans. That's why we have multiple stages of testing, and why a significant number of all potential treatments don't make it past the first stage. As an aside, that's a big part of why biochemical research is the way it is.

As an aside, OB-positive mice are so cute.

The difference is that the scientific community has standards that they enforce. When a scientist publishes a paper and other scientists read it, they don't just go, "That sounds good, I like it! I'll go with it." They try to repeat the experiment or they research their own data and see if it fits with the theory. Or they even create their own experiment to prove the same hypothesis.

Not just that, but there are very real consequences for things like plagiarism because of the same system. Scientists who plagiarize typically don't stay scientists, because they face societal repercussions from the scientific community. The most severe is perhaps that your data, and by extension you, can no longer be trusted, and basically get blacklisted. In that aspect, it's self-policing.

Evolution and geology and several other topics are what we often call "historical sciences" because it is difficult to develop predictable tests for hypotheses, and test them today.

I can not, as a scientist, agree with that statement at all.

The process of evolution can be (and is) tested in many ways. Furthermore, directed evolution is a scientific method in which evolution is harnessed to create creatures (usually bacteria, quickest lifecycle) more suited for an environment.

Geology (and by this I presume you mean geological phenomena) can be tested in numerous ways - indirectly through modeling, directly through many different techniques.

You can take any science and apply it to historical data. That doesn't make those sciences outside the realm of modern testing.

 

[Quantum]

A good place for this sort of discussion and suggestions on how to proceed is JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation)

I was there for a while but I don't post there for reasons of a personal nature. The atmosphere there is generally unfriendly. No, I wasn't banned but I left of my own accord.

is he angry at "science" because when he steps off a ledge, he falls down?

He is angry at all of mainstream science. I personally believe it is because he has a strong mistrust of authority, as well as being somewhat religious.

At least here in the States, there's a very strong anti-expert bias. The general opinion seems to be that scientists are bad people because they think they're smarter than you or that their opinions matter more.

A fair amount of them do come across as arrogant and elitist. Because of certain kinds of claims such as "truth can only come from logic (and absolutely no other place else)". Others certainly are. Essentially, being right is serious business in America, and when people are told they are believing the wrong things, regardless of whether it be scientific or religious or political, people do become hostile. Tradition is also very impotant to many people, regardless of if it is rooted in support of empirical evidence or superstition. Somebody saying that their tradition is the only correct one no matter what will always step on other people's toes.