I love science, but I stopped believing in the religion of Science.

Nateskate said:

Scientists are not immune to archetypes. And that is the point I'm trying to make.

Click to expand...

No they're not, but they're among the quickest people in society to tear archetypes apart. Artists may be quicker, but scientists are perhaps more constructive -- they'll tear apart any paradigm if they can find a better one. Artists will sometimes tear apart paradigms even if they can't find a better one.

But to suppose that science is immune to the same kinds of bias is just not realistic, because human nature likes to jump to conclusions, and fill in the blanks.

Click to expand...

As good skeptics, scientists do not like to jump to conclusions and a good skeptic is happy to keep something blank until something demonstrates its right to fit.

Scientists aren't immune to bias but they do quickly become highly resistant to the biases they know about. One of the things scientists do when they get together is exactly what you do -- ask what's outside the box. This helps expose possible biases and once they're exposed, scientists are quick to innoculate themselves against such biases by changing experimental procedure. (Failure to do that exposes them to the scorn and ridicule of their enemies -- who as you recall, get to set the bar on their experiments.)

When I try and characterise the values underpinning scientific skepticism I'd normally describe it as 'pragmatic altruism'. A scientist's skepticism can normally be allayed by answers to questions like 'Does it work? Is it necessary? Is it efficient? Is it robust? Will it help people?' It's those kinds of questions which decide where the bar for evidence gets set.

Nateskate said:

I agree with you. But people don't realize just how many dollars are at risk based upon scientific outcomes. In this arena especially, we can see how far personal bias can bend objectivity. People can lose jobs if they don't find the "right" answer when billions of dollars are at risk. I'm not saying that this means they're crooks. However, it's like referees, they are prone to be influenced by the crowd.

Click to expand...

Actually, most scientists aren't motivated by personal greed. To see this, realise that these clever people generally sacrifice a huge amount of their potential earnings getting educated, then take jobs that generally pay a lot lower than other jobs they could take.

Generally speaking, scientists are motivated by pride (a desire for reputation), challenge (they're like Sudoku addicts) and a genuine love for their subject. While individual 'bad egg' scientists do turn up, and occasionally 'bad egg' teams, understand that the filtering which occurs before someone can be a scientist is very stringent -- it goes on for decades; and the tangible rewards of being a scientist are very few. The idea that scientists would all conspire to hoodwink the laiety might make a good Dan Brown sort of novel, but it's about as likely as imagining that all the Catholic families in the world (say) would simultaneously burn their family Bibles.

If you ever have many scientists as friends you'll find that generally the problem is that it's hard to get them to go along with lies -- especially lies about factual matters. They're renowned for speaking the truth at inopportune times -- no matter how unpopular or unpleasant. (You sort of have to get used to that with them, if you want to keep scientists as friends.)

Pride, challenge and geeky obsessions can lead scientists into errors (like announcing a result too soon, or refusing to acknowledge the validity of a better result, or not abandoning bad lines of research) but other scientists tend to pull them into line quickly through exactly the same motives. So science as a whole tends to be a very healthy endeavour -- especially in the applied sciences where results stand for themselves.

I think individual scientists are not overly biased. However the business of science is no longer about individual scientists doing science (if it ever was). Science is also about big business, politics, and mass media.

Big business funds research that unsurprisingly supports their business. Political Action Committees and Parties fund research whose conclusion invariably supports their political beliefs. The mass media reports "Scientists Say Icecaps Melting" at the same time as "Scientists Say New Ice Age Coming", when in fact, neither group of scientists actually said any such thing. The actual reports would have spoken about probabilities and likehoods, not inevitabilities, but that's not what the public hears.

So scientists get backed into corners, defending conclusions they never actually made, but would look like they were waffling if they didn't. As a result, their reputations become tied to one particular camp, and objectivity becomes suspect.

Roger J Carlson said:

I think individual scientists are not overly biased. However the business of science is no longer about individual scientists doing science (if it ever was). Science is also about big business, politics, and mass media.

Click to expand...

I spent most of my life, up till a year ago, as a working research scientist who was worked in major labs on four continents. I have yet to be involved in a single project where business, politics or the media was even mentioned.

Most of them were funded primarily by core unversity funding (salaries, overheads) and large givernment funds which I assure you do not push political agendas in any effective way (e.g. NIH). There was some industry funding along the lines of "does our widget work?" where the company genuinely wanted to know whether their widget worked or not. Almost all the research I was involved in was dreamed up by academics based on their personal curiosities, who decided exactly what they wanted to do, and then sought funding for it--making only minor accomodations to the funding agencies almost always in the form of adding something to the projects rather than changing it.

There is a lot wrong with research--waste, mendacity, academic dogma defenders, useless research etc. but very few people directly involved in it could come away beleiving that the typical research scietist gives a flying fractal about politics or the media.

Roger J Carlson said:

I think individual scientists are not overly biased. However the business of science is no longer about individual scientists doing science (if it ever was). Science is also about big business, politics, and mass media.

Click to expand...

Maybe popular science is, but popular science lags behind real science by 10-40 years. The people who popularise science seldom do science. What they do instead is sell information and influence people. They are not scientists any more than a TV anchor is a journalist; but if we see them explaining science in a white coat, we can confuse them with the people who did the science.

So scientists get backed into corners, defending conclusions they never actually made, but would look like they were waffling if they didn't.

Click to expand...

Fortunately, most scientists are highly introverted and media-shy. In my science career I did just one radio interview; I once stood in academic garb and threw paper aeroplanes for charity (and to my discomfort was misnamed the Dean of my Faculty) and I turned down a bit of cash offered to me for being a media stooge just once. I gave two newspaper interviews. One was for an education program I was running; another was entirely unrelated to my discipline, but related to a guy I'd met on-line who'd died playing a computer game that I also played.

I'd be one of the more outgoing ones.

Scientists are not generally trapped by media or big business money. They generally shun one and the other largely ignores them.

Nateskate said:

Someone who invests a lifetime to prove a point and has all these books in their name verifying that they are experts and this is true, has a great deal to lose when facts begin to expose that they didn't fact-check enough.

Click to expand...

Generally when an hypothesis is disproven it's not because of lack of fact-checking (scientists are meticulous about that). It's generally because either a better hypothesis has come along, or better experimental technique is available or both.

Scientists do sometimes resist such change, but in the same way that a skier tries to resist an avalanche -- it might make a difference in the short term, but not in the medium to long term.

My guess is that now more than ever money drives science.

Click to expand...

Ha ha ha...

That's like saying sex drives seminaries, or Islam is what makes people drink.

Good luck trying to make big money as a scientist. Good luck even trying to get a secure job...

Ruv Draba said:

Maybe popular science is, but popular science lags behind real science by 10-40 years. The people who popularise science seldom do science. What they do instead is sell information and influence people. They are not scientists any more than a TV anchor is a journalist; but if we see them explaining science in a white coat, we can confuse them with the people who did the science.

Fortunately, most scientists are highly introverted and media-shy. In my science career I did just one radio interview; I once stood in academic garb and threw paper aeroplanes for charity (and to my discomfort was misnamed the Dean of my Faculty) and I turned down a bit of cash offered to me for being a media stooge just once. I gave two newspaper interviews. One was for an education program I was running; another was entirely unrelated to my discipline, but related to a guy I'd met on-line who'd died playing a computer game that I also played.

I'd be one of the more outgoing ones.

Scientists are not generally trapped by media or big business money. They generally shun one and the other largely ignores them.

Click to expand...

Then the American Cancer Society was wrong about this Tobacco Industry Study or this study or this study? (I could list more.)

I don't want to get into the Climate Change debate, but there are scientists -- real scientists -- on both sides. I don't usually like to link Wiki references but the Global Warming Controversy article gives an overview of some of the players on both sides.

The Republican War on Science of the Bush years is being replaced by Climate Gate in the press.

This is not about science, you say? Ah, but it is. Again, I'm not talking about individual scientists (especially those in the trenches), but the business of science -- the funding, promoting, and reporting of science -- is highly political. There's too much money involved for it not to be.

But science comes predominantly from working scientitsts, via academic articles. The world does with that information what it wants--can't do much about that. But science is what scientists do. And if by political, you means a party politic agenda, is is surprisingly absent. You can beleive what you like, but as a scientists I have to say the evidence doesn't greatly support the idea that science is political driven. It remains stubbornly curiousity and personality driven, even when it really should be a little more pragmatic.

And yes, I left research in order to make money. Research so is not the way to get rich. Anyone smart enough to work as a full time scientific researcher in any capacity is smart enough to make ten times the money doing something else. Research is, increasingly, a calling--much like the seminary. You go into debt to get a degree and then sacrifice you lifelong earning potential to pursue subjects that fascinate you. Dedicated active research scientists are a strangely incorruptable lot, with a few unfortunate exceptions.

veinglory said:

But science comes predominantly from working scientitsts, via academic articles. The world does with that information what it wants--can't do much about that. But science is what scientists do. And if by political, you means a party politic agenda, is is surprisingly absent. You can beleive what you like, but as a scientists I have to say the evidence doesn't greatly support the idea that science is political driven. It remains stubbornly curiousity and personality driven, even when it really should be a little more pragmatic.

And yes, I left research in order to make money. Research so is not the way to get rich. Anyone smart enough to work as a full time scientific researcher in any capacity is smart enough to make ten times the money doing something else. Research is, increasingly, a calling--much like the seminary. You go into debt to get a degree and then sacrifice you lifelong earning potential to pursue subjects that fascinate you. Dedicated active research scientists are a strangely incorruptable lot, with a few unfortunate exceptions.

Click to expand...

I could say much the same about Christianity. Christianity is what Christians do. Most Christians I know are loving, kind, incorruptible, and would tell you that politics do not affect their beliefs.

And yet it cannot be denied that the business of Christianity (that in organized Christianity) is fraught with bias, politics, egos, and personalities. This colors not only the view of the media and public about Christianity, it also affect how individual Christians react.

Being a pastor is not the way to become rich either, but there is a lot of money in religion.

Christians are largely apolitical in so far as politics affects their beliefs. Mostly, their beliefs affect their politics. Not all are Republican, although the media seems to imply that.

So Christianity is not just what individual Christians do. Christianity has a corporate identity that is also affected by what non-Christians think and do.

In the same way, science is not just what scientists do. It is also what non-scientists do with and to science and it affects the way that scientists think.

Here's what a Pew Poll tells us about what scientists think:

Half of scientists (50%) say that political groups or officials have too much influence on the direction of research in their specialty, while 47% disagree. Scientists who primarily address applied research questions (55%) are more likely than those involved in basic research (45%) to say that political groups or officials have too much influence. In addition, more scientists working in government (62%) and industry (56%) say political groups or officials have too much influence than do those in non-profits (45%) or academia (45%).

Click to expand...

and this:

In contrast, most scientists (56%) perceive the scientific community as politically liberal; just 2% think scientists are politically conservative. About four-in-ten scientists (42%) concur with the majority public view that scientists, as a group, are neither in particular.

Click to expand...

So scientists themselves are divided on whether politics or business affects science.

I accept the paralell entirely. But I would argue that those in "business" (by which I dont mean legit commercial use of science like making medical pharmaeceuticals) are not those I consider "real" scientists--they are parasites that feed off real science. Likewise those fleecing people for millions to buy luxury yatchs (rather than support a great church and making money for charity) might not meet everyone's idea of a 'real' Christian. But in either case these idiots should not cause one to not "believe" in science or Christianity unless you actually just don't believe in what these two things really are (in theory and/or typical practice). Just because a dog has fleas does not make it a bad dog...

Um, research science is politically liberal because is it predominantly made up by politically liberal people (perhaps because the pay sucks and you do it to help society). Saying that means science is "effected" by politics equivilent to saying Agriculture is political because most of the people who farm are politically conservative--in which case almost every endeavor is political and why pick out science as an example?

So yes, there are qualities to the research endeavor that mean most people in them lean liberal and research is not done my some kind of demographic-free population of eunichs. I would add that most researchers (in the US) are Christian, does this mean research serves the church?

I am not saying researchers are apolitical, I am saying research does not substantially bend itself to party political ends for the very reason that the outcome is emergent, not determined in advance. What the researcher finds is what they find and we have methods, including cultural indocrination and peer-review, to stop them from cheating. And most research really is some guy who totally wants to understand why the N1 receptor is wiggly, or ants take slaves, or chickens like to watch television. Which is about as political as a hole in the ground.

Finally I would add that of the hundred of researchers I have worked with, I generally could not even tell you what their politics were, nor indeed whether they beleive in God. We conceptualised, funded, carried out and published research in topics including social issues without ever thinking to discuss such things. To me that shows how unimportant they are to the process.

In fact to some extent all we share was the beleif that science would help answer the questions and solve the problems that most intrigued us. As I moved between very liberal and very conservative places, this never changes--not did the topics being studied or the results being obtained. On some occassions I was hired for a job without them even knowing my gender.

Roger J Carlson said:

the business of science -- the funding, promoting, and reporting of science -- is highly political. There's too much money involved for it not to be.

Click to expand...

I think we need to talk a bit about how pure and applied sciences work to show why the money doesn't have as much influence on truth as we might think.

Applied science is the stuff that gives us products and solutions. Aspirin, radar, the Internet... that stuff is applied science. It arises from scientists trying to solve problems for the public. The public is the natural audience for applied science, and virtually all applied science is evaluated under the rubrics of 'Does it work' and 'Can I do it too'? Aspirin works, radar works, the Internet works -- so it doesn't really matter who funded it or for what purpose.

So when a tobacco-company funds a study to say that cigarette-smoking whitens teeth, that's a (mis)application of Applied Science. It's deliberately meant to influence the public and often it succeeds.

But it doesn't much influence scientists themselves.

A bad study in applied science can be detected in four ways: a flawed experiment design, data that is inconsistent with familiar results, biased conclusions and publication that evades peer review. A trained scientist can literally spot a dodgy applied science report in seconds. Such reports annoy the hell out of them because it defames the profession and they'll normally write irritated letters to Lancet and local newspapers about it.

But does the public listen? Well that depends on communications media. Will the editor of the local paper publish a scientist's irate letter? Will a science journalist pick up on a letter to Lancet and follow up? That depends on the smarts and ethics of the journalist, and newspaper editorial policy, and who their main advertising sponsors are.

So what the public sees as applied science can be skewed by communications media but what scientists see as applied science tends not to be so skewed. A bad report funded by the tobacco lobby, say, has very little impact on scientists other than to annoy them.

So that's how bad science works on the applied side, but what happens on the pure side? Firstly, there's a lot less money in pure science than applied. Applied science has all the schmexy jobs with industry and the royalties from patents. Pure scientists are the ones with the arse out of their pants. Where applied science gives us aspirin and gene therapy, pure science gives us Relativity, Natural Selection and gas chromatography.

The public generally aren't interested in gas chromatography (which is why pure scientists often need to patch their trousers), but they do love the theories. They turn such theories into entertainment (e.g. Back to the Future), philosophy (e.g. is there another me in an alternate reality?) and politics (how can I use this theory to beat up my foes)? Indeed, the public often think that the purpose of pure science is either entertainment, philosophy or politics but that's because they don't realise that it was never published for their edification.

Pure science is actually published for scientists.

Einstein's theories of relativity might've been entertaining for the public, but to physicists they were critical and much-needed tools. So pure science tends to be evaluated by scientists under the rubric of 'How can I use this'? and 'Does it work'? That's not how the public evaluates pure science though. Under entertainment, philosophy and politics, the public asks 'How funny is it? What does it say about me? Who can I beat up with it?'

I'd like to respectfully suggest that while the public have a lot of right to comment on applied science, what they think about pure science is largely irrelevant. They're not qualified to evaluate it and not equipped to use it, except to amuse themselves and squabble over. It's important that scientific theories are taught because science is its tools. But we need to understand that what we're teaching is tools -- not philosophy, not entertainment and not politics.

So, to recap: politics affects what science gets funded, but tends not to affect the scientific reception of results. Politics plays a part in communications about applied science, but its impact on applied science itself is pretty limited. Politics plays a part in the public reception of pure science, but scientists don't much care how the public receives pure science because they're not the target audience. To a biologist, evolution is about as political as a spanner.

Nateskate said:

...
Now, lets go back and factor in that humans had to be civilized and tending sheep that far back, and therefore fairly intelligent, then why did every major invention only happen in the last six or seven thousand years?

Click to expand...

You tell me. It seems you have an answer here you're only implying, and not spelling out.

Nateskate said:

Forget bones. Where were the spaceships? The previous generations of satellites?

Mathematically, even if you had an ice-age every fifteen or twenty thousand years, and mankind was thrown back into a new stoneage, mankind should have reached a scientific pinacle time and again throughout history.

Where did all of those civilizations go? How did all that history get etcha-sketched out of existence? Why do we go back like ten thousand years, and when we dig, we find a bronze age, an iron age, a stone age, but no other computer age?

Click to expand...

Again, you tell me. I'm not sure where you're trying to go here. You appear to be equating making supercomputers with tending sheep.

Nateskate said:

These days, basic job security is highly valued.

Click to expand...

Scientists don't get much basic job security these days, and haven't for two decades or so -- though it varies a bit by country. Tenure is fairly rare; science is an itinerant profession -- scientists often globe-trot following money, facilities and good teams. When they can't get research jobs they generally fall back on teaching.

As knowledge-workers, the main asset a scientist has is reputation. We don't engage heart-surgeons who have a history of letting patients die under the knife, and neither do we hire scientists who have a history of fudging data. As I pointed out earlier, the benefits of perhaps a bit more funding are unlikely, and the costs of being tarred with the brush of fraudulence are overwhelming.

Job security? It is to laugh.

As for ignoring the whole and skipping to the end, both of those things are kind of the opposite of science. In philosophy you used to be able to say "most rocks sink in water" and be happy. Science asked why some of them don't. Science is about filling the holes in a completely obsessive, pedantic way. And if that can't be done burning the cloth entirely and weaving a new one. ...and then picking at the holes in it.

I remember the first time a full professor totally launched an attack on one of my original ideas and tore it into little bits. It was the first day I felt like a real scientist, because he saw my ideas as worth trying, and in the case succeeding, to tear apart. He didn't care what the end of the story was, and in time--neither did I.

Science is a little zen like that. Many researchers work their whole life and never answer the question they are working on, although they often live to see the question become obsolete and get replaced by new questions... And almost any research paper generates more new questions than answers.

I don't believe in science like a religion--that would be rather missing the point. But as a methodology, culture, profession I am rather fond of it. It is productive, and rather charming. But as a way to get money, power, prestige, job security, benefits and/or chicks... a dead loss.

I eventually gave it up out of a pressing need to save for my retirement and buy luxuries like health insurance.

Nateskate said:

I have a number of friends who are in that position of finding research grants or they risk losing their jobs. It's a great deal of pressure. It's kind of heart-breaking really, because when they have family they often can't find another job in the area forcing some pretty difficult choices. Others are hired, and then funding unexpectedly dries up, and they're without a job.

Click to expand...

Unpleasant. Never thought about careers in religion? They seem more secure.

Good luck with that.

Nateskate said:

I have a number of friends who are in that position of finding research grants or they risk losing their jobs.

Click to expand...

Yes, and elsewhere Veinglory mentioned scientific mendacity... I've seen it represented nowhere worse than it is in grant applications. Grant processes are stupid to start with, and made worse by the need to sustain jobs -- sometimes for oneself; sometimes for one's colleagues. Scientists generally don't misrepresent their results, but they absolutely do misrepresent the potential of their investigations when money is involved. Some still have the good grace to be ashamed of that, but alas, many don't.