Over at Anthropology.net Emanuel Lusca has a post, Science As A Human Practice. I sniped a little in the comments, to which Emanuel responded:
My intention was not to refine, clarify, or elevate science. My intention was to point out that science should not be put on a pedestal, that it is like any other human practice, e.g. religious practice. In my mind science and religion are equally valuable and insightful. And of course, you and many others will criticize me for that, but that's okay.
Photo Credit: Kim Fulton-Bennett 2005 MBARI
This is the sort of problematizing which makes cultural anthropology a joke. At least philosophers are very precise when they say something; agree or disagree, they're saying something, and you know what they're saying. I agree that science is a human endeavor. I agree it is biased. I agree it is fraught with politics. In fact, most of science is wrong. It is a very noisy process. It is a culturally embedded one. All the critiques you can make toward other institutions you can make toward science.
But science is qualitatively different from other domains of scholarship. It is not like "any other human practice." And to say that "science and religion are equally valuable and insightful" is a vacuous assertion. I think that defecation and playing the violin are equally valuable and insightful. I think eating a peanut and deriving a proof are equally valuable and insightful. I'm saying something, but you probably don't really know what I'm talking about.
I can see how someone could perceive a witch doctor putting a hex on someone is as insightful and valuable as a heart surgeon performing a bypass on someone who is likely to die otherwise. The words "insightful" and "valuable" are loaded with normative presuppositions. But throwing around these equivalences totally elides the very real distinctions between the predictive power of modern science and other human cultural productions. I won't say that science is more important than religion or art or the taste of good & wine or the company of family. But you are mixing categories here; when religion faces science on its own ground it fails. Attempts to turn religion into science, whether it be by Muslim, Christian or Hindu fundamentalists, are laughable. Granted, those who wish to turn science into a religion also fail. But that does not mean science and religion are equivalent in any way across the scope of human experience, au contraire!
The Galileo Project used a gravity assist "slingshot" with a fulcrum around Venus and Earth twice. The average distance between Earth & the Sun is 778,000,000 km. That's 5.2 times the distance between the Earth and the Sun! Now that's precision. Certainly religion has inspired greatness, art and acts beyond compare. But consider that science, and specifically science forwarded by a young man in England in the late 17th century, allows man to create artifice which allows him to span the heavens themselves with such incredible powers of precision!
Let me quote Emanuel's last paragraph in his comment:
Second, such problematizing is not only fun, but also important. Science and technology are integral parts of daily life for many people in today's world. Understanding how science effects the objects in our world is extremely important. Take for e.g. the following: Not to long ago, many people beleived that atoms were these round tiny balls that were electrically charged. This idea was "supported" by evidence obtained through the use of various technological devices. Today, many people deny this, and say that atoms are more like clouds, with electrically charged particles popping in and out of existence. Now, to me understanding how science can get it wrong, and right, and wrong again, is extremely important- because after all, science is about "describing" how the world we live in "really" is.
Let's put to the "side" whether "Emanuel's" "description" "really" "fits" well "with" how quantum "informed" chemists "conceive" of the "atom." This response of mine has put me in a strange mood. I think that mood will be familiar to readers. From Talk Origins:
Q 10 Theories have been proven wrong in the past, why not evolution?
When Einstein proposed general relativity, he revolutionized physics. The theory replaced most of Newton's laws of physics. General relativity, though, still incorporates Newton's laws. This is due to the enormous number of observations and tests that Newton's laws had passed, so any new theory would have to account for them also.
Similarly, if another theory replaces evolution, the new theory must somehow explain why the current theory passed all the tests. So any new theory that replaces evolution would have to explain why it works so well. Creationism, then, is not a possible replacement.
At this point words fail me, and I feel I can't even whistle it....
More like this
Every thing we know is wrong. It is wrong because it is incomplete. As we learn more we can correct what we know, but so long as our knowledge remains incomplete it remains wrong. And because we are limited beings, and always shall be limited beings in an imperfect universe, what we know will always be incomplete. Thus we will always be wrong.
But, given our imperfections and our limitations, science is the only way to get anywhere close to being right; for it is only science that provides us with the methodology that makes even a half-assed attempt at discovering and uncovering how the universe is. Science is about knowing, however imperfectly. Everything else is just a wild guess.
...I'm often floored by how damned insightful and interesting you are, Razib. You say exactly what I believe but so much better than I say it. And since I know I'm always correct, you must be always correct too <_<
[ LOL. i shouldn't let this gratuitously ass-kissy comment through, but i'm not sure if it isn't sarcastic, and if it is, i shouldn't let it through...but since i don't know for sure either way, i feel i should. -razib]
I think you're missing the point.
Yes, religion fails when meeting science "on its own ground".
Yes, science fails when meeting religion "on its own ground".
The problem is that those kinds of "on its own ground" comparisons are themselves the sort of partisan hackery that any good scientist or theologist should disdain.
The statement that "science is qualitatively different from other domains of scholarship" is both true and false- and a meaningless, circular claim.
It is true because clearly the formal principles of science are different from the formal principles of non-scientific endeavour.
It is false because, despite the claims of a minority of scientists, there is no aspect of formal scientific pursuit that has not been useful in supposedly non-scientific pursuit- and these tools have been used long before there was a formal "science". Experimentation and logic are part of the physiological functioning of the human brain, and they can be found everywhere.
It is a meaningless circular claim because it is self-referential. Noting that science is different from non-science is not insightful, and does not properly refute anything that was being claimed by the author you "sniped" at.
The modern scientific movement has changed the world in ways that are awe-inspiring and stunning, and blithe pronouncements of equality can seem to constitute denial of the power of science. But the blithe pronouncements, as irritating as they can be when issuing from the clearly ignorant, are still saying something important and true- and advocates of science dismiss those truths at our peril.
adrian, the world is not constrained by your small conception of what science is. it's ultimate power is not in its formality, it is its outcome, due to the compound of various methods and cultural folkways. economics is more formal than molecular biology, but the latter has been more fruitful than the former.
Experimentation and logic are part of the physiological functioning of the human brain, and they can be found everywhere.
logic isn't. you don't know what you're talking about. if you think logic is "everywhere" you are frankly retarded. though i don't think logic is really the most essential element of modern science.
"In my mind science and religion are equally valuable and insightful."
I actually think you missed out on the really choice piece of information this imparts about the psychology of a cultural anthropologist: the solipsism. For their purposes, if people believe something hard enough then it's true by definition. This is why scientists and even most analytic philosophers don't get them -- because that kind of axiom would make their pursuits impossible.
There's actually nothing at all wrong with the concept of "different ways of knowing", and in fact it's obviously valid -- the way you know that Jesus loves you is different from the way you know what "erroneous" means, which in turn are both different from the way you know that δz = cov(v_i, z_i). What's wrong is the idiotic refusal to acknowledge the fact that some ways of knowing are more reliable and comprehensive than others. You can dead-reckon your way to the bathroom, but if you need to find your way through a vast and unfamiliar wilderness you'd do better to bring a GPS. Rather than being a category mistake, the "equally insightful" statement is just plain false.
"logic isn't."
Well, the brain can obviously *do* logic, in much the same way that my computer can translate HTML into web pages -- it just spends most of its resources doing other things. Adrian's comment being a case in point.
"though i don't think logic is really the most essential element of modern science."
It's necessary but not sufficient. In fairness he did also include experimentation, which you could say the same about.
What's wrong is the idiotic refusal to acknowledge the fact that some ways of knowing are more reliable and comprehensive than others.
yes.
Well, the brain can obviously *do* logic, in much the same way that my computer can translate HTML into web page
well...browsers do suck with HTML, but i think the average human sux way more at logic.
Really, now you're just being illogical, unfair and rude.
Illogical because you're throwing out firm statements "small conception of science" with poor substantiation.
Unfair and rude because, really, you're picking on a commenter from a place of relative power.
Speaking from a neuropsychological perspective, logic *is* a part of how the human brain works, and it is everywhere. That does not mean that everyone will be good at it, in the same way that the omnipresence of running doesn't imply that everyone is an olympic sprinter.
Mind you, fallacious cognitive shortcuts are also a part of how the human brain works, and they too are omnipresent- even among those who pride themselves on their logic.
If you really feel that my point is incorrect, wouldn't it be better to refute it instead of throwing out insults?
Or, if you can't abide disagreement, say so from the outset, so those who disagree with you won't waste their time.
cheers
adrian.
Or, if you can't abide disagreement, say so from the outset, so those who disagree with you won't waste their time.
i'm ok with disagreements. i just don't think you're very coherent. and yes, i speak from a position of power and rudeness. but i also spent a lot more of my marginal time writing up commentary, etc., on this weblog, and open up my commentary to criticism from randoms. the symmetry isn't always balanced in my direction, so we're even.
"throwing around these equivalences totally elides the very real distinctions between the predictive power of modern science and other human cultural productions"
I think this is possibly the key point. I get the feeling that the "different ways of knowing" folks see the point of science as generating models ("atoms are balls", "atom are clouds") as opposed to generating predictions. If you see model building as primary and downplay predictive power then science is just fancier story-telling, and not necessarily better story-telling -- if what you are looking for in your stories is emotional satisfaction, aesthetic beauty, and/or social usefulness, all bound up in a package that is logically consistent (or at least can be plausibly argued to be such).
I have a blog myself, so I am more sympathetic to the difficulties of being open to "criticisms from randoms" than you might appreciate.
Still, though, I'm afraid that your expenditure of time doesn't imply balance of power, doesn't excuse rudeness, and doesn't mitigate illogic.
I do appreciate both your blogging effort, though, and your current politeness.
I do think that for someone with stern criticisms of the clarity and logic of others, your positions aren't very well substantiated. They may well suit those who already agree with you, but isn't that a fairly low bar to hurdle?
You're right; my comments don't have the comprehensiveness and clarity of a well-structured essay; but they're not essays. They are brief comments in response to a blog post.
I also note that you still haven't addressed the substance of what I actually said. If you have difficulty comprehending me, I'd be happy to clarify, if you want.
After all, we clarify our own thoughts when we politely express them to others.
cheers
adrian.
Wow. That Guy is such a "moron" ...
Oh, no wait. He's just an anthropologist.
Adrian, being polite isn't necessary for a useful argument. Being coherent is.
I think pretty much everyone, razib included, pointed this out, but let me put it in shorter terms so that maybe you'll understand and address it:
The main difference between what we call science and everything else isn't in the formalism, it's in the fact that it predicts stuff with great accuracy.
This is what the guy writing the original nonsense, and you apparently, either don't understand, or don't address. And it's the main (I would say only) distinction between science and everything else.
The formalism is just there so you can more easily make sense of things, and people use different frameworks for the same thing depending on what's convenient (i.e. using feynman graphs as opposed to writing out all the equations, etc).
I also note that you still haven't addressed the substance of what I actually said.
look, this is part of the issue. you acknowledge that i don't think you're clear, that i don't think you're that coherent. so of course i can't acknowledge the substance of what you said! whether i think you're coherent or not, if you are coherent you wouldn't ask sagely why i'm not addressing the substance of what you're saying if understand what it really means not be coherent to someone else! the paradox here supports empirically my point that people just aren't logical.
Coriolis:
Politeness is actually as necessary as coherence is for *useful* discussion with other human beings. Coherent-but-rude discussions have the tendency to disintegrate into useless bickering. Politeness helps avoid this. Further, insults are not only rude, but they serve as fallacious distraction from the topic at hand.
As I already noted, coherence in expression is subjective. If you feel that someone is unclear, it makes more sense to request clarification than to assume that your subjective assessment constitutes factual declaration.
You say that I "haven't addressed" the fact that science has better predictive power than nonscience.
How does that point affect my argument?
Razib:
Look, you seem intelligent. Really it just seems that you have no interest in even trying to understand what I've said. Make some attempt, ask some sort of appropriate question, and I'll be happy to clarify, instead of throwing up your hands and pretending that your subjective reaction is Law.
With respect to "People just aren't logical"-
I agree! That point's been clarified above, in case you were reading.
Logic is a basic tool of human cognitive function, but emotion (and fallacy) usually calls the shots.
http://www.inthemedievalmiddle.com/2007/01/monkey-astride-your-subconsc…
This is why bias is as great a problem as it is in scientific endeavour. Logic is omnipresent, but logic doesn't usually run the show. This is a fundamental part of the human condition, and not just a characteristic of "those people over there".
Nonsense. You may be incapable of having a non-polite discussion that doesn't dissolve into pure name-calling with no substance, but that's certainly not the case for everyone, including most people I deal with. I'm a physicist, and alot of physicists can be quite rude when arguing physics - it doesn't make a difference because we're ultimately arguing about measurable (real) things. In any case, this is a side issue, although of course I notice that you've spent the majority of your time discussing it.
Ah well I shouldn't feed the trolls.
Now, if what I said about science doesn't effect your argument, do you mind explaining what exactly your argument actually is?
Again, let me simplify what I thought the argument was, removing most of the mumbo-jumbo:
1) Original author claims that science & nonscience are "equally valuable and insightful", and makes an argument broadly along the lines of the religion & science are "different ways of knowing" idea.
2) Razib breaks down all this nonsense in a fairly long post dealing with alot of details.
3) You claim that he's wrong, and that science & nonscience (religion, whatever) are in fact not fundamentally different. To quote perhaps the most coherent part of your post:
"The statement that "science is qualitatively different from other domains of scholarship" is both true and false- and a meaningless, circular claim."
4) I point out to you that scientific scholarship results in being able to make predictive, accurate statements about the real world. Non-scientific scholarship, doesn't do that. This is a qualitative, concrete and rather meaningful difference.
5) You say that's not... relevant?
wow, emanuel would be proud of what he hath wrought! :-) comments closed....