I have a piece up at Taki's Magazine, The Limits of Certitude. It might be read along with a post at ScienceBlogs, Science is rational; scientists are not.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
My two previous posts, Science is rational; scientists are not and its follow up Scientists are rational?, generated a lot of response. I would like to clarify and refine my thoughts and some of the arguments brought up in the comments. Some propositions:
- A few scientists are responsible for…
A quick rebuttal (of sorts) to my post Science is rational; scientists are not:
Peer review and the scientific community is not what distinguishes science from other areas of knowledge. After all history community decides what is good history knowledge, theology community decides what is good…
That Jake Crosby, he's a crazy mixed-up kid, but I kind of like him.
He seems like a nice enough and smart enough kid, but, sadly, he's fallen in with a bad crowd over at the anti-vaccine crank propaganda blog, Age of Autism, so much so that he's even blogging there, helping, whether he realizes it…
There was so much good stuff this past week or two. Here's a round-up:
Dave Munger's column in Seed Magazine, regarding self-report data, features the blogcast I did with Travis a few weeks ago.
Seventh graders draw pictures of scientists. Then they meet some scientists. And draw new pictures.
Some…
Nice essay, but why should one think of something like "social engineering", or indeed any kind of engineering as being scientific? Science, unlike engineering, makes no pronouncements on how to solve problems, what problems should be solved, or even what problems there are (why does everybody forget about Hume?). Science attempts to describe the workings of the universe. I realize that in popular culture, "engineering" and "science" are often viewed as being two sides of the same coin (and the imprecise term "sciencism" further confuses the issue), but a consistent treatment that conflates the two just invites confusion. Engineering is not science: in some cases, it may act like a scientific experiment (every time we figure out where we are using GPS, we have evidence for general relativity). Taken that way, we can say that the scientific experiments implicit in the social engineering of the 19th and 20th centuries provide evidence that the social theories they tested are inaccurate models of the universe. Drawing such a conclusion is science. Continued belief in those theories despite the experimental evidence is not science -- it is dogma, or religion.
, or indeed any kind of engineering as being scientific?
some kinds of engineering are scientific insofar as they are based on scientific presuppositions. some kinds of engineering (i.e., all engineering before 1700, much after before 1900) are not based on scientific presuppositions. ergo, the modifier scientific engineering. as to your definitions of what science is, i don't really care, it seems broadly right. but i'm not one who thinks that you can look up the definition of what science is in god's book so easily ;-)
 Razib, you seem to be arguing against the position that you describe in your opening statement...
My position, and the position of many of my colleagues, is that science is a way of knowingâor of seeking truth, if you will. It's a way that's based on evidence and rationality.
I believe that this way of knowing can be applied to every question, including those concerned with human behavior. That may be the "hubris" that you detect.
This does not mean that we have the answers to everything. When it comes to human behavior, for example, we can't be certain about increases and decreases in crime rates. However, in addressing such a question there seem to be only two possibilities: a scientific approach or a non-scientific approach. One thing I'm certain about is that the non-scientific approach to understanding crime rates is not going to work in the long run.
Do you disagree? Do you think that human society is so complex and irrational that reading the entrails of chickens is going to be just as successful at predicting outcomes as a scientific approach?
I hope not.
Do you think there are other ways of knowing that offer a better chance at understanding the natural world, including the world of human societies? If so, could you identify those non-scientific ways of knowing that you rely on?
The end of it reminded me of Hopefully Anonymous' musings on experimental social scientists:
http://hopeanon.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/12/another-brain-dump.html
http://hopeanon.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/12/brain-droppings-december-…
larry, you missed my point. no surprise ;-)