7 ms·

"Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable w

by praptak 16y ago

"Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true." I don't think he is advocating that. Trusting scientists because they use controlled experiment, peer review and other similar tools is quite a different thing than trusting them based on authority.

adolph 16y ago
From the interview: Don’t come up with a view, find everybody who agrees with it, and then say, “Look at this, I must be right.” Start off by saying, “Who do I trust?” On global warming, for example, I happen to trust climate experts, world academies of science, Nobel laureates, and certain science journalists. You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe. It sounds like he is advocating a trust system based on titles, organization membership, etc. How is this different from trusting them based on authority?
- nanairo 16y ago
  What's wrong with that? I mean it's not like you get a noble prize by winning the lottery! You take random wacko on TV and noble laureate, each tells you their theory, and you (so far) don't know anything else. Who do you trust? Why? I think the title _does_ mean something: it was neither bestowed upon him randomly nor inherited by blood. Let me ask you another question: who do you think runs faster, a random guy I pick you see in the street, or a guy who won an olympic medal in athletic? Most people somehow feel winning an olympic medal is all about merit, but getting a Noble isn't!!!
  - adolph 16y ago
    Chill out. There is nothing in my comment to imply that there is anything wrong with title, or authority, or pink ponies. The author of the proceeding comment wrote "Trusting scientists because they use controlled experiment, peer review and other similar tools is quite a different thing than trusting them based on authority." The purpose of my comment is to say that the words attributed to Singh indicate trust based on authority indicated by title, membership, etc.
    - nanairo 16y ago
      No worries: I wasn't angry or shouting. Sorry for coming too strongly. :) I understand what you are saying, but my point is that those two are in science a lot closer than you seem to suggest. Titles (such as a noble prize) are won thanks to reputation gained from those experiments and peer reviews. If your karma system is based on what you published and that is subjected to peer review and scientific methodology, then your reputation (i.e. your karma) are a good hint that the person knows what they are talking about. In other words: trust scientist --> high authority --> gained by good experiments and subjected to peer review
- Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
  I agree that that sentence could give that impression but I think it's a little out of context. If you read Simon Singh's stuff (particularly Trick or Treatment, the book which lead to the article which lead to the libel case) it's really not what he advocates - he advocates having a robust evidence base for what you're saying. I think what he was trying to say in the sentence you quote is "I believe the overwhelming majority of the people who have looked at this subject, have a history of backing up their claims with robust, tested, reviewed evidence and are doing so in this instance".
- robryan 16y ago
  It's a good way to filter out the crazy crackpot opinions, not to say these aren't of any value but when you don't have time to be an expert in a field you are much better off trusting those that have had their viewpoints put through rigorous peer review over those who haven't.
- praptak 16y ago
  The titles, organization membership, scientific prizes are of course a kind of authority, but they are not assigned based on authority alone. It is a whole system built upon peer review, reproducible experiments, verifiable hypotheses and so on.
josefresco 16y ago
You may be right (I know little of Simon) but the average person doesn't see the experiment, or peer review. They just see the authority. Just like our ideal legal system, to prove someone guilty it has to be done beyond a level of reasonable doubt. Science should be scrutinized in a similar manor. Often I feel scientists are disproportionately hurt when someone attacks their conclusions. They need to get over their own emotional shortcomings and find a solution to the problem. Much like people need to get beyond "common sense" and reason with the facts.
- nanairo 16y ago
  I don't think scientist are so much hurt as lost: when you have years of evidence pointing in one direction, and someone replies with a completely unscientific argument (take a lot of pseudo-science for example) what is he supposed to do? Science has its own epistemological methods. You don't prove something beyond a level of reasonable doubt because that's a) vague, b) really difficult (rarely science proves anything), c) the scientist never claims that his theory cannot be improved, i.e. it's perfect/finished. On the other hand scientific agreement comes when a theory explains current data and can predict many new situations, and these were tested not just by the author but also by other people in other places with other apparatus. Every article is also checked for the assumptions and methodology that are stated in each paper. The scientific method cannot prove anything but has its own ways of knowing things... ... which is why it is so hard to give a scientific answer against some wacko unscientific theory. The fact that the person doesn't see experiments or peer reviews is no excuse: that is the way science proceed, and it's open to anyone to scrutinise. You seem to suggest that scientist shouldn't just scrutinise each other's work but also answer any complain/criticism from someone who has no clue about the field. But you know, there's a reason the scientist spent 4 years of Uni and maybe more later: how can society know "beyond a level of reasonable doubt" what the scientist have agreed upon if they don't have the tools to understand it?
  - torial 16y ago
    "I don't think scientist are so much hurt as lost: when you have years of evidence pointing in one direction, and someone replies with a completely unscientific argument (take a lot of pseudo-science for example) what is he supposed to do?" My suggestion as to what the scientist is supposed to do when encountering a completely unscientific argument is below. Please note, I am not trying to respond to any of the other aspects or questions you asked -- this "simple" response became way too long as it is :-) PREPARE AHEAD OF TIME: A. Learn to communicate. A lot of life is dealing with miscommunication. It seems scientists as a group have the same issue with miscommunication that software developers generally have. This is very important where the science is critical for impacting public policy decisions. Especially, learn to listen, so that the metaphors and analogies that are guiding the incorrect thinking can be ascertained. B. Expect that as soon as you are using science to advocate for public policy changes scientists will have opposition. Actually, the science part isn't the prereq, it is the "advocate for public policy changes". Lots of groups who advocate for public policy changes get villianized. It sucks, but it should not come as surprise to anyone who enters into that arena. If you (generic) want to be left alone, keep your head low. If you (generic) want to stand up for something -- you will be opposed. REACT: C. Educate. In my opinion, the scientist is supposed to educate people in a simple a terms as possible. I believe scientists used to view this as part of their duty and I believe it has been something that has been generally lost (fwiw I have a 3 volume set of articles that great scientists such as Einstein and Bohr wrote for lay people that span over two centuries... often the articles were published in newspapers.. I have loaned it out, otherwise, I'd list the set for those interested). To educate the lay people, write articles for news papers or online venues. Engage critics with openness, because in doing so professionalism is shown and confidence is built up. D. Be respectful. Don't refer to people who disagree as deniers or anti-science or ignorant. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Figure out the faulty metaphors they are employing and reveal them. At the worst, agree to disagree. I have recently encountered a scientist doing exactly this, and have been very impressed with him (and I expect I disagree with him on some fundamental beliefs), but I have contacted him to encourage him in what he is doing, and even sought his feedback on some of my own interests.. because I can trust him to be methodical AND respectful. Respect opens up the possibility for long term dialogue. Also, keep in mind that your audience isn't only the person asking questions or postulating absurd theories. It includes the people who are undecided watching the debate (or reading the news article, etc..) as well as the minority / subset of the opposing view who are willing to listen. FOLLOW UP: E. Make a point of gathering objections, alternative theories etc, and having the data that refutes them readily and publicly available. This is just a tactical confidence building move. SUMMARY: Please note, I'm not encouraging necessarily that a single person do all these things. Happily scientists do not work alone, are part of associations, etc.. and collectively they can do these steps and maintain/gain/improve a good footing with the public. And doing so in a respectful way will gain more good will (even from people who disagree) than you might imagine.

by praptak 16y ago

adolph 16y ago

From the interview: Don’t come up with a view, find everybody who agrees with it, and then say, “Look at this, I must be right.” Start off by saying, “Who do I trust?” On global warming, for example, I happen to trust climate experts, world academies of science, Nobel laureates, and certain science journalists. You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe. It sounds like he is advocating a trust system based on titles, organization membership, etc. How is this different from trusting them based on authority?

nanairo 16y ago
What's wrong with that? I mean it's not like you get a noble prize by winning the lottery! You take random wacko on TV and noble laureate, each tells you their theory, and you (so far) don't know anything else. Who do you trust? Why? I think the title _does_ mean something: it was neither bestowed upon him randomly nor inherited by blood. Let me ask you another question: who do you think runs faster, a random guy I pick you see in the street, or a guy who won an olympic medal in athletic? Most people somehow feel winning an olympic medal is all about merit, but getting a Noble isn't!!!
- adolph 16y ago
  Chill out. There is nothing in my comment to imply that there is anything wrong with title, or authority, or pink ponies. The author of the proceeding comment wrote "Trusting scientists because they use controlled experiment, peer review and other similar tools is quite a different thing than trusting them based on authority." The purpose of my comment is to say that the words attributed to Singh indicate trust based on authority indicated by title, membership, etc.
  - nanairo 16y ago
    No worries: I wasn't angry or shouting. Sorry for coming too strongly. :) I understand what you are saying, but my point is that those two are in science a lot closer than you seem to suggest. Titles (such as a noble prize) are won thanks to reputation gained from those experiments and peer reviews. If your karma system is based on what you published and that is subjected to peer review and scientific methodology, then your reputation (i.e. your karma) are a good hint that the person knows what they are talking about. In other words: trust scientist --> high authority --> gained by good experiments and subjected to peer review
Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
I agree that that sentence could give that impression but I think it's a little out of context. If you read Simon Singh's stuff (particularly Trick or Treatment, the book which lead to the article which lead to the libel case) it's really not what he advocates - he advocates having a robust evidence base for what you're saying. I think what he was trying to say in the sentence you quote is "I believe the overwhelming majority of the people who have looked at this subject, have a history of backing up their claims with robust, tested, reviewed evidence and are doing so in this instance".
robryan 16y ago
It's a good way to filter out the crazy crackpot opinions, not to say these aren't of any value but when you don't have time to be an expert in a field you are much better off trusting those that have had their viewpoints put through rigorous peer review over those who haven't.
praptak 16y ago
The titles, organization membership, scientific prizes are of course a kind of authority, but they are not assigned based on authority alone. It is a whole system built upon peer review, reproducible experiments, verifiable hypotheses and so on.

josefresco 16y ago

You may be right (I know little of Simon) but the average person doesn't see the experiment, or peer review. They just see the authority. Just like our ideal legal system, to prove someone guilty it has to be done beyond a level of reasonable doubt. Science should be scrutinized in a similar manor. Often I feel scientists are disproportionately hurt when someone attacks their conclusions. They need to get over their own emotional shortcomings and find a solution to the problem. Much like people need to get beyond "common sense" and reason with the facts.

nanairo 16y ago
I don't think scientist are so much hurt as lost: when you have years of evidence pointing in one direction, and someone replies with a completely unscientific argument (take a lot of pseudo-science for example) what is he supposed to do? Science has its own epistemological methods. You don't prove something beyond a level of reasonable doubt because that's a) vague, b) really difficult (rarely science proves anything), c) the scientist never claims that his theory cannot be improved, i.e. it's perfect/finished. On the other hand scientific agreement comes when a theory explains current data and can predict many new situations, and these were tested not just by the author but also by other people in other places with other apparatus. Every article is also checked for the assumptions and methodology that are stated in each paper. The scientific method cannot prove anything but has its own ways of knowing things... ... which is why it is so hard to give a scientific answer against some wacko unscientific theory. The fact that the person doesn't see experiments or peer reviews is no excuse: that is the way science proceed, and it's open to anyone to scrutinise. You seem to suggest that scientist shouldn't just scrutinise each other's work but also answer any complain/criticism from someone who has no clue about the field. But you know, there's a reason the scientist spent 4 years of Uni and maybe more later: how can society know "beyond a level of reasonable doubt" what the scientist have agreed upon if they don't have the tools to understand it?
- torial 16y ago
  "I don't think scientist are so much hurt as lost: when you have years of evidence pointing in one direction, and someone replies with a completely unscientific argument (take a lot of pseudo-science for example) what is he supposed to do?" My suggestion as to what the scientist is supposed to do when encountering a completely unscientific argument is below. Please note, I am not trying to respond to any of the other aspects or questions you asked -- this "simple" response became way too long as it is :-) PREPARE AHEAD OF TIME: A. Learn to communicate. A lot of life is dealing with miscommunication. It seems scientists as a group have the same issue with miscommunication that software developers generally have. This is very important where the science is critical for impacting public policy decisions. Especially, learn to listen, so that the metaphors and analogies that are guiding the incorrect thinking can be ascertained. B. Expect that as soon as you are using science to advocate for public policy changes scientists will have opposition. Actually, the science part isn't the prereq, it is the "advocate for public policy changes". Lots of groups who advocate for public policy changes get villianized. It sucks, but it should not come as surprise to anyone who enters into that arena. If you (generic) want to be left alone, keep your head low. If you (generic) want to stand up for something -- you will be opposed. REACT: C. Educate. In my opinion, the scientist is supposed to educate people in a simple a terms as possible. I believe scientists used to view this as part of their duty and I believe it has been something that has been generally lost (fwiw I have a 3 volume set of articles that great scientists such as Einstein and Bohr wrote for lay people that span over two centuries... often the articles were published in newspapers.. I have loaned it out, otherwise, I'd list the set for those interested). To educate the lay people, write articles for news papers or online venues. Engage critics with openness, because in doing so professionalism is shown and confidence is built up. D. Be respectful. Don't refer to people who disagree as deniers or anti-science or ignorant. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Figure out the faulty metaphors they are employing and reveal them. At the worst, agree to disagree. I have recently encountered a scientist doing exactly this, and have been very impressed with him (and I expect I disagree with him on some fundamental beliefs), but I have contacted him to encourage him in what he is doing, and even sought his feedback on some of my own interests.. because I can trust him to be methodical AND respectful. Respect opens up the possibility for long term dialogue. Also, keep in mind that your audience isn't only the person asking questions or postulating absurd theories. It includes the people who are undecided watching the debate (or reading the news article, etc..) as well as the minority / subset of the opposing view who are willing to listen. FOLLOW UP: E. Make a point of gathering objections, alternative theories etc, and having the data that refutes them readily and publicly available. This is just a tactical confidence building move. SUMMARY: Please note, I'm not encouraging necessarily that a single person do all these things. Happily scientists do not work alone, are part of associations, etc.. and collectively they can do these steps and maintain/gain/improve a good footing with the public. And doing so in a respectful way will gain more good will (even from people who disagree) than you might imagine.