See Mark Morford's column today on sfgate.com.
Printable View
See Mark Morford's column today on sfgate.com.
I saw that as well, and it helped me clarify some thoughts I've had recently, since there's been so much discussion of science vs. magic/mystical/wishful/anecdotal/imaginary approaches to things like vaccines and cellphones. It's kind of unfortunate that people and organizations who I enjoy like Morford, Maher and the Huffington Post seem so comfortable accepting implausible positions. I know, a lot of right-leaning people think "we've always felt that way too!!" but of course they're wrong when they say that. It's also difficult to reconcile why I'm pretty sure that people, whose credentials I'd give weight to on a lot of things, don't convince me at all when they make some assertions that sound so unscientific to me (like the woman in Morford's article who found dowsing plausible, or many of the scientists/technicians who are AGW deniers). Especially since I'm inclined to take a really jaundiced view of those in power, why do I usually accept the mainstream scientific organizations views over the 'cranks'??Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:
I think it's because there's not enough respect in the world for how hard it is to "know" something. Reading some of Martin Gardner's essays recently highlighted a point that I remember from philosophy classes but that was too subtle for me to understand the first time encountered it: it's almost impossible to define "truth" itself. 'Course, in daily life our sloppy intuitive definition of it -should- be good enough. However, I don't think it always is - when people use it in all capitals as they make some wacco point, or say they're "speaking truth to power" or when they describe some insight that they find personally convincing, it makes me think they don't give the concept the respect it deserves.
So even though it's true, as Morford says, that science can't reveal all knowledge, it's also the case that no other way of ensuring accurate perception of reality is built on such a firm foundation. Using science to test the accuracy of a claim is far better than trusting insight, or experiencing something unusual and unexplainable (e.g. finding anecdotal evidence). It's extremely hard, as I said in a recent post, to create good scientific tests and to interpret their results, but all that says is that science isn't guaranteed to give knowledge either. Acknowledging its limitiation does nothing to boost the value of other forms of acquiring knowledge.
Notice that any quality writing about a scientific "controversy" (and many of the issues in the public eye hardly deserve that term) includes a disclaimer that the outliers could possibly be correct - but that their arguments aren't convincing and the preponderance of evidence is against them. This is true of vaccine-harm claims, grey-goo devastation, linear-accelerator-black-holes, AGW denial, cell-phone health effects, etc. Often those writers point out, honestly I think, that they're susceptible to counter-evidence but their opponents don't seem to be - rather, they're selectively picking evidence to make their points. It's a human tendency to do it, and good scientific thinkers train themselves to resist it. Most people don't bother to do so, because while they like to think of themselves as logical people, they value their subjective knowledge more. You can hear that when people describe their value systems. Most think that overly logical people are somehow lacking in humanity, and think that logical reasoning shouldn't be universally applied to human life. That's flawed logic!!! It has no more to it than the claims by some fundamentalist Christians than "if you don't accept the primacy of God, then you have no reason not to kill and plunder!". Another problem is that non-scientists arguing with scientists often sound like a kid saying his art is as good as Picasso's, since neither of them can get the eyes on opposite sides of the nose. There's so much of that noise that it's hard to judge the credibility of the few who can make that argument. The guy in the cell-phone-hazard video who's an engineer falls in that category. He's better versed in the field than I am, so for all I know, his points are valid. I've been able to find multiple people of similar or better credentials who attack his evidence, so all I can take from him is that the case for cell-phone hazards is plausible, but isn't likely.
But back to Morford's scientist: Sure, dowsing may well work. I tried it myself when I was a kid, and the sticks sure as hell did something weird. I'd just find it easier to accept if, after all these centuries of its use, it had some scientists explaining its mechanisms - or at least some explanation about why that can't happen that's better than what we've got so far. It's clearly still an open question, but it's still extremely unlikely to be "real". There's no reason we should live our lives accepting only what's objectively-provable reality, though. I still like Adam Savage's principle (whether tongue-in-cheek or not) as one to live by: "I reject your reality and substitute one of my own". Just know that that's what you're doing!