Why Science Fails Us

[GreyGeek]

http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/arch...rrors?page=all

This assumption -- that understanding a system's constituent parts means we also understand the causes within the system -- is not limited to the pharmaceutical industry or even to biology. It defines modern science. In general, we believe that the so-called problem of causation can be cured by more information. Scientists refer to this process as reductionism. By breaking down a process, we can see how everything fits together; the complex mystery is distilled into a list of ingredients. And so the question of cholesterol's relationship to heart disease becomes a predictable loop of proteins tweaking proteins, acronyms altering one another. Modern medicine is particularly reliant on this approach. Every year, nearly $100 billion is invested in biomedical research in the US, all of it aimed at teasing apart the invisible bits of the body. In Europe, that figure is estimated to be at least €17 billion (£15bn). We assume that these new details will finally reveal the causes of illness, pinning our maladies on small molecules and errant snippets of DNA. Once we find the cause, of course, we can begin working on a cure.

The problem with this assumption is that causes are a strange kind of knowledge. This was first pointed out by David Hume, the 18th-century philosopher. He realised that, although people talk about causes as if they are real facts -- tangible things that can be discovered -- they're actually not at all factual. Instead, Hume said, every cause is just a slippery story, a catchy conjecture, a "lively conception produced by habit".

[woodsmoke]

An example being that some animals do things from "instinct".

woodsmoke

[SecretCode]

Not disagreeing with the central point about putting too much emphasis on "causes", but I'll still take scientific thinking about causes over magical thinking about causes. Like "my sister's friend took velingranate root and it cured her anxiety, so I'm going to give it to my kids".

[Qqmike]

That is why (one reason, at least) I am not impressed by the compulsive call of some to "cite research that proves it!" My first thought is, How naive is that? (A bit aside: I also don't fully trust "research" when it is cited. Fraud may be a small percent of issues, but there are others (biases, choices made by the principle investigators, issues of commission and omission and the consequent impact on real-world interpretation of results, the very nature of statistical "truth" itself, and so on--if you've studied advanced statistics, you know the assumptions I'm fingering).)

Good subject--one that deserves more than my one paragraph opinion-response.

[rms]

Very interesting, +1

It always seemed to me that what science(scientists) is doing, most of the times, is trying to explain e.g. the cause of a house by analyzing physical and chemical properties of a brick. lol

[SteveRiley]

trying to explain e.g. the cause of a house by analyzing physical and chemical properties of a brick

The "cause of a house"? Not sure what you mean. Nevertheless, without an understanding of the physical and chemical properties of the world around us, everything we rely on for modern life wouldn't exist.

Carl Sagan once said,

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.

[rms]

The "cause of a house"? Not sure what you mean. Nevertheless, without an understanding of the physical and chemical properties of the world around us, everything we rely on for modern life wouldn't exist.

I mean, they try to explain/find a cause of a thing from the grounds up just like the article which GG brought to our attention points. So, if you were looking for the cause of a house(an architect) how long would it take if you start by analyzing the bricks of the house(Sherlock Holmse's preferred method)? I imagine it is possible to discover things by following this method but very slowly and probably not beyond a certain scale.

[SecretCode]

An architect is the cause of a house?

I don't think it's helpful to talk about "causes" of things. Events have causes (well, most of them ... and there's a lot of scientific or philosophical discussion to be had around that).

So you could ask what was the cause of a particular house being built (because the owner wanted a house there?) - or a particular housing estate being developed (because the landowner, who was in the business of building houses, thought the time was right and he could sell them for a good profit? Or because the government, aware of pressure for more houses, zoned the area as residential? Or both?)

More often perhaps people want to know the causes of unexpected events - why did my house fall down? Bad bricks? Bad mortar? Bad workmanship? A big bad wolf? Again, there might be more than one cause, and causes for the causes, and it's very easy to overlook important things.

[rms]

An architect is the cause of a house?

Yes, he makes the plan of the house to be built. You cannot build a house anyhow or it will not last long or be useful enough for the inhabitants.

I don't think it's helpful to talk about "causes" of things. Events have causes (well, most of them ... and there's a lot of scientific or philosophical discussion to be had around that).

House is not an event but a solid structure with a purpose. If you don't know its purpose analyzing its structure is a long way to come to the knowledge about the house. That is what I had in mind. Science seems to be forever blind to any purpose.

So you could ask what was the cause of a particular house being built (because the owner wanted a house there?) - or a particular housing estate being developed (because the landowner, who was in the business of building houses, thought the time was right and he could sell them for a good profit? Or because the government, aware of pressure for more houses, zoned the area as residential? Or both?)

No, I mean in a general way i.e. when confronted with largely unknown problems/subjects. Dealing with particular cases, like this house example, is a different thing because we already know a great deal in general about the purpose and meaning of a house. Then you can really analyze the subject and look into the factors that affect it.

Just imagine an alien being from space on deserted Earth. What would he be able to conjure about the human race solely by analyzing a brick house and no other info?

Do you think diseases have no purpose or meaning? Science does. That's why it is difficult to cope with fallacies that afflict the human race through science.

[GreyGeek]

That is why (one reason, at least) I am not impressed by the compulsive call of some to "cite research that proves it!" My first thought is, How naive is that? (A bit aside: I also don't fully trust "research" when it is cited. Fraud may be a small percent of issues, but there are others (biases, choices made by the principle investigators, issues of commission and omission and the consequent impact on real-world interpretation of results, the very nature of statistical "truth" itself, and so on--if you've studied advanced statistics, you know the assumptions I'm fingering).)

Good subject--one that deserves more than my one paragraph opinion-response.

In 1988 the TV series NOVA presented "Do Scientists Cheat?". You can watch the first of seven segments here. Two scientists working for the Feds investigated, IIRC, over 2,000 research papers covering most disciplines. They focused on biological science because of the research done on chemicals with a potential medicinal use. They found that 48% of all the papers they examines showed evidence of cooking, triming, cherry picking, or making data up out of thin air. After the show was aired most of those identified in the show as whistle blowers who pointed out cheating by their colleagues, said that they'd never report another cheater because it affected THEIR career. The two scientists who created the study on cheating were re-assigned by the Feds to dead end desk jobs shuffling papers in Alaska and North Dakota.

Cheating has been going on every since science began using journals to distribute reports on investigations and the data used to support the conclusions in those reports. Some faked data can survive for decades and led to who knows how many students earning advanced degrees expanding on some aspect of the fakery, never detecting it themselves. The Piltdown Man was one such fake. "Found" in 1912, it purported to be an intermediate between ape and man. Between 1912 and 1953 it was thrown into the faces of "deniers" as proof of their ignorance, yet none of the leading professors or students in any of the colleges and university with paleontology studies denounced it as fake. Nature published an article in the July 30, 1938 issue about a memorial being dedicated on the spot where the "evidence" was found 26 years earlier:

The fossil remains found at Piltdown by Mr. Dawson set students of man’s evolution the most difficult task that has confronted them hitherto. In his characterization, Piltdown Man was quite unlike any fossil type known to us. Sir Arthur Smith Woodward was impressed by his simian similarities; I, on the other hand, was impressed by those features which, as I thought then, were eminently human and modern. Hence arose those discrepancies between us–discrepancies of a quarter of a century ago.


Since then, much has happened. Discoveries are being made which help to throw Piltdown man into his proepr place in the crowded throng of evolving human forms. We now know that when the Piltdown type was being evolved in England–or at the western end of the Old World–a totally different type had come into being in the Eastern lands of the Old World. The Eastern types had low receding foreheads, modelled as in the gorilla and chimpanzee. The Western or Piltdown type differed; it had a relatively upright and high forehead modelled not on goirlla lines but rather on those of the organg. While the Eastern forms retained in their shape of head the low squat type of the chimpanzee and gorilla, the Western or Piltdown type tended to assume the higher vaulted skull seen in modern races. There is no denying that in many of his features Piltdown man foreshadowed some of the structural modifications we find in modern races of mankind. Sir Arthur Smith Woodward, I know, will agree with me as to how Piltdown man came by such features; he came by them independently, for discoveries of recent years have proved that diverse races of mankind have undergone the same structural change quite independently of each other. And there is also no denying that through all his known parts there runs a simian vein in Piltdown man, in his skull and brain as well as is in his mandible

By 1938 Piltdown had become a "type", a declared standard. When the Piltdown hoax is discussed today by Evolutionist you'd think that only a few people before 1953 even believed the Piltdown man was real. TalkOrigins explains Piltdown man here

Remember, one of the people in this photograph is a liar:

[SteveRiley]

Science seems to be forever blind to any purpose.

Science doesn't require a purpose. But it certainly provides me with tools to find a purpose and direction for what I do. Tools that are much more useful than clinging to myths or fairytales, largely because science in the aggregate incorporates self-correcting mechanisms.

No, I mean in a general way i.e. when confronted with largely unknown problems/subjects.

When confronted with an unknown something, one of the best ways to make it known is to determine its basic structure and constituent parts. At one time, the human body was mostly an unknown thing. Continual scientific advancement has allowed us to accrue greater and greater understanding, precisely because we're getting better and better at understanding the body's structure and parts.

Just imagine an alien being from space on deserted Earth. What would he be able to conjure about the human race solely by analyzing a brick house and no other info?

Probably by following similar techniques as any archeologist or anthropoligist would do when examining an ancient ruin. See? Science at work!

Do you think diseases have no purpose or meaning? Science does. That's why it is difficult to cope with fallacies that afflict the human race through science.

What? It was only through scientific advancement that we've been able to eradicate smallpox, one of the most destructive diseases on Earth. Who cares what the purpose of smallpox was?

[GreyGeek]

Yes, he makes the plan of the house to be built. You cannot build a house anyhow or it will not last long or be useful enough for the inhabitants.
.....
Do you think diseases have no purpose or meaning? Science does. ....

No. For diseases to have a "purpose" would require it to be sentient. Maybe you are asking if diseases are a tool?

Science has no purpose. Science is just a tool created by humans for what ever purposes they want.

When I took my oral exams one of the profs on the examination committee, sensing that I was proud to have created a non-toxic broad range antibiotic, asked me what if someone used the compound I invented to kill a million people. Nobel thought Dynamite would end wars because it was so powerful compared to gun powder. One man's science is another man's poison.

To me, science is a flashlight, a microscope, a telescope, a solder gun, a 741 op amp, my computer and its apps.... and the things I can do with them.

[rms]

Science doesn't require a purpose. But it certainly provides me with tools to find a purpose and direction for what I do. Tools that are much more useful than clinging to myths or fairytales, largely because science in the aggregate incorporates self-correcting mechanisms.

As tools, scientific methods are indeed valuable but I'd like to point that science also is not free of bias and preconceptions the fundamental one being, as far as I can recall, that we live in the universe that is without any meaning or purpose. A mass of matter of different properties that's governed by its own equally meaningless and purposeless laws. Matter before mind. The other one being that it is possible to learn anything about the subject under investigation by dissecting it and not having any idea about its place and meaning in the scheme of things.

Is it based on any solid indubitably proven facts or is it, this time, a scientific dogma?

By adopting such an attitude, what do you think, how far will your real knowledge and understanding of the world we live in (and yourself) advance?

The tools are OK, the outlook is dubious.

[rms]

No. For diseases to have a "purpose" would require it to be sentient. Maybe you are asking if diseases are a tool?

Yes. But I don't mean the tools in the hands of man only but also that they might be the tools of some entity we still do not suspect.

Do you think it's strange that almost at the very same moment(historically speaking not in terms of our short individual lives) a cure is found to treat successfully some dreadful disease another one, equally dreadful, pops up?

[rms]

Science has no purpose.

Of course not, I was speaking about the purpose of any given subject science is studying. That tends to be overlooked ever so often.