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 most scientific advancement
– The practice of science has varied as a function of time; e.g., the gentlemen scholar of the Victorian Age vs. the modern scientific-industrial complex which necessitates the grant-monkey
– Even the brilliant scientists who are responsible for most productivity are embedded within an enabling social and cultural framework; e.g., Voltaire in exile in England noted with admiration how much honor was heaped upon Isaac Newton, a commoner whose talent overshadowed those with more prestigious pedigree
– Even brilliant scientists have also been capable of ridiculous intellectual production.; e.g., Isaac Newton’s preoccupation with alchemy
– In terms of proximate method science consists of a mix of rational theorizing, observational and experimental empiricism, and a stance of skepticism toward the data generated and their relation to a proffered hypothesis
– The fact that scientists tend to study nature makes their task of understanding much easier than that of humanists, whose topic of preference is far more diffuse and slippery
But I want to go back to my first post, and reemphasize that I wanted to make people cautious of engaging in the fundamental attribution error:
In attribution theory, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or overattribution effect) is the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based, explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing situational explanations. In other words, people have an unjustified tendency to assume that a person’s actions depend on what “kind” of person that person is rather than on the social and environmental forces influencing the person. Overattribution is less likely, perhaps even inverted, when people explain their own behavior; this discrepancy is called the actor-observer bias.
I believe that many scientists and non-scientists engage in this when it comes to the ability of scientific scholars to tackle any problem or topic with agility and insight. Note that most scientists do not engage in enough productivity to make a non-trivial mark upon the body of knowledge over time. Then it stands to reason that when the typical scientist engages in disciplinary imperialism they are trading on the prestige and power of science which is due to the labor of other humans (the few brilliant individuals, who generate knowledge through talent or luck). There is a black-box called “Science,” which they are part of, and because Science is a phenomenon of such power one wishes to smear the distinctions of the various moving parts and pieces which contribute to the scientific process so the numerous inferiors may catch the reflected glory of the few superiors. I’ve noticed that this also happens with non-scientists. There have been several parties or social situations where I have witnessed an phenomenon where someone will make an assertion, and then go on to note that they derive their position from a friend or significant other who is a scientist. They too are trading in the power of Science, which due to its objectivity is transferable so long as one maintains accuracy of the constituent concepts and their relational integrity. Yet often the authority seems highly tenuous at best; e.g., person X’s fiance is a veterinary student, and so their opinion on the importance of biological diversity carries great weight (real example). No, I don’t think so…..
Comments are closed.