« The Real Outsourcing Threat | Main | Gwen, What Happened? »
Popper, Kuhn, and Intellectual Responsibility
This Seattle Times editorial against Intelligent Design makes me uncomfortable:
This is particularly true of science. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable to fail. The theory of evolution, for example, postulates complex life arising from simple life. If the geological record showed otherwise — that the further one went back, the more complex life was, or that unrelated species repeatedly appeared as if from nowhere — that would falsify the theory.Intelligent design implies that God did it. That may be true. Certainly, millions of Americans believe so. But intelligent design is not a scientific theory because there is no set of facts that would disprove it. No matter what science says tomorrow, a believer in intelligent design could say, "Yes, that's the way God did it."
This is a kind of naive Popperian account that nobody who's familiar with modern philosophy or sociology of science would accept. It's all much, much, much more complicated than this falsifiable/non-falsifiable dichotomy. The trouble is that presenting a more sophisticated, post-Kuhnian approach is very complicated and not at all the sort of thing that it's easy to do in an editorial, a column, a blog post, or a sound bite. Even worse, a too-brief, too-sloppy, or too-superficial Kuhnian treatment of the issue is going to wind up giving aid and comfort to the creationists, while the Popperian approach, though crude, has the virtue of quickly getting to the heart of the matter -- Intelligent Design isn't science.
So what's a somewhat well-informed person in the journalism game to do? Perpetuate Popperian or positivistic ideas we know to be wrong as a necessary Straussian tactic to maintain the integrity of the education system? That doesn't seem very appealing. Just stay silent?
August 10, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83423fe9453ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Popper, Kuhn, and Intellectual Responsibility:
» The importance of being honest from Preemptive Karma
If you've ever bothered to check my PK bio, you'll note that I'm not a registered Democrat. I'm registered as "non affiliated". Kevin gleefully pokes at me over this, knowing that it's not an oversight on my part. He likes to think of this lack of affi... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 18, 2005 3:17:24 PM
Comments
I am kinda curious what's so wrong with it. I mean I know simplistic definitions of evolution and scientific methods aren't really kosher, but what in here was wrong that mattered? Is falsifiability not really an issue?
Posted by: Tony Vila | Aug 10, 2005 4:28:13 PM
The answer is to appeal to authority, like they have been doing, and to make hints at the Popperian stuff. Unfortunately.
Although, I will say that I think import of this stuff is currently heighten because those that believe in ID are much more sensitive to how the scientific advances in brain science and genetics completely destroy their world view, and this is a bit of a last ditch effort.
With better understanding of genetics (understanding gene-therapy for instance, or a complete understanding of the physics behind the whole process) the arguemtn against ID should get easier and easier.
Posted by: theCoach | Aug 10, 2005 4:33:39 PM
You have all the space you need. Could you enlighten us pre-Kuhnians?
Posted by: ignorant | Aug 10, 2005 4:55:14 PM
yeah, I guess I'm a naive popperian too. what am I missing?
Posted by: c. | Aug 10, 2005 5:14:26 PM
I think what you meant to say was "Perpetuate Popperian or positivistic perceptions perceived to be poorly presented per a prerequisite pStraussian plan to prolong the probity of the pedagogical process?"
Posted by: neil | Aug 10, 2005 5:21:08 PM
I think a two-pronged approach would work -- you emphasize falsifiability, and then enumerate one or two cases that Karl Popper didn't think of. In all cases you can show that ID isn't good science, or even science at all.
Posted by: anand sarwate | Aug 10, 2005 5:21:57 PM
While it's a bit naive, it still hits on the important point that in science, everything is up for grabs if you have the evidence. For good scientists, all "root causes" and "immutable laws" are, at best, proximate. The more deeply "root" an idea, the higher the standard of evidence necessary to repudiate it (for example, it's harder to demonstrate non-consrevation of parity than it is to demonstrate that giraffes are tall because they like to play basketball), but in theory, there are almost no "facts" held that cannot be challenged.
So, while most day-to-day science is, in fact, working back from what one "knows" to be true to explain an observed phenomenon, there is a fundamental difference between scientific and non-scientific purtuits in that it IS possible to change what one "knows," and to change it rather radically. This is simply NOT possible in an intelligent design universe. One always works back, because God always did it.
It's sort of the difference between evolution and intelligent design. Where intelligent design demands that one conceives of a certain outcome and takes steps to make that outcome occur, science molds a whole bunch of short-term things that work, and in a very path-dependent manner gets to some new grand unified theory that holds for a couple of years, and then gets supplanted.
But they are fundamentally right about the different role of evidence and observation. While not purely deductive, evidence matters in science in a way that it simply does not in theology. That's one of the reasons people need science class--to learn how different those things feel.
Posted by: theorajones | Aug 10, 2005 5:23:06 PM
Kuhn is not philosophy of science surely: it's sociology or anthropology of science. Kuhn provides a description of how scientists behave when looked at outside the discipline. That does not mean that inside the discipline what they are trying to do, the standards they set themselves, is Popper.
Reminds me of my favourite head-up-one's-behind academic story. Coming back to university after a few years, I met a grad student, still not graduated though she had been well-advanced before I left. I inquired how her dissertation was going. She said that she had been studying archeology, paased her exams, then had spent a year (two years?) in China working on a dig, then come back to the US and decided that she wanted to switch subjects, and changed to anthropology, including taking two year's course work before getting to write the thesis. I asked what group she was writing her anthropology dissertation on, and she said ... Chinese archeologists.
Posted by: otto | Aug 10, 2005 5:36:19 PM
The theory of evolution consists of exactly two observations. Descent with modification and differential reproduction (survival of the fittest if you must). No one, not even the most ardent creationist disagrees with either of these two observations. Descent with modification means that offspring look similar to but not exactly like their parents. No one argues with this observation. Some individuals produce more offspring than others and some offspring die without reproducing. No one argues with this observation either. In fact these two observations are the basis of animal husbandry, plant breeding and resistance to antibiotics. Now creationists will argue that these observations only apply to species and call it "microevolution" but creationists will not argue against it.
Basically, creationists do not dispute the underlying mechanism of evolution. However they dispute a number of ideas that for their own convenience lump under the rubric of "evolution". Creationists dispute the age of the earth. This encompasses a variety of scientific disciplines including geology, earth history, interpretation of the fossil record, radioactive dating methods and basic principles of physics such as conservation of mass, energy and momentum.
Hardcore Creationists believe in the literal Noah's flood. For instance, where did all the water for Noah's flood come from? Where did it go? How could a "storm" that rained over the entire surface of the earth for 40 days and nights possibly be generated? This is strictly not possible given what we know about atmospheric dynamics and calculations of how much water would be required to float and ark to the top of Mount Ararat. None of this is "evolution" or even falls under "evolution as taught in modern biology.
Shortening the argument to one about "evolution" is misleading and misses the basic point that creationists don't disagree with the basic mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin. Creationists disagree with the application of Darwinian evolution to explain the origins of life and relatedness and distribution of life on earth even as they accept that this organization is more or less as evolution would predict.
Intelligent design is an argument that past events cannot have been due to natural causes and therefore a "designer" must be postulated. However, Intelligent Design fails because its proponents have yet to document ANY past event that is inconsistent with natural causes. Claims of inconsistent events by ID proponents have subsequently been shown to have reasonable natural scenarios. In the case of mathematical probabilites (Hoyle for instance) his mathematics actually describes the probability of spontaneous generation, not the probability of evolution. No scientist takes ID seriously and will not until ID documents an event that can have no natural explanation.
ID is more than bad science, it is bad theology. ID is a "God of the Gaps" philosophy. If science lacks an explanation, God is invoked to "fill the gap". Unfortunately for God, as science progresses and fills in the gaps, God must inevitably shrink. There is a good reason why many theologians and people of religious faith reject the "God of the Gaps" philosophy. Personally, I would prefer that public schools not teach theology, especially bad theology that conflicts with my own religious beliefs.
Posted by: bakho | Aug 10, 2005 5:50:56 PM
I must admit that I have been guilty of the Popperian simplification in discussions with friends. Having studied Popper and Kuhn and such in college, I am being intellectually dishonest...but falsifiability (?) is a great shorthand for the many problems wiht ID. Just to name one: it gives rise to no new scientific inquiry, no new testible hypotheses...other than hypotheses about the nature of the creator, and exploring such hypotheses is called theology. The analogy I use is between journalism [theology] and engineering [science]: Asking how a car runs is engineering, asking who authorized the product line is journalism.
Posted by: justin | Aug 10, 2005 6:30:12 PM
neil wins.
Posted by: Petey | Aug 10, 2005 6:31:00 PM
The thing I object to the most in that editorial is the idea that natural selection says simple organisms will progress to more complex organisms. How do you define "simple"? The human genome sequencing project will tell you that if you count simple by number of genes, we're certainly not at the apex. Natural selection just says those who survive and reproduce in their environment have their traits become prevalent.
Scientists are much more positivistic and Popperian than philosophers of science. Nobody, not scientists or philosophers, owns the definition of science or a unique interpretation of what scientists do.
That said, I--and perhaps most other scientists--would discount a "theory" that had no testable predictions. Perhaps something could come of those ideas with future development. But no matter what the unifying and explanatory powers of the ideas, they're more like a summary of current knowledge than a reliable guide to what's out there.
Posted by: Bram Boroson | Aug 10, 2005 6:53:45 PM
The real issue here comes to intent. Science attempts to test its theories, theology despises testability.
Using Popper is something of a dirty trick since Popper himself admitted it is almost impossible for science itself to meet his criteria. His real objective was to set the bar so that Marxism and Freudian pseudoscience failed.
The inteligent design theocrats are clearly acting in bad faith.
Posted by: phill | Aug 10, 2005 7:20:38 PM
My favorite example of a non-falsifiable but indisputably scientific hypothesis is "There is at least one magnetic monopole in the universe." If true, it explains nicely the quantization of electric charge. While it's not falsifiable, it *is* testable, and some long-running experiments have looked for magnetic monopoles (but haven't found them).
When explaining why ID is unscientific, I usually say that science doesn't explain complex and ill-understood phenomena by inventing a *more* complex and ill-understood entity, i.e. the designer. (On the other hand, if one already has a designer in mind...)
Posted by: Arcane Gazebo | Aug 10, 2005 8:06:03 PM
"The inteligent design theocrats are clearly acting in bad faith"
Ho Ho.
Posted by: otto | Aug 10, 2005 8:10:52 PM
"The inteligent design theocrats are clearly acting in bad faith."
Ho, Ho
Posted by: otto | Aug 10, 2005 8:12:53 PM
I guess i, like other, am I naive person as well. I see the argument of "Intelligent Design" to be setting up a false dichotomy. The same old tired creationistic sthick of claiming "the big bang" and evolution cannot exist because we're all so complicated is crap. Why should we stop at 1 creator? Couldn't 3 or a dozen gods get together and "intelligently design" things? What about pantheism and deism? Those concepts have to be counted.. because it's silly philosophy to assume "intelligent design" to be limited to an outdated desert religion god (my baises showing.. sorry ;).
Intelligent design could also be easily made to fit within current scientific theory.. if we believe, as the deists and others did that God set things in motion and let them go clock working" along on their own.
One of Sciences best tools is Accom's razor. If we're seriouly going to consider "Intelligent Design" as a theory we might as well chuck Good ol' Accom out the window in a reprise of an eastern European style defenestration.
These people aren't philosophers. They aren't scientists. They are extremists who will stoop at nothing to bend and distort truth to suit themselves. Science has the benefit of being acceptible to anyone and to people of any faith. That's because science is objective or at least attempts to be objective. You cannot call "ID" objective by any means.
Posted by: Syniel | Aug 10, 2005 9:11:27 PM
Clearly, ID has hit a nerve among the exponents of scientism monopolizing this dialogue. Its as if the quaint Creationism of the Scopes Monkey trial has genetically mutated into a more formidable predator against whom the Darwinist idealogues have no clear defense.
I'm not sold on ID, but I'm intrigued, in part because it responds to a yearning for meaning as biologically certain as the yearning to live and bear offspring. Evolutionists are more dangerous than Creationists in my book - Darwin's logic leads to nihilistic existentialism that fascists, communists and all variety of anti-democrats exploit.
Re falsifiability. Does the concept not imply a absolute standard of truth? I.e., if conflicting empirical evidence can disprove a hypothesis, does that not suggest that consistency, reliability and predictability are fixed characteristics of truth? I see that as no less fantastic than a belief in a Supreme Being that surpasses all understanding. Who are we to discern?
Posted by: donkeyhawk | Aug 10, 2005 10:48:40 PM
"Darwin's logic leads to nihilistic existentialism that fascists, communists and all variety of anti-democrats exploit." It is interesting that this is a lot like the rationale William Jennings Bryan used in his opposition to the teaching of evolution, which was that it leads to belief in Social Darwinism...
I guess my problem with Intelligent Design is that there is no more basis for it than there is for the theory that the entire Universe is actually the dream of a small, purple gmone sleeping somewhere in the 11th dimension. Lets face it, though - it could be true...
Posted by: Doug | Aug 10, 2005 11:19:28 PM
Matt, working scientists' thinking about what they do is far closer to Popper than it is to Kuhn, even if Kuhn is more popular among humanities types.
Kuhn was correct in pointing out some sociological factors in the hard sciences that are often ignored, but is nevertheless true that falsifiability is still considered a central concept by most working scientists.
On the other hand, I think that ID is falsifiable and that it fails obvious tests: if we stipulate that ID means that the designer really was intelligent, then the existence of obvious botches that one would expect to arise from natural selection but that no sane designer would create are evidence against ID.
There are many such botches.
Posted by: Joe Buck | Aug 11, 2005 1:30:30 AM
The Popperian view forms a good "first approximation", much the same way Newtonian mechanics forms a good "first approximation". Even though we know that it's not actually right, we also know that it's close enough to be worth using unless we hit a "tough spot" (where we have to start explaining Einstein's theories or quantum mechanics).
So there's nothing wrong with using it as long as you note "(Actually, according to current theory it's a little more complicated than this, but this is a good first approximation.)"
As Joe Buck notes, however, "intelligent design" has already been falsified. If creatures were designed, we know from their "designs" that the designer was an idiot.
Posted by: Nathanael Nerode | Aug 11, 2005 3:30:00 AM
Bram Boroson hit what was *actually* wrong with the editorial:
--
The thing I object to the most in that editorial is the idea that natural selection says simple organisms will progress to more complex organisms. How do you define "simple"? The human genome sequencing project will tell you that if you count simple by number of genes, we're certainly not at the apex. Natural selection just says those who survive and reproduce in their environment have their traits become prevalent.
--
Evolution is not "progress" and has no goal; that is a pernicious misconception. Evolutionary processes could easily lead to the extinction of all multicellular organisms amid a thriving world of bacteria (and if we had global thermonuclear war, they probably would, since bacteria are the only organisms known to live in nuclear waste).
Read talkorigins.org. :-)
Posted by: Nathanael Nerode | Aug 11, 2005 3:34:28 AM
So, here are the problems Popper is said to have.
1. Some scientific hypotheses are not falsifiable. For isntance, "elephants exist" (Arcane Gazebo gave a similar, but more realistic, example). Falsifying this would involve proving that there are no elephants, but you can't "prove a negative".
2. It's really not that hard for a pseudoscience to make some falsifiable claims. For instance, your astrologer might tell you, "you aren't going to explode tomorrow". What she has said is falsifiable, but still astrology isn't science. Similarly, IDers have claims they can point to as being falsifiable. The thing is, it's not actually that much to their credit.
3. The idea of science coming in discrete units that are individually falsifiable or not is now thought of as naive by some. Suppose I have some wacked out astronomical theory, which predicts weird stuff happening to Mars. We look in the telescope, no weird stuff. "That just shows we need to revise our theory of optics/telescopes", I say, "not my wacked out astronomical theory. If we had the right theory of telescopes, it would explain why it *seems* like Mars is normal, when really there's weird stuff going on." Etc. Now, in some cases it *might* be right to blame your theory of telescopes; in other cases, this would just be ad hoc. Falsifiability doesn't help in telling the two cases apart.
4. Is any part of science *literally* true? Most of the law of, say, Newtonian mechanics would only literally apply in ideal physical conditions which have never been realized, and perhaps never could be realized. We still want to say they "approximate" the truth, but it's hard to spell out what that means exactly. Anyhow, if a lot of science isn't literally true, then it's literally false, again running into problems with falsifiability.
Thing is, it's not like there some theory out there more sophisticated than Popper that's widely accepted and gets every case just right. A number of philosophers of science presently think that there is no criteria that sharply distinguish science from non-science; science is the kind of thing where you know it when you see it, and there may be grey cases where it's hard to tell for sure. This isn't by any means post-modernism, it's held even among very sober minded philosophers of science.
Trouble is, it's pretty clear that this view is potential open to devious misues by IDers and others.
Posted by: Justin | Aug 11, 2005 3:55:17 AM
Perpetuate Popperian or positivistic ideas we know to be wrong as a necessary Straussian tactic to maintain the integrity of the education system?
Yes. The end justifies the means.
Now please go on vacation and have some fun!
Posted by: Al | Aug 11, 2005 10:22:44 AM
Matt,
Like many, I often feel I am sliding on ice trying to wrestle with the ID crowd - despite being a former newspaper journalist with science editing credentials.
There is never going to be one brilliant last-word op-ed essay.
But - of course there was going to be an exhuberant 'but'! - for your purposes, there are a couple of yawning pits the ID crowd leave out in the open.
1. Public high school basic science textbooks are far more cautiously worded than many people - on both sides of the argument - might assume. My "research" in this matter involved getting off my bum, crossing to our sons' school book shelf and opening their standard Earth Sciences tattered hardback. After 20 or so pages, I stopped counting references to "evidence suggests", "the current understanding indicates", "many astronomers believe" and similar variations. This is hardly science-as-religion being rammed down tender young throats. My point is to look at what is being taught - rather than what is claimed is being taught. It's a hell of an eye-opener.
2. If you want to go hand-to-hand with a typical ID supporter, Bakho (above) expresses the key tenet succinctly: "Intelligent design is an argument that past events cannot have been due to natural causes and therefore a "designer" must be postulated." If you stay with me for two ticks - this proves the ID crowd have boxed themselves into a corner. This position is little short of intellectual nihilism. It is unanswerable. In practice, of course, in their day-to-day lives, IDers accept natural causes without blinking, until it comes to the origin of everything.
Finally - and somewhere, some op-ed writer must have done this: begin an editorial with the words "ID is a more comprehensive theory than modern Darwinism because..." and ask for supporters to complete the sentence with lucidity and charm...
(Okay, the charm bit is a joke...)
Posted by: Jody | Aug 11, 2005 10:56:09 AM
