|
Author
|
Topic: Virtues of Scientists
|
Janitor@MIT
Member
Member # 125
|
posted 11. April 2003 15:41
Mr. Moderator has closed the topic so I couldn't respond, but I think he forgot something that science must certainly teach (beat into our heads): humility. (I have the scars to prove it! And I wear them like a badge of honor, quite frankly. LOL)
I have titled this "Virtues of Scientists," with one thought as to what is required of us, what we expect from each other, what science teaches us that we apply in the conduct of our daily ("non-scientific") lives.
As far as I know (and I know virtually nothing) science is rarely discussed in these terms, but usually the virtues of "science" (rather than scientists) is counterposed against the (questionable) virtues of "other ways of thinking" is discussed often, especially in popular treatments that take issue with religion.
But I notice, given what little I know about it, that Mr. Moderator's (brief) list of desiderata or "scientific" virtues would be preached from any pulpit in the world. (Or mats or mosques, altars, caves, cathedrals, or catacombs, wherever those guys do their talking.)
If I polled the preachers, presbyters, prelates, and popes of the world would I find that their short list of "virtues" is the basically the same as that drawn up by a group of scientists?
(I certainly am in an "illiterative" mood today, aren't I?)
Actually, what got me thinking was Erik's statement in the "Intelligence" topic, that he felt no strong need for a model of intelligence to practice science. But I thought that it's not a question of felt need. Its a question of what is required to do science.
(I apologize for dragging Erik into my ramblings, but he did get me to thinking.)
Does one have to be "virtuous" to do science?
If so, and I'm not deciding so, then what might those virtues be? (Other than usual backslapping non-virtue--Yeh, ya gotta be really smart.)
Even though Mr. Moderator has obviously presented his short list as a suggestion as to how to smooth discussions and move them forward. Let me reiterate the question: Are there "scientific" virtues and if so, what are they?
Or what do you think they should be?...
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 11. April 2003 16:46
I just wanted to state my approval of this thread in case others were wondering whether to jump in or not.
IP: Logged
|
|
Noel Rude
Member
Member # 516
|
posted 11. April 2003 17:00
Interesting question! Whereas we are always tempted to mandate exact procedures and demarkations -- generally with the consequence that any field labeled "nonscientific" (history, ethics, whatever) becomes banished from the realm of public knowledge -- Phillip Johnson has spoken eloquently to this problem -- but what I wanted to say is that knowledge (of whatever stripe) is acquired within three fundamental parameters: observation, reason, and appeals to authority (no one can produce all his knowledge all by himself). All sophisticated statements boil down to these three.
But usually unmentioned is honesty.
Why has Western Science progressed so spectacularly? Observation and reason (and the authority of cumulative knowledge) are not limited to Western elites, but perhaps at no other time and place in history had they been allowed to develop within a culture and economy which actually championed the acquisition of knowledge and the honesty required to do so. New knowledge is always destabilizing and thus the entrenched bureaucracies of all cultures resist it -- meaning that stability tends to trump honesty. Science, therefore, is and should be cultivated and cherished by all truth loving folks -- which is just about the same as saying all honest folks.
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 11. April 2003 22:36
The creation of peer-reviewed scientific journals that are read widely by those in specific fields, and also examined in part by those in related sciences has contributed to the virtue of honesty in scientists. The old "you can't fool all of the people all of the time" applies here, and the special emphasis on examining the writings for what is wrong that is done in peer-reviewed science journals is an important asset of the scientific method.
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 12. April 2003 01:17
An interesting addition to the question regards which qualities that are customarily seen as virtues are actually not scientific virtues (especially if applied improperly). For instance, I think many aspects of politeness are inappropriate for the pursuit of science. When data contradicts the hopes or plans of a colleague, the scientifically advantageous thing is to tell them. Bluntly, if need be, so that they understand. A modicum of politeness is necessary to function as human beings, but science works better when people are willing to expose each other to the harshness of reality.
Also, respect is usually considered to be a great virtue in conventional society. A certain level of respect helps avoid wasting the time of the best scientists. However, as with politeness, reality comes first. If the highly respected scientist does something stupid, it serves science better if people jump up and cry foul--loudly and insistantly, if necessary (and it will be necessary given their prominence if they aren't able to admit their mistake).
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 13. April 2003 15:22
Ged makes an ironic statement:
quote:
The creation of peer-reviewed scientific journals that are read widely by those in specific fields, and also examined in part by those in related sciences has contributed to the virtue of honesty in scientists.
And yet here we find a instance of exactly the dishonesty that is not supposed to happen with peer review:
quote:
Hendrik Schön, a Bell Labs research scientist, was found guilty of scientific misconduct. Schön, whose research included amazing scientific discoveries such as the creation of molecular transistors and the observance of high temperature superconductivity for buckyballs, was relieved of his duties at Bell Labs.
The small molecule transistors were especially important because their behavior was similar to that of silicon based transistors. Observers suggested that the nanoscale devices may prove as viable candidates to replace silicon electronics once Moore's Law for silicon expired. A scientific review panel, led by revered Stanford professor Malcolm Beasley, found that 16 of 25 scientific journal articles published by Schön from 1998-2001 were false. Beasley writes in his executive summary to Lucent, "Hendrik Schön showed reckless disregard for the sanctity of data in the value system of science."
The review process is supposed to assure the scientific community that the findings of researchers are sound and accurate before
publication of results. The findings of the inquiry are only now revealing four years of false results.
http://www.stanford.edu/~vjoshi/October2002.pdf
I think this supports the idea that maybe a better process of virtue and honesty would come after publication. I think that peer review process doesn't contribute much to the "virtues of scientists". For example, the power that is wielded by peer reviewers, gives them the liberty to unethically prejudge a good scientific paper on the basis of a priori philosophical beliefs.
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 13. April 2003 16:06
Janitor@MIT,
I like the idea of humility. It is surely the virtue that is easiest to overlook whether you are a scientist, poet, historian or just the average guy walking down the street. We naturally have a sense of elitism towards the present and towards our particular position in history. It is very hard (I've tried many times) to think of how our current epistemological stance towards the world might be significantly flawed. Things seem so obviously true to us, otherwise we'd probably change our beliefs about the world.
Perhaps I'm naive, but it seems that the most honest approach to take towards the world is to acknowledge the limited access to knowledge that we have as human beings. Certainty is something we'd all like to have, but I've come to the conclusion that certainty is beyond my grasp.
Having said these things, there is a need to make knowledge claims with a certain level of confidence, or else no one will give credence to what we say. Striking the balance is a tough thing to do.
How does one attract attention to one's ideas without overstepping one's degree of certainty?
IP: Logged
|
|
Terdherder
Member
Member # 236
|
posted 13. April 2003 17:20
I don't think there's any argument regarding the intention of the peer-review process. What amazes me is how clever individuals who know how the "game is played", if you will, can quite readily and easily manipulate the process to gain recognition, accolades and prestige. Of equal interest is the motivation that drive these individuals to act in, shall we say, less than scientifically rigorous ways. As a person who works in the environmental profession and whose job it is to write technical reports to regulatory agencies, I am aware of what seems to be a steady supply of examples where individuals with advanced degrees and doctorates commit what amounts to a snow job through the careful and judicious wording of research papers and regulatory compliance documents. Often, what's more important is not what's being said, but what's been left out. Other times, the results are banal and trivial, and have been dressed up in technically flowery verbiage. At times, the level of obfuscation and manipulation is, to me, breathtaking.
I certainly don't believe most in academia conduct business like this. At first, it used to amaze me how some individuals with chutzpa got away with intentional omissions, prevarications and at sometimes outright lies. At least in my corner of the academic universe, there's a bit more winking and knodding than I'm confortable with as it pertains to research results and technical reports/papers.
So I'm in favor of people boldly saying the emperor has no clothes. But I also know that for some, this can be and has been dangerous or even fatal to their career. IMHO, too often the peer review process is a rubber stamp used to sanction those in the "in" crowd, and/or banish those who's research/findings run counter to current orthodoxy.
Other than that, peer reviewing is great!
IP: Logged
|
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 14. April 2003 09:19
One thing, coming from the supposedly "lowest" life on the scientific totem pole, science should be devoid of religious prejudice when it comes to scientific hypothesis. A hypothesis can stand or fall on its own, apart from one's religion, be it atheist or theist. Just look how Hoyle's scientific opinions were treated after he "found God." Some scientists are treated like laymen because of their belief in God. A. E. Wilder Smith also endured much ridicule due to his creationist connections, however, his scientific thoughts on origins are still surviving today.
And certainly those who are outside the creationist camp yet still in the theist camp (namely, IDers), can see that prejudice can impede progress......................Cre8
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 14. April 2003 09:35
quote:
And yet here we find a instance of exactly the dishonesty that is not supposed to happen with peer review:
quote:
Hendrik Schön, a Bell Labs research scientist, was found guilty of scientific misconduct. ...
And who was it that found him "guilty"? Think about that when reading Alonso's post. Ask yourself if the system worked.
[ 14. April 2003, 09:35: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 14. April 2003 10:42
Cre8ionist,
I agree and disagree. What you are asking for is super-human. Humans aren't very good at "pure" thinking. In fact, one common criticism of approaches in AI has been that it is unlikely for a sytem based on First Order Logic or some other monotonic logic system to simulate human intelligence. Why? Because humans draw less than logical (rational and irrational) inferences all the time. We like confirmation of our pre-existing belief structure: it takes A LOT of mental energy to reconstruct our belief networks and we naturally opt for inertia. We tend to filter out that which doesn't confirm our suspicions. Creationists and theists (your example) are often just as guilty (from my vantage point) as Darwinists and atheists.
I think it is artificial to expect for scientists to cease being human beings that have beliefs to be confirmed. What we could hope for is a culture of science that values diversity (diversity of ethnicity, education, gender, religious beliefs, etc.) and trains scientists to appreciate the ambiguity (or lack of certainty) of the data until it is organized into and processed by our belief networks.
[ 14. April 2003, 11:34: Message edited by: Micah Sparacio ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Janitor@MIT
Member
Member # 125
|
posted 14. April 2003 12:10
Peer-reviewed enforcement of “honesty” is certainly a sort of factitious virtue, is it not? Scientists don’t truthfully report their results for fear of getting caught if they do otherwise. There is certainly something more going on here. Apart from the trivially obvious, accuracy, there is certainly a greater commitment to truth here. Is it "metaphysical?" Can science do w/o the “truth” and simply replace it with “accuracy”?
OTOH my conscience has been occasionally troubled because the competitive ethos of the scientific community has occasionally put me in the position where I withheld some of what I knew to be true. (I never lied, but I also didn’t tell the truth, if you know what I mean.) Maybe I’m just a hopelessly naïve idealist, but I was never able justify in my own mind this “policy.”
Anyone else been in the same position? Did it bother you?
I would entertain this notion: Competition between scientists is far more subversive of science than it is productive. We (Americans, if not everyone) live in a society that prizes competitiveness as a virtue. I don’t see it. Not for science. (Can I manage to be anti-American and anti-scientific in the course of one sentence?!)
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 14. April 2003 16:28
Ged,
The people who found him guilty were the people who followed the research for years, following it's developments, and this only after publication. This is the best peer review which, I think is superior to our current peer review process. Where a few guys stand in between you and publication. The dishonesty can come from both ends.
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 14. April 2003 21:10
quote:
Scientists don’t truthfully report their results for fear of getting caught if they do otherwise. There is certainly something more going on here.
Janitor, yes there certainly is more going on here. Peer review is more than just an issue of "fear". It is a means of extensive detailed information transfer. It is a means for reinforcement of useful behavior for the community, simultaneously with its being the mechanism for disbursing that useful information that is the result of the useful behavior (the research). The very usefulness and repeatability enabled by replication enabled by the requirement of sufficient detail in what is published gives rise to the conditions in which positive reinforcement occurs for a job well done, and the quality of the information is verified over time by others in the scientific process.
One gains a reputation for a job well done by peers viewing that job well done and finding it useful for further purposes.
The amount of negative opinion of peer-reviewed literature and the process of scientific research and publishing says volumes about the attitude of what is written here.
Alonso,
quote:
The people who found him guilty were the people who followed the research for years, following it's developments, and this only after publication.
Thanks for making my point.
[ 14. April 2003, 21:17: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 14. April 2003 21:31
Janitor wrote quote:
OTOH my conscience has been occasionally troubled because the competitive ethos of the scientific community has occasionally put me in the position where I withheld some of what I knew to be true. (I never lied, but I also didn't tell the truth, if you know what I mean.) Maybe I'm just a hopelessly naïve idealist, but I was never able justify in my own mind this "policy."
Anyone else been in the same position? Did it bother you?
I do not recall being in that position when I was in academia. However, I am regularly in it now because we have proprietary technology that has to be explained on occasion to prospects in a way that gives the flavour of it without handing over the keys to the safe. It's a strange partial strip-tease, and it makes me exceedingly uncomfortable.
The remarks on peer-reviewing remind me of a situation I was in some years ago. For reasons I prefer now to repress (it was a student's fault!) I found myself writing an extended critique of the statistical analyses in a paper in a parapsychology journal, a paper, incidentally, by two Ph.D.s from a well-known industrial research laboratory. That led (by a route involving "If you can do it better, then you do it!") to my reviewing papers for that journal for a mercifully brief period. To give you the flavour of some of it, one paper I refereed was on the psychic control of pain, performed by an Iraqi researcher, the paper being complete with colour pictures of human subjects with nails skewering various portions of their anatomy! I later declined an invitation to a conference in Baghdad on the topic. (That is an absolutely true story!)
Anyway, I ceased refereeing for the journal when the editor objected to my rejection of a paper, my recommendation being on the grounds that there was a pattern of errors in a series of statistical tests that implied that the data had either been scrubbed or faked. The editor said it wasn't my job to check for that kind of thing. In other more orthodox journals for which I occasionally refereed and in the NSF grant proposal reviewing I did, it was expected that referees would check that kind of thing.
The Schon case shows (a) it is possible to get fake stuff past referees and (b) sooner or later it'll most likely get caught. The more striking and important the findings, the more likely it'll be caught sooner rather than later because lots of people will be trying to replicate and extend the work. That whole process is what enforces the integrity of the enterprise. Fakes can get by for a while, but if their work is of any importance at all, they'll get nailed sooner rather than later.
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic