Science: Are You Consistant in Your Views?

[Berwhale]

I was responding specifically to your post where you claimed that people trying to maintain consistency holds science back

I made no such claim. I said "People trying to have 'consistent' views is what holds science back..."

Ok, since I was reacting to your claim, could you explain what you mean by "views" and clarify the claim you were making in regard to "consistancy holding back science?"

I didn't choose the word 'views', it was in the OPs question. I read 'consistent in your views' as 'unchanging in your opinions or beliefs', it could equally be interpreted as 'unvarying in your way of thinking', or perhaps 'unvarying in your approach'. This is the issue I have with the use of the word 'views'.

From the definition of 'view' in Merriam-Webster...

3 a: a mode or manner of looking at or regarding something <-- You are defending this (and are quite right to in my opinion)
b: an opinion or judgment colored by the feeling or bias of its holder <-- I mean this!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/view

 

[MattHooper]

I should probably know better than to get involved in this discussion, but as a scientist (PhD 1986 Biology (Biochemistry), The Johns Hopkins University) I feel compelled to say a couple of things.

I (still) teach a graduate level biotechnology course (essentially an analytical biochemistry course, Introduction to Glycobiology) at a university in Boston, MA. One of the things I try to instill in the students is a 21st Century perspective of what science is (and, by extension, what it isn't). I got (get) on my soapbox about this because of stuff I hear in "the media" about science (e.g., something being 'settled science', e.g. -- and I am not getting into the issues in which such verbiage crops up!). The problem, for me, is that, in 2020, folks use the word science who could, themselves, not science* their way out of a paper bag.

An open mind is absolutely essential to a good scientist -- and lots of good scientists get pretty ossified as they age, because they (we!) can so easily get hung up on the notion that we understand all there is to know about (whatever our our area of expertise). If that's true, we're all finished, nothing new to see. To date, that has yet to be the case in any discipline to which I pay any attention.

So, with a dollop of trepidation, I offer here two (EDIT: a few, sorry!) slides from a couple of my lectures on the topic of science.
Offered 'as-is' and FWIW.

Agreed with pretty much all the points you posted!

Yes, scientists can be stubborn, attached to their own theories etc. But that is what the method (and community) is set up to ultimately transcend (even if it takes more time in some cases rather than others). And that's why it continues to transcend the stubbornness of individuals.

If you boil down "science" to the method and the body of knowledge derived through that method, you can see how it's the "method" that is paramount. The body of knowledge is only as good as the method that vetted it, and all such knowledge is provisional and open to revision.
We have to be open to "however reality is" even if some new observation seems poised to overturn what we "thought we knew." And it would be through a confidence in the method that allows us to accept any new data, however surprising or revolutionary it is in regards to previous "knowledge."

 

[mansr]

I didn't choose the word 'views', it was in the OPs question. I read 'consistent in your views' as 'unchanging in your opinions or beliefs', it could equally be interpreted as 'unvarying in your way of thinking', or perhaps 'unvarying in your approach'. This is the issue I have with the use of the word 'views'.

The question could also be read as "are your beliefs free of contradictions?" This can be true even if there is change over time. The rational person, upon learning new facts adjusts all his beliefs accordingly. Of course, few of us are completely rational and hence likely hold at least a few conflicting positions without realising it. Hopefully we're not quite as bad as Douglas Adams' electric monk, though.

 

[mhardy6647]

Agreed with pretty much all the points you posted!

Yes, scientists can be stubborn, attached to their own theories etc. But that is what the method (and community) is set up to ultimately transcend (even if it takes more time in some cases rather than others). And that's why it continues to transcend the stubbornness of individuals.

If you boil down "science" to the method and the body of knowledge derived through that method, you can see how it's the "method" that is paramount. The body of knowledge is only as good as the method that vetted it, and all such knowledge is provisional and open to revision.
We have to be open to "however reality is" even if some new observation seems poised to overturn what we "thought we knew." And it would be through a confidence in the method that allows us to accept any new data, however surprising or revolutionary it is in regards to previous "knowledge."

Well put, and considerably better focused than my manifesto screed.
I guess I'd just say that the word "method" should be (I'd opine) taken in the broadest sense of the word. Perhaps "approach", which includes thesis, hypothesis, experimental design, control strategy and interpretation of results, not just the technology (or observational tactics) used to generate data.

This isn't exactly germane, but I often think of the late Ephraim Racker's quip.

You can't think clean thoughts with dirty enzymes.

But, admittedly, that could be considered an atavism of biochemistry's reductionist heyday past!

 

[mhardy6647]

The question could also be read as "are your beliefs free of contradictions?" This can be true even if there is change over time. The rational person, upon learning new facts adjusts all his beliefs accordingly. Of course, few of us are completely rational and hence likely hold at least a few conflicting positions without realising it. Hopefully we're not quite as bad as Douglas Adams' electric monk, though.

hmmm... facts vs. beliefs... actually sometimes it's exactly the opposite, I'd opine.
"We" accepted the Newtonian view (i.e., set of beliefs) of the universe as settled science even at the expense of a few niggling facts (e.g., the "ultraviolet catastrophe" -- that didn't really happen for blackbody radiators)... but those facts (not the beliefs about them) were the tip of the iceberg of a revolution in physics.
The facts didn't change at all.

Heck, our beliefs of phylogeny have been turned inside-out by genetic analysis! My poor wife, an extremely avid birder, is now often frustrated by the reorganization of birding texts as ornithology has come to grips with the sometimes rather huge mis-categorization of bird species that decades (centuries) of careful, meticulous, and precise empirical observation had assembled! Gene sequences and homology studies literally rewrote the books (field guides, etc.) in a very short period of time. Zero facts were changed in that process, although numerous beliefs (some of which made good empirical sense) had to change.

The VP of R&D of a really (embarrassingly) huge pharma company I worked for (who had bought the huge company that bought our little venture) had a catchphrase which I rather liked.

Hold your theories lightly.

Bonus points for invoking the Electric Monk!

 

[andreasmaaan]

The opposite. People trying to have 'consistent' views is what holds science back...

"A new scientific truth does not generally triumph by persuading its opponents and getting them to admit their errors, but rather by its opponents gradually dying out and giving way to a new generation that is raised on it. " - Max Planck

However, science progresses through the development of new theories that seek to reconcile observations that are inconsitent with existing theories.

So no matter how you slice it, consistency must be at the heart of it IMO. A scientific theory that's inconsitent with observation is a scientific theory waiting to be superceded (ofc, that means all scientific theories in the long run).

 

[MattHooper]

I made no such claim. I said "People trying to have 'consistent' views is what holds science back..."

Yes, I know. And you included that Planck quote as well concerning how science progresses.

Just wanting you to connect the dots, please.

I didn't choose the word 'views', it was in the OPs question. I read 'consistent in your views' as 'unchanging in your opinions or beliefs', it could equally be interpreted as 'unvarying in your way of thinking', or perhaps 'unvarying in your approach'. This is the issue I have with the use of the word 'views'.

Then it seems to me you misread what the OP meant, when he wrote:

"Science: Are You Consistent in Your Views?"

And went on about "hypocrisy."

He was clearly talking about having one's wider views keeping consistent with science, and taking the view that being inconsistant was a bad thing - a form of hypocrisy. That's what he meant by "being consistent" in one's "views." He didn't care if someone was "unvarying in his way of thinking" as that is the mindset he would be criticizing.

So I think you took things in a confused direction by taking a different meaning of "being consistant with our views" and talking about consistancy of views holding back science. That would be to miss the OP's point.

Anyway...no matter. Cheers.

 

[mansr]

hmmm... facts vs. beliefs... actually sometimes it's exactly the opposite, I'd opine.
"We" accepted the Newtonian view of the universe as settled science even at the expense of a few niggling facts (e.g., the "ultraviolet catastrophe" -- that didn't really happen for blackbody radiators)... but those facts (not the beliefs about them) were the tip of the iceberg of a revolution in physics.
The facts didn't change at all.

Obviously (fundamental) facts don't change. However, our awareness of those facts does change.

 

[mhardy6647]

Obviously (fundamental) facts don't change. However, our awareness of those facts does change.

I don't think awareness is the term I'd invoke (FWIW).
The context in which we evaluate the facts changes. That's my point (if I have one).
The spectrum of blackbody radiation makes perfect sense in the context of quantized energy states, and it makes no sense at all absent that context.

The empirical chemical formula of benzene makes perfect sense in the context of aromaticity, but it requires some fairly silly explanations (inconsistent with benzene's chemical and physical properties) in the absence of the concept of ring- shaped molecules, and bond resonance, in organic chemistry.

 

[mansr]

I don't think awareness is the term I'd invoke (FWIW).
The context in which we evaluate the facts changes. That's my point (if I have one).
The spectrum of blackbody radiation makes perfect sense in the context of quantized energy states, and it makes no sense at all absent that context.

Well, why don't you pick a term then. The (dwarf) planet Pluto has always been there, but until 1930 we were unaware of this. Until that time, it would not (necessarily) have been irrational to hold a belief incompatible with Pluto's existence. After 1930, continuing to hold such a belief would be irrational.

 

[mhardy6647]

Well, why don't you pick a term then. The (dwarf) planet Pluto has always been there, but until 1930 we were unaware of this. Until that time, it would not (necessarily) have been irrational to hold a belief incompatible with Pluto's existence. After 1930, continuing to hold such a belief would be irrational.

OK, I see your point -- although Pluto's kind of a funny example, because both our knowledge of its existence (Tombaugh's photographs, IIRC, showing a shift of an object against a fixed field) and our "understanding" of its existence (based on its orbital behavior, e.g.), first as a planet and now as a dwarf planet, certainly changed in a relatively short period of time.

I reckon there are still folks who believe Pluto is a planet

Our beliefs are contextual -- "facts" aren't (whether we're aware of them or not)... although this chat is getting to a point that's too metaphysical even for me.

EDIT: upon reflection, my response to your post sounds too negative/critical. Your points were rational and clearly presented and I do appreciate them.

 

[pma]

Science: Are You Consistant in Your Views?

Is it important to maintain some level of consistency for credibility sake? Oftentimes, I see hypocrisy and contradictory views (not necessarily singling out this site, or any of it’s members), which ultimately undermines credibility of those who advocate an objective, scientific approach. Apparently, some don’t like being called out for their hypocritical views, which is understandable. Is there anything wrong with calling others out (in a gentle, respectful manner, preferably) in this regard?

Again, I’m not calling anyone out, just curious as to your opinions? Hoping this thread will lead to some interesting conversation.

I have to admit that I had to correct some of my engineering and research views, during my 40 years lasting professional career.

 

[Tks]

The question could also be read as "are your beliefs free of contradictions?" This can be true even if there is change over time. The rational person, upon learning new facts adjusts all his beliefs accordingly. Of course, few of us are completely rational and hence likely hold at least a few conflicting positions without realising it. Hopefully we're not quite as bad as Douglas Adams' electric monk, though.

Haven't met many people that will openly admit to holding clear and distinct contradictory opinions, aside from dialetheists. Also opinions as a gradient will perhaps always inevitably lead to contradiction depending on the scope of the question in contention. Likewise semantics can easily make someone seem like they're holding contradictory views.

If I say killing is something I would not do to other people.. strain the situation hard enough (like killing one person for the sake of the whole planets' bio-viability to sustain all life) and I will have to bite the bullet and renounce my belief that killing isn't something I would do to another. So I am now instantly made into someone who contradicts himself based on this extremely generalized sentence.

It all depends on how pedantic and metaphysical you want to get about things. I'm less intrigued by these plays of language that allow for silly statements like this to be made (out of context they have horrible optics). Most normal people I would optimistically hope - after presented with proper information on a matter of which they can comprehend and digest; can form stances that aren't contradictory (barring of course the silly games of diction one can always employ to form contradictions in nearly all matters)..

I like how you introduce the aspect of time-based contextualization. Many people think if you change your mind about something, that you're contradicting yourself, when that isn't the case at all really if we're working off a non-pedantic and pragmatic understanding of contradictions.

 

[Wes]

actual scientists don't have to time to be pedantic and metaphysical - tho I have seen some very stupid arguments about nomenclature...

 

[mansr]

Haven't met many people that will openly admit to holding clear and distinct contradictory opinions, aside from dialetheists.

I don't think I've ever met one of those, and that view is a tad more extreme than what I had in mind. Whereas I would like to be fully consistent in my beliefs, I have no way of knowing whether I actually am. To do that, I'd have to make a list of everything I believe to be true and cross-check all the items. That's not possible, so it is probable that something I have at some point learned or deduced is in fact, without my realisation, contradicted by something I have learned at a different time. Due to the fundamental interconnectedness of all things, it simply isn't practical to trace out every implication of everything one hears so as to find any conflicts with existing beliefs.

 

[MRC01]

... If I say killing is something I would not do to other people.. strain the situation hard enough (like killing one person for the sake of the whole planets' bio-viability to sustain all life) and I will have to bite the bullet and renounce my belief that killing isn't something I would do to another. ...

The biblical phrase "Thou shalt not kill" is a rough translation. More accurately it says, "Thou shalt not murder" which has quite a different meaning. The act of killing in and of itself isn't necessarily morally wrong. You might encounter a vicious animal (or human) that is immediately threatening the lives of several people, and only way you can stop the threat will unfortunately kill the aggressor. In that situation, killing isn't necessarily wrong, and in fact it might be morally wrong to choose not to stop (kill) the aggressor if you had that power.

But replacing "kill" with "murder" doesn't get us out of the woods. The term murder applies to a killing that is not justified by law. But the law itself might not be morally right. The law may allow killing that we consider to be immoral, or it might condemn killing that we consider to be morally justified. Just because it's legal doesn't imply it's moral, and vice versa.

So whether it is right or wrong depends not only on the act, and not only on the law, but on the motivation or purpose of the person acting, and on his moral code. Furthermore, different people will disagree on what is moral or justified.

 

[MRC01]

... So no matter how you slice it, consistency must be at the heart of it IMO. A scientific theory that's inconsitent with observation is a scientific theory waiting to be superceded (ofc, that means all scientific theories in the long run).

Yes. But being superseded doesn't imply becoming obsolete. An incorrect model is often still a useful tool. Newtonian mechanics is inconsistent with observation. Yet buildings built based on it still stand, airplanes built based on it still fly, etc.
Of course, sometimes it does. The theory of ether, for example - both inconsistent and obsolete.

 

[Wes]

The theory of ether is back - but dressed in drag, as the Higgs Field.


and BTW, "Higgs Field Cables with Gravitonic Connectors" would be an xlnt marketing plan...

 

[StevenEleven]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

 

[SIY]

@mhardy6647 I suspect you'd like this.

Also my rule of thumb: any field that tacks the word "science" onto its name is not actually science.