fwsweet
Administrator
Joined: 26 Nov 2004
{Posts: 4538 }
Location: Palm Coast, FL
|
 Posted: Thu 07 Dec 2006 03:34 Post subject: 3.6 Introduction to Science-As-Process |
 |
|
Introduction to Science-As-Process
Science is a process, not a body of knowledge. It is a recipe for examining the world around you in a way that yields better results than any other method. It is not the collected wisdom of scientists, because scientists are often wrong. It is not what is written in textbooks, because they too are often wrong. Science is simply a step-by-step way of looking at nature, a way that works. If you follow the steps you can consider yourself a scientist, no matter your formal schooling. Conversely, anyone who dons a cloak of wisdom to make an untestable claim is not acting as a scientist, regardless of academic credentials. The following five steps are inherent to the methodology.
1. Choose Your Battle Wisely -- The first and most important step in the methodology called "science" is to consider only issues that fall within the realm of science. Many important questions fall outside the realm of science. Does God exist? Why are we here? Was Picasso a greater artist than Rembrandt? Is the subconscious Oedipus complex the root of all neurosis? Does vanilla ice cream taste better than chocolate? This does not mean that such questions are unimportant. Feel free to pursue them. But do not try to use science on them. Said another way, the first and most important step in the methodology called "science" is to spot and ignore issues that fall outside the realm of science. How can you tell whether a question falls outside the realm of science? The next two steps tell how.
2. Define the Question Objectively – You must be able to define the issue in a way that everyone, even your most hostile but honest skeptic, accepts. This does not mean that others must agree with your data or with your conclusions. And it does not mean that they would apply the same definition to the same term, were it up to them. But they must accept that your definition is clear and consistent, both inclusively and exclusively. Imagine the following claim: "I know that races exist because I can see them." The claim includes both raw data (I can see races) and a conclusion based upon that data (races exist). The first test of whether this question falls within the realm of science is that even skeptics accept the consistency and clarity of your definition of what is a "race." Does your definition include or exclude the simplest blood types (A, B, AB, O)? Does it include variations in earlobe length or bellybutton shape? Precisely which of the thousands of geographically varying human traits are important to your definition and why? Does the word include purely voluntary cultural differences (Hispanics, Jews)?
The CIA World Factbook exemplifies lack of definition. The publication lists what fraction of each nation's population is "black," "white," or "mixed, but it does not say what the terms mean. Do they refer to proportions of Euro-Afro ancestry? Do they refer to fractional DNA admixture measurements? Do they refer to voluntary ethnic self-identity? Or do they refer to what some nameless U.S. bureaucrat concluded by visual observation? We cannot know because there is no explanation. Such undefined usage is worse than merely wrong--it is unintelligible.
Continuing the example, only if you can construct a definition that clearly, objectively, and unambiguously defines the concept of "race" in so consistent a manner that every honest skeptic can accept it, does the issue even become a candidate for the realm of science. If you cannot do this, then the issue falls outside the realm of science and there is no point in continuing to step two, no matter how strongly you feel about it.
Incidentally, an academic specialty, called "postmodernism" arose in the 1970s, whose apparent goal was to teach students to write in a manner that was so opaque as to be unintelligible. Although postmodernism has recently fallen in popularity, many academic works were produced during its rise. Their claim to fame is that they cannot be criticized because they cannot be understood. Consider, for example, the following text fragment from a sociology monograph on the multiracialism movement:
| postmodernism example wrote: | | Ontologically, Afrocentrism assumes that all elements of the universe are viewed as one and are seen as functionally interconnected. This rejection of clearly delineated boundaries extends to morality, temporality, and the very meaning of reality. Afrocentrism underscores the value of interpersonal relationships. This person-to-person emphasis fosters a human-centered orientation that values interpersonal connections more highly than material objects. Afrocentrists reject Eurocentric dichotomous thinking that divides concepts into mutually polar opposites. Afrocentricity thus provides a mode through which all individuals can liberate themselves from the restrictive dichotomization and hierarchical concepts of the modern Eurocentric model. It posits a cosmic vision that acknowledges an inheritance that all individuals share as descendants of the first diaspora, when humans migrated out of Africa to populate the globe. |
The above claims about "afrocentrism" and "afrocentricity" fall outside the realm of science because both terms lack definitions that an honest skeptic must accept. Again, this is not to say that the claims are untrue. It just means that, like the question of ice cream flavors, they fall outside the realm of science.
3. Explain How to Falsify Your Claim – The third step is to consider only falsifiable claims. Only claims that could theoretically be disproved fall within the realm of science. If you are making a claim, you must tell everyone precisely what evidence, if found, would make you change your mind. If you are inspecting a claim, look for the author's explanation of what evidence would make him or her recant. To many people, this sounds backwards. Would it not be smarter to phrase a conclusion in way that cannot be challenged? No. Not if you want to be seen as a scientist. Non-falsifiable claims are matters of faith, not of science. Consider this example, "I claim that ghosts exist." (Assume for the moment that I have objectively defined "ghost" in a way that even the most hostile skeptic must accept.) What evidence would force me to admit that ghosts do not exist? Say that you told ten students to go out and spend an hour searching for ghosts, and no one saw a ghost. Would that convince me that ghosts do not exist? How about a hundred students for a week? A thousand for a month? Honesty should make me admit that no conceivable evidence could ever persuade me that ghosts do not exist. Hence, this claim fails the falsifiability test. The claim that ghosts exist lies in the realm of faith, not of science.
Now consider the opposite claim. "I claim that ghosts do not exist." Oddly, this claim does lie within the realm of science because it is falsifiable. All it takes is one student spotting one ghost to force me to admit that I was wrong and that ghosts do exist after all. At first glance, the difference seems trivial, it just depends upon how you phrase the claim. And yet phrasing a claim precisely is the very heart of the methodology of science. Falsifiability is vital and the validity of this step has been demonstrated countless times with some very important issues indeed. If you have a hard time grasping this concept, read the following example carefully and more than once.
So-called scientists sometimes ignore or evade this step, and their claims are published in peer-reviewed journals anyway. For example, almost all paleoanthropologists agree that our species first appeared in Africa about 160 kya and emigrated out of Africa about 75 kya. This claim falls within the realm of science because it is falsifiable. It would be disproved if evidence of our presence (artifact or fossil) pre-dating 160 kya were ever found outside of Africa. But a small group of paleoanthropologists led by Milford Wolpoff claims that our species evolved much earlier, and outside of Africa, but that fossils and artifacts predating 160 kya have simply not yet been found. Wolpoff admits that no evidence ever found could persuade him that humans did not evolve outside of Africa. He rightly points out that the fruitless search for older fossils and artifacts might continue forever, and that the absence of such evidence proves nothing. Although Wolpoff is published and is highly respected in the field, no one acting as a scientist takes his claim seriously because it fails the falsifiability test. It is a statement of faith, not of science.
Were you tempted to say that Wolpoff's theory falls within the realm of science because it is provable? Did you say to yourself, "all it would take to prove him right is to find one human fossil in Asia dating from 165kya"? If so, you misread the rule. That a claim can be proved means nothing. Nothing. In order to fall within the realm of science, a claim must be capable of being disproved. In short, if you express a claim that cannot possibly be falsified, your claim will be ignored by people acting as scientists. If you come across a claim that cannot possibly be falsified, it is your duty to ignore it if you are acting as a scientist.
4. Replicate Your Findings – The OneDropRule discussion group is strict about members' backing up claims with peer-reviewed sources. This is because the peer-review process minimizes data falsification. Some people make things up. It happens. And so, new findings are essentially ignored by people acting as scientists until those findings have been replicated by hostile but honest skeptics. Non-peer reviewed sources are unacceptable because they lack assurance that their data were not simply made up. Indeed, some web sites such as Wikipedia, Dienekes, and RacialReality are notorious for fabricating findings. (As mentioned above, the "racial" data in the CIA World Factbook might be fabricated or not; we cannot know because it is unintelligible.) In short, if you present a claim, you must persuade skeptics to review your findings and to replicate your findings for themselves. Until they do, your findings will be suspect. If you examine a claim, you must inspect the raw data to see if they have been reviewed and replicated. If not, you have the duty to be skeptical.
Incidentally, some so-called scientists are quite adept at concealing their data sources and yet their claims are published in peer-reviewed journals anyway. For example, a well-known study found a correlation between the "race" of patients and their HIV prognoses. It classified patients into three "races," Black, White, and Hispanic and implied that the classification was done by genetic means. And yet, the study did not explain in detail just how the classification was accomplished. Supplementary material required to be on file with the journal also failed to explain it. Only a search through researchers' notes revealed that the "racial" classification was done via a questionnaire supplemented by the researcher's eyeball. In short, the researcher found that Black people had a different HIV outcome, where "Black" was essentially defined as "whomever the researcher (who already knew the HIV outcome) said was Black." If you are making a claim, either use peer-reviewed findings or get others to review and replicate your findings. If you are examining a claim, check that the findings have been reviewed and replicated.
5. Base Your Conclusion on Your Findings – Do not confuse findings with conclusions. Findings are raw data. For example: "No pre-160 kya evidence of our species' existence has ever been found outside of Africa." Conclusions are the results of reasoning logically about the raw data. For example: "Therefore, our species must have evolved in Africa." As mentioned, findings that have been reviewed and replicated carry more weight than findings that have not been reviewed nor replicated. But conclusions gain no credibility from peer-review. None. The theoretical reason is because conclusions must stand on their own, based solely upon findings (unlike findings which must be confirmed to be credible). The practical reason is because few reviewers closely examine a study's conclusions and many reviewers do not even bother to read conclusions at all. If you are presenting a conclusion, base it upon your findings in a logical progression that the reader can share. If you are examining someone else's conclusion, consider whether it follows logically from the findings.
Incidentally, some widely-quoted studies, published in peer-reviewed journals, present conclusions that are flatly contradicted by their own findings. And yet, people cite such studies because they support a desired conclusion, no matter how illogical. For example, the most widely-cited study supporting the biological reality of the "race" notion presents peer-reviewed, replicated findings that the "racial" self-identity of USAmericans predicts the diseases to which they are prone. Specifically, that the correlation between "racial" self-identity and certain illnesses is greater than between actual sub-Saharan genetic admixture and those same diseases. A U.S. patient who considers herself Black in the color-line sense, is more likely to suffer from "racially" prevalent disease than someone who actually has more sub-Saharan ancestry but who does not self-identify as "African American." This is a medically important finding, of which physicians should be aware. The study then concludes that this finding proves the biological reality of genetically determined "races." It should be evident to anyone that the study's conclusion is slain by its own finding, and that the only reason that its conclusion is widely cited is because it reinforces the "race" notion. Again, if you are presenting a conclusion, base it upon your findings in a logical progression that the reader can share. If you are examining someone else's conclusion, consider whether it follows logically from their findings.
-----
Summarizing the five steps: choose your battle wisely, define the question objectively, explain how to falsify your claim, replicate your findings, and base your conclusion on your findings. No one step is more important than the others. Like links in a chain, each is indispensable to the whole. Nevertheless, one or two steps are harder for people to grasp.
The falsifiability step is the most difficult for many students to accept. Although this step is traditionally the first presented and most heavily tested in introductory courses on the epistemology of science [see, for example, James Lett, "A Field Guide to Critical Thinking" in Skeptical Inquirer (Winter 1990); Kenneth L. Feder, Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology (Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 1990) or Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of our Time, Rev. and expand , 1st Owl Books ed. (New York: H. Holt, 2002)], people who are not scientifically trained often find it hard to swallow. Some even exclaim that they do not agree with it. Perhaps they perceive science as a form of adversarial debate, like law or politics, and so are happier making and rebutting untestable claims. But science-as-process is not adversarial. It is a cooperative search for understanding of the world. Hence, anyone making a scientific claim is obligated to explain exactly how the claim could be disproved. Agree with it or not, falsifiability is the foundation bedrock of science-as-process.
The difference between conclusions and findings is also hard for some people to absorb. Throughout childhood we are taught to respect authority, and many people internalize such deference without realizing it. They then focus on conclusions expressed by authority figures rather than on raw data. It is easy to tell which participants of an online thread are non-scientists by their approach to peer-reviewed sources. Non-scientists cite conclusions and seek conclusions in others' sources. When peer-reviewed conclusions conflict, non-scientists often ask, "How do I know whom to believe?" Scientists cite raw data (not conclusions) and seek replicated findings (not conclusions) in others' sources. They give little if any weight to conclusions, and are immune to the stature of persons presenting conclusions. When peer-reviewed replicated findings conflict (which is very rare indeed), they know that falsification (deliberate or subconscious) has taken place.
In the context of the OneDropRule discussion group, you may want to apply the above five steps to the many threads about the "race" notion that are debated here. For those interested in learning more about the real scientific method (not the fiction taught in K-12), the above-cited sources are recommended. If you want to delve more deeply into the philosophy of scientific epistemology, I recommend studying the writings of Sir Karl Popper. |
|
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
