Another blast from the past.
Truth often suffers more by the heat of its defenders than from the arguments of its opposers.
–William Penn
Recently, I found myself hot under the collar. Now, don’t get me wrong, I have a temper. But this was all about science and I work very hard to keep my cool and professionalism when it comes to science – passion and science = bad science.
But I was beginning to understand why so many scientists and naysayers are getting into arguments just short of fistfights. It’s hard for even the best scientist to keep his or her temper down when they are being accused of lying and laziness.
This discussion is not going to be about religion. I truly believe in freedom of religion including anyone’s belief in Thor or the monster that hides under the bed. I have not been granted omniscience (aside from believing in fairies myself) and have no right to tell you what to believe in as long as (a) you don’t try to force it down my throat and (b) don’t try to pretend it’s science.
Science is a fascinating beastie. It’s all about finding out what and how reality is and, if possible, figuring out how to manipulate it for the betterment of mankind. Fortunately and unfortunately, reality is pretty slippery. It provides some facts pretty easily, some with a lot of work and some, well, it still hasn’t provided a clear answer. Fortunately, it’s what we don’t know that makes it fun. Unfortunately, what we don’t know (or, worse, think we know) can be very dangerous. For instance, long ago they tried blood transfusions under the correct assumption that blood can help when blood’s been lost. Unfortunately, their lack of knowledge about blood factors meant that some transfusions didn’t go too well so that it was an act of desperation until blood typing was discovered early in the 20th century.
It is because of this, the thrill and excitement (and the risk) of what we know and don’t know that scientists voluntarily subject themselves to strict rules and processes of rigor. Rules include repeatability (preferably independently), adequate controls, and theories that can be disabled with a single immutable fact (which is not the same as a single data point). All the data must be accounted for or explained; one cannot pick and choose the data. And, to be really recognized, it needs to withstand something called peer review.
Peer review? You expect them to police themselves? Yes, for two reasons. First, one cannot evaluate the science of a proposal, conclusion or bit of research without an in depth understanding of science and scientific processes. Generally, this effectively limits you to scientists or “former” scientists (if such things exist). Secondly, scientists want to be right. Being wrong, spectacularly, is not how any scientist wants to be remembered.
Yeah, but don’t we look after our own? Actually, not so much and there’s good reason. There is no benefit for a scientist to give a free pass on the work of another scientist. If the work is bogus or sloppy, the reviewers would be impugned (rightly) along with the researcher by their failure to look at it critically. Wherein politicians (and some other, but not all, professions) can generally make mistake after mistake and survive, in the scientific world, a single instance of dishonesty and/or sloppy work can ruin a career.
If someone does research and writes conclusions, a reviewer is obligated to try to shoot holes in it, find the problems, look for errors, whether the reviewer agrees with it or not, or we do a disservice not only to the rest of the world, but to the researcher. If it’s wrong, we don’t want to hang our hats on it (and we save the researcher some embarrassment). If it’s right, we want it to be as bulletproof as possible.
And people in the same field do not all agree (HAHAHAHAHA!) - far from it. It is, in fact, the hemming and hawing on details that have let so many less familiar with the process think that so many scientists disagree on global warming, when what they are really doing is trying to understand not IF there will be changes, but how much, how fast and what we can do to minimize it. On that, I feel comfortable saying consensus has not been reached. But it doesn’t mean the science is invalid.
Don’t get me wrong. Scientists get excited by findings, breakthroughs, new possibilities, verifications, etc. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t be here. And, yeah, anyone who does work they’re proud of likes recognition. That’s why we peer review and take our time accepting new ideas. If an idea can take being tested independently and repeatedly, if it can stand the test of time and many different people trying to poke holes in it, it stands a much better chance of being valid that if it came from one excited individual.
That’s one reason I get so hot under the collar at being accused of laxity or dishonesty. I’m part of those very checks and balances. Does nothing get by us? Sadly, yes, mistakes are made here and there. But they usually get caught eventually and the numbers (percentage-wise), I feel, are low. Truth told, I don’t know of any other profession that examines itself so critically, puts in so many impediments and challenges to ensure that integrity, that objectivity that makes science what it is. Because people do use that information in a life and death way, we have to be responsible with what we say.
Your doctor doesn’t have the same review process when he gives a prescription (though the basis for the treatments he'll suggest should have gone through the same rigorous process). Your mechanic doesn't even have that. Your lawyer can do all kinds of stupid things (at hundreds of dollars an hour). And there’s not much you can do to preclude mistakes being made by those you trust.
In most cases, there is little you can do except fire someone (after the fact, mostly likely) or in cases of egregious error, sue. In most cases, you just have to live with it. Think of how much better government might be if positions and arguments in government were vetted with the same rigor as science. (I find it ironic that people are more likely to be believe others who have a vested interest in persuading you to a point of view - bankers, big business, politicians – than those that have none.)
Believe me, folks, we don’t want to tell you bad news. There’s no glory or riches in telling people what they don’t want to hear. If we tell you, it’s because that’s what the evidence is telling us and we don’t want our unwillingness to put it on the line to cause anyone to be hurt unnecessarily. At the least, we have no interest in looking stupid.
In science, we really try to weed out the mistakes before you ever see our results. We’re human, but we want the truth out there more than we want our name on it. We’re not perfect, but we’re trying to do the right thing.
Cut us a little slack, k?
You know, some things never change.
Read more...
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=spacer}
