Why should the average person acknowledge that scientists might know better than they do?
It is possible to make an argument from the common sense idea that scientists know what they're talking about because they've spent much more time looking at the areas of the natural sciences that we're interested in. Normally, if somebody's spent a lot of time in an area, you'd tend to take their opinion as more valuable.
We believe that you can work out whether someone has the right scientific expertise and experience to make some sensible contribution to scientific debates. It doesn't mean they're right. What you have to do is not sort out the people who are right and wrong; what you have to sort is the people who can make sensible contributions from those who can't. Because once you stop doing that, things go horribly wrong.
That seems like it cuts both ways. Are evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins fanning the flames in the way that they engage creationists?
Once scientists move outside their scientific experience, they become like a layperson. I'm not a religious person, but if I want to talk religion with someone, it won't be a scientist; it will be with someone who understands theology (who might be either an atheist or a believer). I believe people like Dawkins give atheism a bad name because their arguments are so crude and unsubtle. They step outside their narrow competences when they produce these arguments.
In our book we too criticize creationism's pretensions to be a science, but we don't treat it as a trivial problem. Our critiques of creationism are: (a) that it stops scientific progress in its tracks by answering questions in a way that closes off further research; and (b) that there is no real attempt to meld the approach with the existing methods of science. We know that the creationists say this is not true, but their hypotheses relate to books of obscure origin or to faith rather than to observation.
How do you distinguish the people who can and can't contribute to a specialized field?
The key to the whole thing is whether people have had access to the tacit knowledge of an esoteric area—tacit knowledge is know-how that you can't express in words. The standard example is knowing how to ride a bike. My view as a sociologist is that expertise is located in more or less specialized social groups. If you want to know what counts as secure knowledge in a field like gravitational wave detection, you have to become part of the social group. Being immersed in the discourse of the specialists is the only way to keep up with what is at the cutting edge.
Is this where interactional expertise comes into play?
Interactional expertise is one of the things that broadens the scope of who can contribute. It's a little bit wider than the old "people in the white coats" of the 1950s, but what it's not is everybody. (Within science, lots of people have interactional expertise, because science wouldn't run without it.)
You did experiments to test your theory of expertise. What did you find?
The original version we did was with color-blind people. What we were attempting to demonstrate is something we call the strong interactional hypothesis: If you have deeply immersed yourself in the talk of an esoteric group—but not immersed yourself in any way in the practices of that group—you will be indistinguishable from somebody who has immersed themself [sic] in both the talk and the practice, in a test which just involves talk.
See what we're tweeting about
29 Comments
Add CommentThere's some good stuff here, but talking to a theologian about religion is like talking to an astrologer about astrology or a homeopathist about homeopathy. What Collins doesn't seem to grasp is that the scientific method is an effective methodology for generating empirically true statements, the only effective method we have; one's investigations into any empirical question should be scientific, not theological, astrological, homeopathic, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo-called "scientific authority" becomes easily challenged when said scientists discard objectivity, and allow personal notions (read: political bias) alter the way in which studies are conducted, and even alter the results of such studies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> Wrong
I agree to a certain extent however i should be known that scientists have egos just like anyone else. They can get political like anyone else. Just because it works perfectly in a lab doesn't mean it will outside. One of the things that has
me worried above all else is this "posthumanity" movement
which in theory has incredible potential but most likely will
be abused and used to enforce a sort of "robotic facism"
Scientists are smart but intelligence without wisdom is useless. Remember that the nazis claimed they had scientific evidence that the aryan were "superior". As soon as you allow people to give themselves ablities they would not normally have naturally, you have created a "master race" that the natural humans can't compete with. Sure you can deny it and claim you can handle the power where no one else can but even if you can , can your followers? Within the next 100 years science will finally
"overstep" its bounds and world war 3 will happen. I trust scientists but only to a certain degree they can get corrupted just like anyone else. When you let your intelligence convince people don't know what's best for them then you are anti democracy. Besides this battle of science vs religion really seems like a vendetta and less like proving whose right and whose wrong. I want star trek already!
The headline of this article is completely misleading. It implies non-scientists should kowtow to scientists, even when scientists declare for truth outside of their narrow field of specialization. That is clearly not Mr. Collins position. What he does say is that the tacit knowledge of a group is as important as explicit knowledge, and that without tacit knowledge, you can "talk the walk" but you can't do the job. Rather than aggrandizing the opinions of scientists, I believe his message is to respect the views of specialists, but to also be skeptical of those specialists when they offer themselves as definitive authorities on topics outside of their training and professional network.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder about Hadron(?)!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFINAL DRAFT FOR MASS CIRCULATION:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by davidmabus at 05/10/2008 8:42 AM
Maybe because the scientific community has become agendized, politicized and radicalized is why no one takes them seriously.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour article is a case in point. Consensus is not science and never has been. Hundreds of scientists dispute man-made global warming, yet SA, a magazine supposedly dedicated to science waves them away with a condescending dismissal.
Behe used to be a respected biochemist. His cardinal sin? He questioned evolution. Supposedly, science is about questioning. It used to be the goal of scientists to work as hard as they could to falsify a theory. Now, the goal is to defend a theory against any and all assaults, especially a theory that has social or religious implications.
No, the reason that most scientists are dismissed today as hacks and shills is because that is what they have turned themselves into, your rag included.
"I believe his message is to respect the views of specialists, but to also be skeptical of those specialists when they offer themselves as definitive authorities on topics outside of their training and professional network."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is a dangerous attitude. There have been more than one breakthrough in science because someone who wasn't an expert came in and took a look at the problem free from the baggage of groupthink that can too easily pervade a clique.
It's human nature to have in group/out group social structures. There are large groups in the US who do not understand science, some of whom comment on this site. It's natural to fear the unknown and to try and destroy it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scientific method is the epitome of intellectual inquisition, but is often held back by this fear and misunderstanding by various groups, quite often religious groups.
Long live the scientific method!
Lets take for instance scientists could prove with 100% certainy that the earth and sun would last forever and the population would stablize and we would enjoy paradise. Would that stop people from wanting to explore space?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnope.
I want star trek just as much as anyone else but the problems of earth must be taken care of first. Scientists are also seen as wasting massive amounts of money on things that won't benefit us for years. I respect science but just because you find science "boring" or scary doesn't mean your a religious person. Remember that science invovles distrupting the natural order of things. Man always believes he knows best and won't stop until he beats it or destroys himself. I have no problem with science but scientists that promote science without limits are asking for the end of the world. Trust me read a history book and you'll learn soon enough what happens when people think they are "better" than others. You can't dismiss history with science.
I learned at an early age not to trust people that didn't know what they're taking about. The trick of course is to find out who does. Years ago while eating lunch, I watched a heard of sheep grazing on a hillside. Suddenly, it struck me how very similar their behavior was to humans! People may know better, but the herding instinct is very strong. A product on TV may be absolute BS, but people will buy it anyway because everyone else does or some "expert" or celebrity endorses it. I agree, when an "expert" steps outside his field he relinquishes some or all of that expertise. I once read a book by an author I knew that made this mistake, his presumptions were completely alien to those in that particular discipline. I did however, enjoy reading Dawkins, if for no other reason than to understand his efforts toward dispersing the "herd".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article actually explains why scientists are so easily dismissed by laypeople. They are increasingly arrogant dogmatic and seemingly cannot relate to real people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeveral things I picked up from the article-- not being an expert, I'm sure you can disregard these comments entirely-- 1) Collins seems to be saying that scientists authority deserve to be unquestioned by the public, 2) interactional expertise sounds like nothing more than consensus at best and group-think at worst, 3) the ideal academic is one who gets paid a great deal more money than I do but claims to not work 'for the money'.
As might be expected, a certain egocentric mindset very easily develops in those academics with tenure, good salaries, and so on. But there are notable exceptions; Carl Sagan, for instance, in "Cosmos" went to great lengths to describe the consequences of elitism in the sacking of the "Library of Alexandria". In the mercenary food & drug industry, as an example, there are many instances of scientists giving out their "opinions" to the highest bidder. The general public is very vulnerable and deserves to be skeptical. Until the scientific community rids itself of perceived political & financial agendas it will always come under the cloud of suspicion by many.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGarbage. Science is about facts and theories which best fit the facts, not about the people who come up with the theories. It may be more difficult for an "outsider" to come up with a better theory, but it is not impossible and to say that it is so and dismiss outsider's ideas out of hand is the act of someone who is afraid of being challenged.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to agree with Benrast's comment: "The headline of this article is completely misleading". It doesn't explain why scientists know better. The only thing it says is scientists know better because they acquire tacit knowledge by hanging out with other scientists. But that's old news - we cognitively assimilate to our surrounding environment. There are tons of idioms in different languages that reflect this folk wisdom. The interesting part would be to demonstrate that tacit knowledge (expert intuition) is better than chance in certain scientific domains. While we have good examples where tacit knowledge works, we also have plenty of examples, like the stock market predictions, where it doesn't. The "turing" test taken by the author is not impressive, for it compares his knowledge to that of his mentors, not to "how things really are". So, all he's showing is that he's a perceptive learner, not that he knows the truth. I grew up in a communistic country where tacit knowledge from the experts made me believe that the social evolution is not open ended - it's just a matter of time until we get to communism. I think you all would disagree with that expertise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think a much more compelling argument for why scientists know better is to look at their method and its track record. The scientific method is the only method of human inquiry that has a built-in error detection and correction mechanism - you can tell when you have gone wrong. This by itself allows us to build upon previous knowledge and solve complicated problems. This, of course, means that scientists [b]will[/b] make mistakes. But we shouldn't be surprised. When somebody says they won at a casino, do you assume they won every single hand or that they simply ended up on top at the end of the day? SImilarly, scientists are the winners because they get things right [b]most of the time[/b], and that's good enough to accomplish a lot of things. This means that, if I get sick, I'll still go to the doctor even realizing that things might go wrong. If somebody who has a problem with sceintists making mistakes wants to go and try exorcising the evil spirit instead, please be my guest.
--
Edited by Pavel Nadin at 05/11/2008 11:36 PM
Ah, but real life is much more complicated. I'd like to know the truth about this topic, no academic hand waving please:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Cell Phone Use Not Linked To Brain Cancer, Study Suggests"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070912111310.htm
"Cell Phone Usage Causes Brain Cancer"
http://www.newsoxy.com/brain_cancer/cell_phone_usage_causes_brain_cancer/article10653.htm
I'm just a simple layman, but it would be nice to know, really.
What about the magazines such as Sci-Am that completly ignore scientists that claim humans are not the cause of global warming? Sounds like a case of shill psuedo-scientific ad sellers ignoring a huge sect of scientists in favor of stories that sell advertising. Never mind the arm chair scientist - worry about the arm-chair biased media.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by Jahras at 05/12/2008 3:43 PM
The title itself hints at the extreme arrogance and stupidity to follow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm glad he distances himself from "ordinary people". We wouldn't want other people to think he was one of us. History of course holds a different story. While people from within a discipline make many of the small incremental improvements, because they know "the details of them", it is often the case that people outside a discipline make the major breakthroughs or paradigm shifts. I believe it was the father of an ill boy, a plumber by trade who conceived of the notion of open heart bypass surgery. Surgeons focus inside the body, plumbers see fluid flow more clearly.
I like his comment "scientists know what they're talking about because they've spent much more time looking at...". and again "Normally, if somebody's spent a lot of time in an area, you'd tend to take their opinion as more valuable." If we want to learn more about people, should we perhaps consult with those who "spent much more time looking at" them, say peeping toms, pedifiles & prostitutes?
Bob
Scientists Right all the time?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDont think you have a case,
how many times has scientists been wrong! do we need a count from recent history? DDT was determined to be SAFE by scientists. - Mat Thomas
Do you all know what a SWAG is? It is a Scientific Wild-Assed Guess! As an electronic engineer for nearly 50 years I have worked with the findings of science and they have never been wrong!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisE=IR, F=ma and E=mc^2 work every time. Give me a scientist's SWAG over any Flat-Earther's / Young-Earther's massive ignorance any day.
IF you needed a heart transplant would go with the arrogant scientist-doctor who has done hundreds of pioneering transplants, or George Bush, a likable dim bulb who has demonstrated his incompetence in several fields already?
Harry Collins fails to appreciate the difference between science and belief in the scientific method. Belief is an emotional association to traumatic memories that form the network on which value judgments are formed. Discussing the value of scientific observations places them in the realm of convictions, the land of ego and self identity. It is a natural function of brain activity, to provide decision making at a preconscious level, relying on prior emotional experiences to find satisfactory, feel good, responses. We cannot survive relying on the puny limitations of our senses senses. We would never have the time to react if the decisions were not available before we are aware of "our" decisions. Our cognate self has not evolved sufficiently to direct the vast imagination that serves to direct our awareness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an "ordinary person" I find it interesting that if we pick scientists that disagree with the consensus, we are ignorant. Many great discoveries were made by the contrarians of the day. One thing us "Op's" can do is follow the money (grants) and put two and two together. Science can be susceptible to momentum just as the common man is. Let us hope that the scientific community can turn about face when the consensus turns out to be wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Compared to most, I know a lot. Compared to what is known, I know little. Compared to what is knowable, I know nothing."
Joe Lee
The view expressed by Collins is only due to the fact that he is not a scientist. Consequently, he does not even bother to explain what exactly he means by knowing "better".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf he believes that the opinions of scientists are closer to that which is scientifically valid, than the opinions of laymen, even when the scientists are wrong, he should study the history of major scientific revolutions.
Such revolutions are usually preceded by major controversies between incommensurate paradigms. And, in such cases, the opinions held by scientists on one side of the controversy, may pose a very serious obstacle to the "proper advancement of science", especially if their opinions are supported by the "scientific establishment", i.e. represent what was the ruling paradigm before the revolutionary paradigm was launched.
The 1973 Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology, (which has been, in my humble opinion, the worst disaster to ever hit the whole field of behavioral science), is a very pertinent case in point. I shall not go into further details about this issue here, except to note that that specific Prize supports the belief in the existence of genetically predetermined behavior, i.e. "instincts"; but see Beach, Frank, A. The descent of instinct. [i]Psychological Review[/i], 52 :401-410 (1955).supports the belief in the existence of genetically predetermined behavior, i.e. "instincts"),
I agree with scientific experts, unless they are on the payroll of large corporations. Sometimes we don't know if that is the case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike Collins, you also ignore major scientific revolutions, which may not be very common, but constitute the most important events in science, in terms of the depth and extent of their effects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what do you do when the scientific-experts themselves do not agree with one another, and none of them is serving anything other than his own convictions as a responsible and committed scientist?
The title of the discussed article should be changed, from “Scientists Know Better...†to “Officially Accepted Scientists Know Better...â€, because in reality it's not their professional expertise as such that matters but the fact of adherence to that very special “system†of those in science (and beyond) who are “always right, even when they are wrongâ€. It is commonly designated as mafia (because its members are evidently beyond any, formal or informal, law), but let's call it scientifically, self-organisation ... of liars! See more details [url http://science-community.sciam.com/blog-entry/Andrei-Kirilyuks-Blog/Para-Scientific-American/580000932]here[/url].
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn response to Olavus:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>Ah, but real life is much more complicated. I'd like to know the
>truth about this topic, no academic hand waving please:
> "Cell Phone Use Not Linked To Brain Cancer, Study Suggests"
> ...
> "Cell Phone Usage Causes Brain Cancer"
> ...
> I'm just a simple layman, but it would be nice to know, really.
The short answer is that the scientific question is still under debate. Studies involving human subjects are notoriously difficult, and rarely is there any single study that is absolutely conclusive. This is especially common in medical or epidemiological studies such as those you list, because we cannot ethically expose people to radiation just to see if they get cancer or not.
Over time more studies will be done, gathering better data and asking the question in different ways. Eventually there should be sufficient evidence to answer the question conclusively, one way or the other. We really have not had cell phones around all that long either. Cancer takes years to develop, so there simply isn't much data to consider yet.
Is that helpful? I tried by best to clarify without waving. There could be a much longer discussion on your question.
I assert that everyone is an expert - an expert in the conduct of their own lives as they are the only ones who have tacit knowledge of their lives, day in, day out. So what does this mean? We need to be VERY careful as to which know-it-alls plan on using the Force of the State to roll back how people, who are acting peacefully, can behave. Science today has become less about inquiry and more about rationales for coercing people and telling them they just don't understand so just zap them in the ass with an electrode and move them down the ramp. I can just imagine the dystopia unleashed by mentalities such as this. But in this particular case I don't precisely know who is to be feared - the nuts and bolts scientists, or this "sociologist of science". If that term just doesn't scream for command economy I don't know what does. But what else is to be expected from a hoard that owes its existence to stolen resources? Perhaps the time has come to have science operate within constraints financially and have science work for practical solutions to mankind's problems and less about proving theories about parallel universes the nature of sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub -sub atomic particles. Exploring esoterica within stolen money and then chortling about how much better you are is a little hard to take.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSame applies to religion ....why not let a Scientist have a good look at your Creation Theory...and see if he /she can perhaps light the way for you...eh eh
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this