[extropy-chat] Science and Fools (was: unidirectional thrust)

[Robin Hanson]

At 10:54 PM 3/15/2005, Hal Finney wrote:
> > >... science has mechanisms for self-correction
> > >which simply aren't present in the hobbyist and enthusiast community.
> >
> > I'm not at all sure "science" has better mechanisms than hobbyists.
> > Not sure "science" has much of a referent at all really.  "Established
> > academic experts" have mechanisms, ok, but not clear they are better.
> > Rather, I'd just emphasize the "established" descriptor.  If most 
> people who
> > are widely acknowledged to be very expert on closely related topics 
> reject a
> > position, well then all else equal that position is probably wrong.
>
>You might have missed my paeans to science from last year,
><http://www.lucifer.com/pipermail/extropy-chat/2004-April/005888.html> and
><http://www.lucifer.com/pipermail/extropy-chat/2004-April/005911.html>.

I did miss them.  Thanks for pointing them out.  There you write:

>Essentially I am advocating the idea of following the scientific
>consensus faithfully; you might even say, blindly.  ... Delegating these
>matters to any outside social institution, even one whose track record in
>approaching the truth is greater than anything mankind has ever developed, ...

It seems to me that your arguments there would have the same force if you just
used the phrase "intellectual consensus" and dropped adding "science" 
modifiers.
The specific mechanism you praise is criticism, but this is mostly just what
happens to intellectual experts in general.

Now perhaps in some areas criticism is stronger than in others.  It is not
at all clear that this would be due to differing social institutions, rather
than to other differing factors.  But regardless of the exact reason for the
difference, should one prefer experts from the stronger-criticism 
areas?  You said:

>the minute you start deciding for yourself which scientists
>should be counted in the consensus and which shouldn't, you're making
>your own judgements.

Now isn't preferring high-criticism experts just another way to decide which
experts should be counted?   If the experts in some area think they do just
find with less criticism, why should you think they are wrong?



Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323