[extropy-chat] Re: Robin Hanson on Cynicism

[Hal Finney]

Harvey Newstrom writes:
> I find both cynicism and optimism to be unscientific.  They both imply 
> prejudice toward evaluating things good or bad based on motives rather than 
> empirical evidence. 

Robin's essay at http://hanson.gmu.edu/metacynic.html distinguishes
between the "cynical mood" - rude, unhappy, complaining - and "cynical
beliefs", that most people are hypocritical and/or have "low" motives.

Mood, whether happy or sad, may well be unscientific, but beliefs are not.
If someone, based on observation, comes up with a hypothesis about human
behavior and motivation, and that hypothesis makes predictions which
are backed up by experience, then that is a valid and scientific process.


> True scientific method would apply equally to everybody.  Unlike the cynic's 
> conundrum above, the true scientist gladly subjects themselves to the same 
> scrutiny and standards that they subject others to.  Science has no such 
> conundrum.  The more scientists are scrutinized using the same scientific 
> method, the more they should pass with flying colors. 

The only scientists who can apply their methods to themselves are those
studying human behavior.  A physicist can not place himself into a
particle accelerator.

Those scientists who most closely face Robin's "conundrum" are those
who study the scientific method itself.  Sociologists of science,
for example, have composed critiques of the schoolbook version of
the scientific method, casting it as a mythology which disguises such
true motives of scientists as fame, power, influence, and nepotism.
The so-called search for truth is presented as nothing but PR for a
scientific establishment mostly interested in protecting its position
and preserving the status quo.

Those researchers must then face a conundrum if they turn their lens
onto themselves.  What motivates researchers who study the scientific
method?  Are their analyses free of the biases and base motivations
that they find in the works of others?  Are they searching for truth,
or merely seeking personal gain?  If the latter, then they admit that
they are not seeking truth and are intentionally biasing their results,
so why should we pay attention to what they say?  And if they claim to be
free of such biases and presenting the truth as objectively as possible,
then why not believe that other areas of science are equally capable of
operating in such a mode?  Either way, it undercuts the criticism which
this field often aims at the scientific establishment.

Hal Finney