[extropy-chat] Re: Robin Hanson on Cynicism

Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu
Fri Sep 23 01:35:15 UTC 2005


At 01:45 PM 9/22/2005, Hal Finney wrote:
>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.

I had written earlier:
>Not that the cynic's motives for criticizing should really matter than
>much for whether the cynic's criticisms are accepted as true.  But alas
>for humans, it does matter a great deal.

Even if sociologists of science are criticizing out of low motives, their
criticisms could well be right on target.  They might try to overstate
their case, but if they are presenting evidence and arguments that we
can directly examine, we need not care as much about their motivations.

And in fact, I personally think that sociology of science critiques do
hold a lot of truth.  Academics do often fight quite dirty and dishonest
in their fights for prestige.  The saving grace is that they often
don't actually care much about the claims at issue, and in such cases all
else equal the truth is weakly useful in putting together a prestigious
package.  So given enough different academic groups fighting over a long
enough time, the different local biases of the different groups average
out, and truth is eventually favored.

For example, humans aren't born with a tendency to favor or disfavor
string theory, so while there might be a bias now favoring the opinions
of those now in power in physics, such people will eventually leave
and a new generation will seek fame by overturning the dogma of their
ancestors.

This doesn't mean that the rate of intellectual progress is anything
close to what it could be, however.  And the situation is much worse on
topics where there are certain positions that ordinary people typically
*want* to believe (such as the health effectiveness of medicine).







Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-232 





More information about the extropy-chat mailing list