When I teach research and argument I always discuss with students that the idea is not that we need to show the audience that our evidence definitively proves a thing beyond all doubt, but that we need to construct a thesis based on what the best evidence we're able to find suggests.
18 year olds often have strong inclinations toward black and white thinking and have a hard time digesting this but I use the example, just as you do, that no scientist can guarantee to you beyond all doubt that "the sun will come up tomorrow" -- nor can they explain to you *why* gravity works, but we have models to allow us a great deal of confidence that we can count on the sun to come up and that if we trip on a rock that we're going to fall down.
People want science to be certain because in some ways their world view, in some way or another, requires science to function very much like a religion. This is, for example, at the root of the accusation that atheists are expressing "faith" in science but I think also in the insistence that if science cannot provide definitive proof then it's wrong.
But I've also posed the argument: assume that it turns out for example, that evolution or global warming were somehow proven to be wrong, like some scientist was like, "oh, Darwin forgot to carry the 2, it turns out he was totally wrong" -- would we have been silly for following it? No more than the ancients were for buying into Aristotle's model of physics, which was the best thing going at the time. There isn't a finish line for science!
My mother use to point out the fact (scientific or otherwise) that there were more horse's rear-ends than horses. I'm not sure how she came to this conclusion or if she used proper research methods, but mothers don't lie to their sons, do they?
Wow, Professor, this is what I call a proper beat down of poor Senator Emrich. If only someone like you would stand on the Senate floor to immediately deconstruct the nonsense that is often brought to the table. Emrich would like his State to bow to his own personal outlook. No virtue in that!
I appreciate the kind words, Lisa. However, I'm afraid that if I stood up to the good senator I would immediately be labelled as a snarky, cappuccino-drinking, liberal elite atheist. And of course all those labels would be correct...
I should add, also, that Nick Matzke has analysed the *evolution* of bills like Emrich's, using methods similar to those of molecular phylogeny (or tracing the provenance of ancient texts):
I disagree with the last part about the attitude to experts. It's true that an expert knows things better than I do, but I have to be able to question his or her expertise. Just like I'm doing with you right now :-)
The alternative is to passively accept the expert's opinion, and I doubt that this is a viable solution.
Ivo, okay, but the question is: on what epistemic basis are you going to question the expert? If you are an expert yourself, good. But if not?
There is a fairly large literature on trust and expertise in philosophy, and the major conclusion is that *at best* we may be in a position to verify things like the credentials of the alleged experts, their track record, and whether there is a consensus among experts in a field. But the only way to meaningfully question exert advice itself if to do the hard work to become an expert.
Of course, a discussion between an expert and a novice is different from a discussion between two experts. The novice lacks knowledge and experience and is more likely to make mistakes or overlook important information.
But as long as the novice is aware of this imbalance and does not pretend to know more or that all opinions are equal, I think this discussion is appropriate. And I think both sides can benefit from it.
In the article we find the example of a mechanic. Maybe it's not my business to tell the mechanic how to fix my car, but it's my business to ask and, if something doesen't sound right, to question the repair. There are dangers, but there are also dangers in blindly following the advice of experts.
I don't think the analogy with the mechanic goes far enough to represent the gulf between a scientist and a lay person. I have fundamental idea of how a car works. My daughter took AP chemistry in high school last year. The subject matter was so complex she actually had two chemistry tutors quit. I tried to read the text book and just laughed and put it down. That was a high school course. So in a discussion with a chemist with a PhD, how do I know if something doesn't sound right? A biologist?
The truth is most of us lack the education needed to engage with scientists in any meaningful way. Bills like the one in Montana will only serve to widen the gap. It is frustrating to watch your country slide into a dark age.
Yes, a better analogy would have been with a neurosurgeon, or a nuclear engineer. But I wanted to bring it down to earth and put forth an example that everyone can relate to.
By the way, it is precisely because the relationship between expert and non-expert runs on trust that the experts have a great responsibility, to individuals and to society, of earning and keeping that trust.
Ivo, yes, it is your business to ask questions to a mechanic, a doctor, or any other expert. And ultimately you have to be convinced enough to trust them. But that's what it comes down to: trust.
"on what epistemic basis are you going to question the expert?" - In the US the answer is I found a video on YouTube that supports whatever I already thought.
😆 Yeah, exactly, that's the danger. Have you seen that cartoon that was making the rounds during the height of the covid pandemic? It showed a tomb with the inscription: "He did his own research."
Yes I remember that one. I know you are not a fan of zombie movies, but I was a big fan of the Walking Dead. I used to think the plot hole was how could a zombie virus infect the entire world so quickly? Now I think it was rather prophetic.
We know the language of this kind is only deployed against the theory (or should that really be fact, or collection of theories, or research programme?) of evolution. I'm pretty sure that the Senator has no objection to teaching atomic theory, or the theory of gases.
This line of attack on evolution science and deep time geology goes back as far as George McCready Price, while the parallel claim that historical investigations are therefore not science is stated explicitly in Whitcomb and Morris' * The Genesis Flood*, key text in the emergence of 20th-century Young Earth creationism.
Nothing, I'm afraid. And that's why it has been a long time that defeat of the hydra hasn't been my goal. More modestly, I wish to do my part to keep the candle lit in the dark, as Carl Sagan would put it.
Likewise. While, to mix metaphors, using sunlight as the best disinfectant to expose the links between creationism, climate change denial, the American Right, and the fossil fuel industries through conduits such as the Cornwall Alliance and the Heartland Institute. That's the direction of my future writing plans
The latest on the Montana bill: https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/2023-02-07/bill-would-ban-the-teaching-of-scientific-theories-in-montana-schools
When I teach research and argument I always discuss with students that the idea is not that we need to show the audience that our evidence definitively proves a thing beyond all doubt, but that we need to construct a thesis based on what the best evidence we're able to find suggests.
18 year olds often have strong inclinations toward black and white thinking and have a hard time digesting this but I use the example, just as you do, that no scientist can guarantee to you beyond all doubt that "the sun will come up tomorrow" -- nor can they explain to you *why* gravity works, but we have models to allow us a great deal of confidence that we can count on the sun to come up and that if we trip on a rock that we're going to fall down.
People want science to be certain because in some ways their world view, in some way or another, requires science to function very much like a religion. This is, for example, at the root of the accusation that atheists are expressing "faith" in science but I think also in the insistence that if science cannot provide definitive proof then it's wrong.
But I've also posed the argument: assume that it turns out for example, that evolution or global warming were somehow proven to be wrong, like some scientist was like, "oh, Darwin forgot to carry the 2, it turns out he was totally wrong" -- would we have been silly for following it? No more than the ancients were for buying into Aristotle's model of physics, which was the best thing going at the time. There isn't a finish line for science!
Very nicely put, thank you!
My mother use to point out the fact (scientific or otherwise) that there were more horse's rear-ends than horses. I'm not sure how she came to this conclusion or if she used proper research methods, but mothers don't lie to their sons, do they?
😆
Wow, Professor, this is what I call a proper beat down of poor Senator Emrich. If only someone like you would stand on the Senate floor to immediately deconstruct the nonsense that is often brought to the table. Emrich would like his State to bow to his own personal outlook. No virtue in that!
I appreciate the kind words, Lisa. However, I'm afraid that if I stood up to the good senator I would immediately be labelled as a snarky, cappuccino-drinking, liberal elite atheist. And of course all those labels would be correct...
I should add, also, that Nick Matzke has analysed the *evolution* of bills like Emrich's, using methods similar to those of molecular phylogeny (or tracing the provenance of ancient texts):
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aad4057
Good resource!
I disagree with the last part about the attitude to experts. It's true that an expert knows things better than I do, but I have to be able to question his or her expertise. Just like I'm doing with you right now :-)
The alternative is to passively accept the expert's opinion, and I doubt that this is a viable solution.
Ivo, okay, but the question is: on what epistemic basis are you going to question the expert? If you are an expert yourself, good. But if not?
There is a fairly large literature on trust and expertise in philosophy, and the major conclusion is that *at best* we may be in a position to verify things like the credentials of the alleged experts, their track record, and whether there is a consensus among experts in a field. But the only way to meaningfully question exert advice itself if to do the hard work to become an expert.
Of course, a discussion between an expert and a novice is different from a discussion between two experts. The novice lacks knowledge and experience and is more likely to make mistakes or overlook important information.
But as long as the novice is aware of this imbalance and does not pretend to know more or that all opinions are equal, I think this discussion is appropriate. And I think both sides can benefit from it.
In the article we find the example of a mechanic. Maybe it's not my business to tell the mechanic how to fix my car, but it's my business to ask and, if something doesen't sound right, to question the repair. There are dangers, but there are also dangers in blindly following the advice of experts.
I don't think the analogy with the mechanic goes far enough to represent the gulf between a scientist and a lay person. I have fundamental idea of how a car works. My daughter took AP chemistry in high school last year. The subject matter was so complex she actually had two chemistry tutors quit. I tried to read the text book and just laughed and put it down. That was a high school course. So in a discussion with a chemist with a PhD, how do I know if something doesn't sound right? A biologist?
The truth is most of us lack the education needed to engage with scientists in any meaningful way. Bills like the one in Montana will only serve to widen the gap. It is frustrating to watch your country slide into a dark age.
Yes, a better analogy would have been with a neurosurgeon, or a nuclear engineer. But I wanted to bring it down to earth and put forth an example that everyone can relate to.
By the way, it is precisely because the relationship between expert and non-expert runs on trust that the experts have a great responsibility, to individuals and to society, of earning and keeping that trust.
Ivo, yes, it is your business to ask questions to a mechanic, a doctor, or any other expert. And ultimately you have to be convinced enough to trust them. But that's what it comes down to: trust.
"on what epistemic basis are you going to question the expert?" - In the US the answer is I found a video on YouTube that supports whatever I already thought.
I really wish I was joking...
Not only in the US, sadly
Definitely.
😆 Yeah, exactly, that's the danger. Have you seen that cartoon that was making the rounds during the height of the covid pandemic? It showed a tomb with the inscription: "He did his own research."
Yes I remember that one. I know you are not a fan of zombie movies, but I was a big fan of the Walking Dead. I used to think the plot hole was how could a zombie virus infect the entire world so quickly? Now I think it was rather prophetic.
We know the language of this kind is only deployed against the theory (or should that really be fact, or collection of theories, or research programme?) of evolution. I'm pretty sure that the Senator has no objection to teaching atomic theory, or the theory of gases.
This line of attack on evolution science and deep time geology goes back as far as George McCready Price, while the parallel claim that historical investigations are therefore not science is stated explicitly in Whitcomb and Morris' * The Genesis Flood*, key text in the emergence of 20th-century Young Earth creationism.
Yup, nothing new under the Sun. I just figured it needs to be said again, from time to time.
I fear so. What would defeat this hydra?
Nothing, I'm afraid. And that's why it has been a long time that defeat of the hydra hasn't been my goal. More modestly, I wish to do my part to keep the candle lit in the dark, as Carl Sagan would put it.
Likewise. While, to mix metaphors, using sunlight as the best disinfectant to expose the links between creationism, climate change denial, the American Right, and the fossil fuel industries through conduits such as the Cornwall Alliance and the Heartland Institute. That's the direction of my future writing plans
Looking forward to them!