Re Cambridge, what can I say other than, you lucky dog.

I’m actually off to another Two Cultures event at Harvard on the 7th and 8th – celebrating a Cambridge UK lecture in Cambridge US 50 years on. I also did my PhD at the Cavendish labs in Cambridge where Snow started off, and to a small degree have followed his footsteps from science to policy, so some interesting links here.

All I need to do now is write a novel or two…

The reality here – as you point out – is that life goes on, and we don’t have the luxury of stopping it until we have dotted every “i” One of the interesting questions this raises though is how value systems/perspectives etc. beyond science can help fill this gap and avoid the potential paralysis – not supplanting evidence-based decision making, but augmenting it.

“This is incredibly important for society, as decisions made on how the world should be, rather than how it is, end up harming people.”

While I agree with your overall point, I think this summarises the problem stemming from this lack of debate about the role of science in society. I agree there are (more than) a few who think rational thought is how we should live our lives, and that evidence trumps politics or guesswork.

But the dichotomy, the paradox, is this – science cannot know “everything” right now. (Whether it can know “everything” <i.eventually is a different question.) Hence we have worked our way into a muddle between not wanting to guess, but not necessarily wanting to use the evidence available to us either. In other words, we become paralyzed by waiting for evidence.

It is this gap – not the “unknowable” realm (i.e. morals and principles, although this is lacking too), but the “unknown” realm, i.e. what we might know some time “soon” – that a lot of decision making seems to exist in, to its own detriment.

This paralysis is dangerous for several reasons: Because it focuses one’s perspective on evidence alone, and in the meanwhile opens itself up to other unacknowledged factors of influence. Because in the real world time is a factor in coming to a decision and time does not always allow for more evidence. And because, as mentioned above, it assumes that all decisions can be made on evidence basis – including those with an ethical aspect which may not actually have a “correct” answer beyond the preference of society.

I am not for or against “science” in particular. But I am for weighing up evidence with instinct, and with preference, and with principles, and with art.

The art of decision-making, perhaps.

gregorylent seems to be arguing for approaches to understanding and interpreting the world that go beyond the reductionism of science. On one level, this brings in the issue of value systems – how do people interpret what they experience, and make decisions. Here, irrespective of what any one individual or group thinks is “right,” the values that people hold mould societies and so are vitally important.

In this context, the philosophy underlying science can be seen as just another value system. And this is where accusations of hubris begin to emerge, because to many people, assertions that the scientific method/approach/philosophy is the only way to understand the world is to devalue other value systems.

Things get complicated here because most scientists also rely on value systems that are not necessarily science based in making everyday decisions – so claims of adhering to a science-based philosophy can become eroded pretty fast.

For instance, imagine asking a scientists whether funding should be increased for research and development. The answer will be driven either by political considerations (“my peers would disown me if I said no”), personal beliefs (“of course more funding is needed”), or careful reasoning (“after considering all budgetary constraints and societal needs – both near term and strategic – I conclude that increasing R&D funding will have lead to a significant net gain in people’s quality of life”). The point here is that the first two answers are driven by values systems that are not necessarily science-founded.

This isn’t good or bad; it’s simply human. Problems arise though when scientists think that they approach everything in life with a science-based philosophy, or where proponents of other value systems assume this to be the case.

There are a few people who try to live like this this it seems. I get the impression for instance that Richard Dawkins make an honest and valiant attempt to apply scientific reasoning throughout hist life. But the result is polarizing, and gets perilously close to preaching a specific philosophy – to the extent that I’m not surprised some see it as religion by another name.

However… when you strip away the noise, hubris and misunderstandings surrounding science, there is a fundamental difference here between science-driven perspectives and other value systems; ultimately, science is built on evidence. Here, I am 100% behind Glendon. The power of science – in the long run – is that it is self-correcting. Errors in understanding may propagate over the short term, but ultimately they are corrected, because science is about testing the validity of claims and adjusting them in the light of new information.

This is incredibly important for society, as decisions made on how the world should be, rather than how it is, end up harming people. But at the same time, it is naive to assume that replacing all other value systems with science-based thinking will lead to a better society. On the contrary, the indications are that such social engineering is ultimately divisive, because it clashes with the very essence of how people behave.

I must apologize – this turned into a rather long blog of a comment. But the bottom line is that while different cultures inevitably arise within society, a polarization of these cultures is not helpful. Rather – as Snow argued – there needs to be a bridging of ideas, perspectives and understanding, that ultimately supports a healthy society rather than paralyzing it.

But that’s just my view from the soap box – what’s yours?

“and the hubris of science is approaching fundamentalist levels of intensity … smacking of religion, and the religious impulse …”

Sorry gregorylent, I’d have to disagree with you. Yes, some scientists get too attached to some ideas, but if shown their pet hypothesis is just wrong, most abandon it and move forward. There are just not that many scientific zealots. You’re not seriously putting forward that relativistic ‘other ways of knowing’ stuff are you?

Here you go:

http://www.ruthseeley.com/2009/04/restaging-two-cultures-test.html

science exists within a box formed by its understanding of what is possible, but it is telling us what the mind can know about reality, more than it is telling us about reality …

and the hubris of science is approaching fundamentalist levels of intensity … smacking of religion, and the religious impulse …

i hope for a bit more openness in the world of science, enough so that the saying “science proceeds on the basis of funerals” can lose its aptness …

one of these days, subjectivity is going to have to be embraced, as will concepts of subtle aspects of matter and energy and mind …

“In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be
understood by everyone, something that no one ever
knew before. But in XXXXX, it’s the exact opposite.”

What was physicist Paul Dirac speaking about?
– History
– Novels
– Psychology
– Poetry
– Drama