Science: Subtly Disconnected from the Western Mainstream

The last few weeks have provided several items that demonstrate that much, but not all, of contemporary science continues to be subtly disconnected from mainstream values in American society (and in all the West).  Of course, at a macro viewpoint, science is part of society and thus its values are, by definition, part of the whole.  But, full integration is a different matter and within this holistic space it is evident that much of science is directed, pointed, in a different direction than the main flow of society.  In a world where the Dionysian impulse is growing more powerful every day, those scientists who continue in a modernist Apollonian worldview are increasingly “left behind,” or, they are wondering why their work is deemed irrelevant.  The quest for relevancy is a hot button of science today.

A recent study by sociologist Gordon Gauchat (here) got some widespread news (here).  It appears that trust in science has declined among educated American conservatives.  It’s interesting but hardly news worthy.  One significant issue he misses is that educated conservatives have been the spear point of the anti-intellectualism movement in America since the 1970s, and they have done this as shills for the oligarchy.  See here.

While studying trust-in-science is important adding other variables into the mix would be more enlightening:  apathy for, lack of belief in, the mockery of, etc.  Understanding scientism and its fall from grace in our society (except among scientists) would also be helpful.

A better understanding of American’s views on science in society can be gleaned from pop culture.  Watch the show Eureka on the Sci-Fi channel.  Its framing is that an average-guy local sheriff has to help solve world-ending problems created by brilliant and chaotic scientists.  Scientists are presented as intelligent people with the full range of human vices and virtues; they are making important technological advances but they also cause problems that average people have to help fix, usually using common sense.   The main point:  scientists need help from average people. (Egalitarianism thumps meritocracy).

In a Dionysian world, science does not enjoy the status of being a central driver of society.  It seems that many scientists don’t know this.

“The view that public trust in science is related to the growth of modern social systems has enjoyed longstanding support in social science and the dominant culture.  Parsons (1962) proposed that scientific knowledge, particularly its empirical and universal qualities, is essential to secular institutions.  Similarly, Barber (1952, 1975, 1990:40) describes a ‘special congruence’ of science with rational-legal authority and modern societies.” (Gauchat, pgs. 168-169)

Funny, reading those old modernist ideas as if they were relevant today.  How they reek of the times when scientism was paramount.  They proclaim Science is god and is the foundation of society!  (Yes, I am mocking science, especially the arrogance).

Actually, I am more inclined to agree with the idea that intellectual idiots have crippled us (here--A much broader discussion about contemporary intellectuals).

Do people really believe that science is related to the growth of modern social systems?  Let’s look at a couple of news items that scientists have given us lately.

In Europe we are told that scientists plan on building a supercomputer that will simulate the entire mind and will help fight against brain diseases, here.  Oh boy, another bunch of scientists continuing the brain/mind is machine metaphor.

Can we get away from this 20^th century modernist baggage?  Talking about the brain/mind as a machine is an old plough horse whose usefulness is behind it.  The law of diminishing returns on this metaphor set in long ago.  Put it out to pasture.

Scientists need a new metaphor, one that is Dionysian and has a long use life ahead of it.  It has to be organic:  “the mind is a garden so cultivate it” or “thinking is fluid, the body is an ecosystem.”

If scientists perpetuate old metaphors then they are not leaders in social engineering.  As I pointed out last week, some engineers (or their marketing branch) are getting caught up on the new Dionysian ethos, here.

From Australia, we learn that scientists say robots could replace prostitutes by 2050, here.  Superficially, it does seem that scientists are trying to engineer society.  The fallacy here is the emphasis on machines replacing humans, a common idea.  Yes, it is true that in the more mundane aspects of life machines have “replaced” people.  However, do you really want mechanical sex?  I use that metaphor because it is generally a pejorative phrase; however, I never underestimate the kinkiness of people, so the answer could be anything.  I think the Taiwanese were correct to mock the story, here.

It is best to remember that machines are extensions of humanness and/or are additions to human contexts.  Yes, robots can replace people on assembly lines because they extend the capabilities of humans running the control boxes.  My view is that sex toys, even sophisticated robots, are additions to the game not replacements.  Using a vibrator or a robot by yourself is still masturbation.

Obviously, some may think of robots in animistic terms.  There is plenty of evidence in pop culture to suggest that many would like to see this—that robots can become human.  Is this what the Australian scientists are suggesting?  Are these scientists animistic?

Should they be?

We know that plenty of people think that machines can be or could become human.  Should scientists take this perspective?  Should we go with the flow of society and adopt animism?

In the Western Tradition, animism is clearly a Dionysian ethos.  Therefore, it would be odd to think of Western scientists adopting it.  Romantic naturalists of the 19^thcentury didn’t do it because animism is not a requirement of the Dionysian worldview.  It is an option.

Clearly, many people are adopting this perspective as part of our New Romanticism.  I won’t be going along with it; I do enjoy watching it.

We know that in this “Post Modern” world some of the fundamental ideas of the Western Tradition have been shattered.  Most neuroscientists have abandoned the Cartesian separation of mind/body, and, Rationalism has been shown to be a complex metaphor steeped in intuition, emotion, and feelings.

The basic distinction between animate/inanimate: alive/not alive is being challenged.  Where will you choose to go?

Before I change my perspective and go with the flow, I will pursue the question:  can animism be a positive influence in an Apollonian ethos?  Think of those cultures that are, at a macro level, obviously Apollonian (Puebloan cultures of the Am Southwest, the ancient Maya, and ancient Egypt) and see if animism plays or did play a significant role in their worldview.

I am willing to be a full-blown romantic but knowing what the hybrid is like is a prerequisite.

Economics: the Dismal are Disgraceful

The profession of economics (mostly American economics) has been getting a lot of bad commentary lately.   The lack of real change in the profession since the onset of our ongoing systemic crisis has put it into the crosshairs of critics, and rightly so.  We all know that individuals can be slackers at science but a  profession's majority that chooses to ignore evidence is a tragedy and a farce.

We all know that Greenspan offered up a mild “I can’t believe we were wrong “ moment and that Krugman did his “it was group think” essay.  But really, is this all we are going to get from them?  

They seem to love their illusions. “Money never lies, but you must learn its language, or chase illusions.  And this is why economics is a disgraced profession, and continues to be so.” Jesse, here.

“A profession that claims to understand economies, and that has gained power over the greater part of our societies, has big responsibilities.  The fundamental responsibility is to ensure its perception of economies gives some useful guidance to the behaviour of real economies.  Here mainstream economics fails utterly, and has been failing for a long time.  Worse, it actively resists alternative views that might overcome its failings.  Ethics do not come much worse than that.” Davies, here

I realize that resistance to change is a very human behavior.   Also, I don’t assume that there is a simple way to motivate them to change.

The profession is part of the status quo that is desperate to stay in power.  We can vote the politicians out and boycott the big banks, but what do we do with self-righteous nihilistic academics and burro-crats?

We need to continue the criticism and shame the mainstream economists for being the shills that they are.  And we must give ear to the fringe economists who likely have better insights on how to correct our problems.  And if we must “end” economics then so be it.   

After all, the economy is nothing more than an expression of culture.

It’s the Oligarchy, stupid

Like many in the freethinking community, I have been amazed at the changes in intellectualism in America over the last four decades.  We have gone from a culture that loved science and deep intellectual thought to one focused on fantasy and superficial musings.  Science has become the great scapegoat for many of our ills, as the conservative right encourages.

Is this really true? I don’t think so.

The oligarchic class has been the main driver of the dumbing down of America.  In their assault on progressive individualism, they have created the illusion that most scientists and academics are “lefties”  and used anti-intellectualism as the Red Badge of Courage of conservatism.  There is much support for this view, such as Ferris’ book (The Science of Liberty).  But, I think the issues have been muddled very well.

The real polarization in America is the wealthy versus everyone else.  This class warfare has been hidden for many years by the other big polarization, left vs right or democrats vs republicans.  The oligarchs don’t care about left/right; they use these moral issues as a means to concentrate more power within themselves; they don’t care which political party they have to buy off to get their way.  They encourage the public to be distracted by moral warfare while they steal all the assets and power they can.

There is plenty of evidence that both political parties desire to restrict personal freedoms in the service of oligarchy.  In Wisconsin, the republicans are taking away the right of collective bargaining.  Under Obama, the TSA is patting down children because we are all supposed to be afraid of terrorists.  Taking away collective bargaining allows the oligarchs to divide and conquer, and minimize challenges to their power.  Basically, they want many small oppositions instead of a big one.  Allowing TSA to grope our children continues the military-industrial-surveillance complex’s invasion of our privacy.  The goal of oligarchy is to restrict the number of successful people in the world.  They do that by controlling the small people.

So, I remain frustrated with the scientific community because they continue to argue from the wrong stance.  They are always trying to tell us what the Truth is instead of offering useful, doable solutions in offsetting the gains of the oligarchs.  Moreover, they are rarely willing to fight fire with fire.

An example of this is the book Merchants of Doubt that describes how much of the world of science has been undermined by big business interests and a few scientists willing to corrupt the facts.  The book “exposes how radical think tanks have created a cadre of scientists - motivated by money and ideology - to debunk established scientific facts on threats such as DDT, tobacco, nuclear weapons and global warming” (here, and see here).  Basically, oligarchs use intellectuals to promote anti intellectualism. 

“Merchants of Doubt tells the story of how a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades.  Remarkably, the same individuals surface repeatedly-some of the same figures who have claimed that the science of global warming is "not settled" denied the truth of studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole.  "Doubt is our product," wrote one tobacco executive.  These "experts" supplied it” (here).

Yes, it is a history book, a history of science.  But couldn’t they offer ideas on how to combat the problem of oligarchy?  Can’t scientists run an effective anti misinformation campaign?  Or, is it too late in the cultural cycle and anti intellectualism must prevail for more years?

Scientists continue to be dumbfounded by the oligarchy's anti intellectual campaign and they try to counter it with intellectual arguments about Truth.  Scientists are fighting a war about truth and ideas when they should be fighting about money and power.  Can they offer ways to campaign against the oligarchs? 

Anthropology, Economics & the Practitioner’s Role

Earlier this year Anthropologists had a debate about the status of Anthropology as a science (here for a summary).  Now, economists are having one too.  Here is a list of statements; the comments are good too:

Weakonomics  http://weakonomics.com/2011/03/17/is-economics-a-science/

Manzi http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262473/economics-science-jim-manzi

Manzi http://theamericanscene.com/2011/03/19/jim-and-noah-s-excellent-adventure-part-1
Ozimek http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/03/17/is-economics-a-science/

Krugman http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/economics-as-a-science-a-bad-example/

DeLong http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/03/is-economics-a-science.html

The topic comes up regularly in economics; here are some older ones:

Mankiw http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/05/is-economics-science.html

Pollock http://www.american.com/archive/2010/november/is-economics-a-science

Roth http://kuznets.harvard.edu/~aroth/econsci.html

I find all of this rather silly, especially from people who are well educated and have prestigious awards such as the Nobel Prize.

Other than Roth above, don’t people of this caliper understand the basics of classification?  When you define something, you are doing simple sorting.  Some things go into Box A and some things don’t go into Box A because of how Box A is defined.  If your standard for science is Physics then only Physics goes in the box called science.  Nothing else qualifies.

Trying to argue that there are degrees of science-ness just muddles the discussion, as in hard vs. soft science, pure vs. less-pure science, & proper vs. less proper.  These distinctions are childish, like fifth graders at recess:  I dare ya to be a soft scientist… no, I double dare ya…

There is no wisdom in these conversations.

For many, the claim to be a scientist has become political posturing or advocacy for special interest groups, or perhaps even for themselves as they think it will make them better positioned during upcoming budget cuts or grant awarding.

If we really need science in our lives then I recommend that it be defined broadly such that the usual and accustomed suspects are put into the box.  Since we typically divide professions, and thus occupations and job postings, by subject matter (physics, chemistry, biology, economics, etc) then those subjects that have been traditionally viewed as science can continue the claim as long as they meet simple criteria.

Science is the systematic and comparative study of observable phenomena.

1. Systematic means having a widely accepted set of methods and standards that are used to study events and phenomena.

2. Comparative in that the results of numerous singular studies are used to make generalized explanatory and/or interpretive summations.

3. Observable in that one can witness directly or indirectly-via-tools an event or phenomenon, and, observations can be used to reasonably infer the presence of something not observable (no one sees gravity or magnetism; we infer them by observing their regular and recurring affects).

Most professions that have traditionally been classified as a science will qualify because they meet 1, 2 & 3.

Historians aren’t scientists because they do particularistic studies; from what I’ve seen, comparative history is not strong; they don’t do #2.  Chefs aren’t scientists because they, too, likely don’t do much of #2.  However, “culinary science” is “the science and technology behind meal planning, preparation, processing, and service for a global consuming public” here.  A chef makes food.  Culinary science is integrated, matrixed, into business models by those trying to operate restaurants as profitable businesses. 

Science isn’t just for academics looking for Truth.  Most of it is used by corporations to make a buck and by governments trying to regulate or manage something. In most cases, science is a means to an end; it generally is not an end unto itself.

Back in the days of strong modernity, ca. 1920-1975, science was mostly segmented and rigid.  By that I mean biologists did biology, chemists did chemistry, and “interdisciplinary work” was generally frowned upon.  In today’s post modernity the work environment-outside of academia-is just the opposite.  Segmentation has been replaced by integration; rigidity by flexibility.  In the federal government most biologists have to know something about archaeology and air pollutants. Environmental planning tries to be holistic, not segmented, and resource management plans are “Integrated”.  Segmented academia is looking more archaic every day.

Instead of debating whether a profession is science or not I suggest people focus on what roles people have and when is it appropriate to say that someone’s role is “scientist”.

Roles (in no particular order of significance):

1. Scientist:  a person who regularly does research that meets the definition of science given above.  If you are not doing scientific research then you are not a scientist. They are producers of science. 

2. Technician: a person who gathers scientific data and may conduct initial analyses’.  They are typically well trained in scientific methods and techniques, and may have good understandings of theoretical issues.  Examples:  x ray techs, engineering techs, geo technical specialists, and the popular science folks as seen on MythBusters.  

3. Teacher: a person who regularly teaches.  Teachers of science can also be scientists if they are also actively doing research.  Most high school science teachers only teach; some professors are also scientists.

4. Professional/Practitioner :  A person who does not do research but uses a body of scientific knowledge  to solve problems and set policy (e.g. physicians, engineers, corporate executives, consultants, government employees). They are consumers of science. 

I am an Anthropological archaeologist by training but I do “cultural resource management” for a federal agency.  That is, I ensure that my agency complies with federal laws about historic preservation, which is a part of the overall environmental compliance sector.  While I know that some federal archaeologists have done science, as a federal employee, I have never been able to do it.  In fact, most of my job is about the avoidance of doing archaeological science.  I am a practitioner.

Let me elaborate.  Coming this week there will be an archaeological study done in Oregon sponsored by my agency.  Federal environmental specialists, state environmental specialists, environmental and archaeological consultants, and I have planned the study.  The purpose of it is to determine the presence/absence of archaeological sites within a defined number of rangeland acres, approximately 1100, that may become developed.  The study is a survey not an excavation. The actual work will be done by archaeological consultants supported by archaeological technicians.  The purpose of the study is to provide descriptive data such that federal bureaucrats can make decisions about land use.  It is also being done under the umbrella of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and will become a component of that assessment.

The result of this archaeological survey will be a technical report, a singular study.  There is no intention of doing any comparisons, there are no hypotheses to be tested, and there will be no attempts at determining ancient land use patterns.  In this specific case, science is not required to meet the needs of making land use decisions related to historic preservation.   My final involvement is to ensure that the technical study does meet certain minimum standards.  Having a solid background in archaeological science helps me in determining the quality of technical reports.  Most technical studies produce average reports and few are excellent.  I accept average or better and reject crap.

Most American archaeologists are practitioners or technicians who produce or consume technical reports.  Their work falls short of being classed as science.  The conditions in which they work rarely compels them to do the comparative work that is typically viewed as “science”.  In the last ten years, I have done archaeological science twice [1] and both those projects were done as a volunteer, on my own free time.  Also, there is nothing bad or wrong about producing or consuming technical reports.  Archaeological science cannot be done without good technical reports. 

Returning to the econ debate, those folks make an interesting analogy:  economics is like engineering.  Obviously, this analogy is emphasizing the practitioner role of economics. They can’t see that because their scientism obscures their ability to distinguish the role of scientist from practitioner, producer from consumer.  I guess they like the idea because they believe they are engineering the economy and society.   They are holding onto what’s left of modernism.  I suspect that a lot of economists are practitioners & technicians who don't get to do science. 

To me the word engineer brings up other images.  I am reminded that ‘waste engineers’ used to be called garbage men, and, in some parts of this world, archaeologists are thought of as waste engineers.  

I am not a waste engineer.

Note:

1. These two studies:

Moore, L. E. and Gwen J. Hurst

2005   Medicine for the Troops: Glass from a Civil War Encampment in Centreville, Virginia. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 60(3): 150-176.

Moore, L. E. and Richard Busch

2003   The Hogback Valley and Its Relation to Denver Area Prehistory. Southwestern Lore 69(3): 1-25. 

Science and Magic

With family in town we decided to go down to Seattle and visit the Pacific Science Center, where the Space Needle is.  The main attraction right now is the Harry Potter exhibit.  They have many of the costumes and props from the movies on display.

What does Harry Potter have to do with science?  Nothing. (And, I like the stories).

 

There was no effort at discussing the science used making the movies or the technology involved.  You know that there must be something scientific involved in making movies.  But no.  The display was about the movies--the characters and the story line.  The magic of Harry Potter is being used as a hook to attract people to the museum.  There was also a place to buy all your favorite Harry Potter souvenirs.  It worked because the place was packed.

Many years ago museums were all about the intellectual experience of seeing all the objects on display and reading all the information boards. Education was done through reading. Then it became more experiential, you could touch and feel objects.  Then it became more visceral and realistic.  And now, we need to bribe people into museums with attractions that have no direct connection to science.

Obviously to compete in this new romantic world, scientists need to become magicians.

Update 1/2/2011:
And suddenly even repug George Will seems to understand that science is needed, and, that we need to study the culture of innovation.  Jeez, maybe he should read some Anthropology, here & here.

Trust and the Contradictions of Science

     I thank Paul Prescod for his comment to my last post and for providing me with links to discussions about scientists believing that their theories can also be facts, especially as they relate to evolution.  They are here and here.

     Having read these discussions I am even more disappointed in scientists. Yes folks, we can do better than this.  Talk about having your cake and eating it too. I know that during the years of the 80s and 90s the debates were brutal.  And semantic games had to be played.  And, intellectual slippage can occur.  And yet, I am also reminded of the old jokes about “if your data doesn’t support your theory then adjust the data” or “if the data suggests something else then adjust the theory to it.”

 

     I am particularly bothered by the statement “…the theory of evolution can also be called a fact, referring to this theory's well-established nature. Thus, evolution is widely considered both a theory and a fact by scientists” (from the second reference).

      So, basically skip all the above jokes and say that Theory is Fact.  This is a cop out and very disingenuous.

     Let’s ask ourselves:  is there any possibility that some day we wake to the screams of agony and ecstasy from biologists because they were wrong about evolution--because some other theory trumped it?

     Yes, it is very possible.  It can happen to you.  And smart people write books called Jurassic Park about it.

     Imagine yourself to be a Dismal Scientist waking up to the screams of Alan Greenspan having to admit that a part of his Monetarism theory was wrong.  That was big news and most economists understood he meant the whole theory was wrong.  (With the Maestro you always had to read between the lines).

     And now that the Monetarists have led us into the Greatest Economic Crisis of our life time the so called solution is Keynesianism, the other American economic theory that is thought to be “factual.”  Yes folks, economists believe their theories are Facts too.  Actually, they also thought their theories were too elegant to be bothered by facts (see this for one interpretation).  Honestly folks, I don’t want to watch this tragedy play out.

     Scientists who believe their theories are facts are fucking scary.  I don’t want anyone like that making policy decisions about the economy or environment.

     This whole discussion reminds me of Daniel Bell’s book The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism.  His argument was simply that capitalism “harbors the seeds of its own downfall by creating a need among successful people for personal gratification—a need that corrodes the work ethic that led to their success in the first place.”

     Saying that Theory is Fact is a corrosion of the scientific work ethic.  Are we now seeing the internal contradictions of science?

     To conclude:  I don’t care what Anthropologist’s do to solve their current dilemma.  I do care if the broad diverse American public can trust scientists.  With our economy dying, and after the circus of global warming, I am not certain I can trust scientists.

     Anthropologists:  seek Trust not Truth in making your decision.