There are a number of ways to view the idea of post-normal science,
but to my mind, the most realistic is to accept that the traditional science myth
is finally dying. The idea that scientists selflessly pursue their theories and
resolutely reject them if they aren’t confirmed by experiment is finally crashing
into reality. And about time too.
There is no scientific method. Scientists are opportunists -
they go with whatever works just like anyone else. It has to be like this
because what we class as science is so disparate, from quantum theory to
biology to astronomy. There isn’t a single way of going about scientific
discovery. It isn’t a tick-box activity, but a lateral thinking, creative
activity. Successful scientists are creative people, not followers of some bureaucratic
procedure called sound science.
Nobody knows in advance if a theory will deliver of not. If
it does, then the theorist becomes an exemplar of the scientific method. If not
it vanishes without trace, but usually only after a hard-fought rearguard
action by its proponents. This is why non-scientists should not be diffident
about wading in to condemn poor science.
But if scientific
achievements can be judged only after the event and if there is no abstract way
of ensuring success beforehand, then there exists no special way of weighing
scientific promises either – scientists are no better off than anybody else in
these matters, they only know more details. This means that the public can
participate in the discussion without disturbing existing roads to success
(there are no such roads).
P K Feyerabend – Against Method
Policy-based evidence
Many traditional scientists and many non-scientists with a
traditional view of science find it difficult to accept the frequent use of
corrupt, policy-based scientific evidence. This is where the science myth comes
up hard against reality. Scientists can be as corruptible, vain, venal and dishonest
as anyone else.
- Futile climate change mitigation policies are still pursued at vast cost even though the scientific rationale fell apart years ago.
- The health damage caused by passive smoking is firmly established on policy-based evidence. There never was any other kind.
- Electric cars in the UK run on electricity almost entirely generated by gas, coal and nuclear, yet they are touted as planet-saving devices purely on the basis of policy-driven science.
- Mass medication such as the recent statin proposal is wrong. Nothing to do with science or scientists – just wrong.
- And so on.
The decline of the scientific myth has been going on for a
number of decades. Traditional myths of scientific integrity are going the way
of all myths – eventually we open our eyes to the real world and the myth dies.
As it should.
Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised. Maybe as realists we should
be open to what has happened. The science myth is finished, but it was always
an impossibly romantic view of what scientists really do, how they actually behave.
Time to move on.
Scientists are not
content with running their own playpens in accordance with what they regard as
the rules of scientific method, they want to universalize the rules, they want
them to become part of society at large and they use every means at their
disposal – argument, propaganda, pressure tactics, intimidation, lobbying – to
achieve their aims.
P K Feyerabend – Against Method
The future
One cannot foretell the course of social change, but my
guess is that the science myth will continue to die and we will have to adapt
to a fallible and sometimes corrupt scientific business. Maybe that’s also how
we should learn to view all science – it’s just another business.
Yet we will still be left with something important. We will
still have our history of world-changing scientific discovery and the
occasional dismal failure, but we may learn to be more honest about the
failures.
Possibly we will retain a technical outlook on the real
world, which we may well refer to as scientific. So principles such as cause
and effect will not die out – just the myth that scientists know which is
which.
2 comments:
Nobody knows in advance if a theory will deliver of not. If it does, then the theorist becomes an exemplar of the scientific method.
That should, by definition, produce a certain humility in the scientist.
James - yes, too many scientist seem to assume that the scientific method actually exists, but it doesn't.
Post a Comment