The values that make for good science–honesty, openness, respect for evidence, etc.–are also necessary for good democracy. But there are other values, such as compassion, that are not needed for science but without which democracy would fail.

Still that thinking anthropomorphizes Reality as if it were something akin to a judge presiding and listening to our arguments on how Reality should work. Maybe that is a core of the what is off about the article. Dennis Overbye and people in general tend to project or have a something akin to tunnel vision where in the universe around us gets treated as if it is human or having human characteristics.

Of course we do. There are very few proven ‘truths’ in Science: almost everything which you believe is true is, in fact:

1. a hypothesis
2. which has up until now been supported by the majority of the available evidence
3. that has been uncovered and examined so far by the right people
4. in the context of that particular question
5. as subject to interpretation by the scientific community at large as to its meaning and relevance to the same.
6. and remaining subject to change and reinterpretation at any time by this community

Does “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn, 1962″ ring any bells?

I realize this isn’t always easy to see from the inside, but Science also is “Socially Constructed” (Berger and Luckmann) just like everything else we humans hold to be true.

The example that one often sees is that of quinine, which the Jesuits had tried to encourage as a treatment for malaria, having learned of it in Peru. As we know, quinine can treat certain kinds of malaria. Unfortunately, the 17th century savants in Paris argued that quinine could not be effective as it did not influence any of the humors which were the theoretical causes of disease. Quinine was barred from use as a treatment, though a number of quacks did provide it at risk of prosecution.

The American attitude was that quinine should be tested to see if it actually does or does not cure malaria, and any judgments about its use based on reality, not ideology. Some call that pragmatism. Some call it the scientific method. America, at one point, was noted for ignoring ideology and trying things, and using what worked and discarding the rest. We haven’t been doing that lately, but there is not reason we cannot give reality a chance once again.

I also know a lot about the way women think and feel, which is very useful knowledge indeed – in fact I would say it’s the most useful knowledge I have acquired in this life, with all due respect to Trane, and differential equations – and I can assure you there is nothing scientific whatsoever about that subject. To any female readers, let me assure you that this is intended as a compliment, since it implies your nature cannot be reduced to formulae or subjected to experiment.

I should note also that in my opinion this observation is what elevates science to its position of importance. There are many modes of knowing, but science is unique among them in its rigor. Rigorous demands of experimental proof and reproducability, and unforgiving attempts at falsification, are poor approaches to jazz – or to women for that matter – but they are what makes science work.

Daniel, a very nice post, thank you.

(You can actually read a fair bit of it online in e.g. the Amazon reader, but i do highly recommend buying a copy if you don’t have one already..)

For Science, AND Democracy — hand in hand –
M

That Soviet Russia generated good science is a testament rather to the indomitable spirit and intelligence of Soviet scientists that could prevail despite the circumstances.

Scarcity and Technology are both Nature’s beat.

Dan

I was happy to read Overbye suggest that science doesn’t tell you what values you need, rather it requires a person to adapt certain values in order to properly use science.