Thursday, February 01, 2007

Rational faith 1: Science

Those who practiced medicine many decades ago eventually realized that anecdotal evidence just isn’t as helpful as repeatable experiments that give consistent results. Where herb poultices and leeches had occasionally cured certain maladies (and inadvertently caused others), understanding pathophysiology helped invent and direct more reliable cures. We’ve moved toward understanding things and proving things rather than occasionally lucky stabs in the dark. Now, it seems, you can’t even apply common sense to medical problems without conducting multi-phase clinical trials to prove what everyone thought was right from the beginning. This is because evidence-based medicine has been extremely effective in treating disease, so it’s thankfully here to stay.

Science is the system of determining facts about the world through an objective process of measurement. At least, that’s how I think of it. The measurements have to be similar when done by different people at different times, and the facts apply only to conditions unique to the experiment. Testing hypotheses in this way has proven to be a hugely successful way of generating information.

Add on a little math and/or logic, and you can extrapolate facts from other facts. If this experiment shows us this, and this experiment shows us this, we can conclude that this third experiment would result in this, even though actually conducting such an experiment may be impossible. Through rational thought, we move forward.

And thus we have the Internet, antibiotics, space shuttles, etc. Go team.

Unfortunately, the progress from simple direct experiments like Mendel’s pea plants to sophisticated nano-scaled machines means that most of us are just going to have to accept most of science on faith. We can’t know it all for ourselves because the existing body of knowledge is too broad and too deep. The minutia of technology and the esoteric nature of sub-specialized fields of expertise mean that I’m obliged to sit here and happily type my blog without giving a second thought to how it all works. From the binary code of the software to the physics of electricity to the economics of free web-based services, I have no choice but to trust that people have this stuff figured out, and my trust is rewarded with results.

Unfortunately, faith in science can be misplaced. We resident doctors hash out the specific details of scientific papers all the time as a part of our training. In “Journal Clubs” we dissect journal articles to find flaws in their methodology, their study design, and the conclusions they claim to have reached. Contrast this with the press, who often not only fail to question the actual plausibility of a study’s findings but often overstate the conclusion and give the public a completely false impression that some ridiculous idea has been “proven by scientists.”

There are occasional mistakes that take scientists down a false path for a long time before realizing the error. Unfortunately, some errors are deliberately propagated by those who are trying to sell something, both material and ideological. Either way, don’t ever assume that something claimed on “scientific” grounds is a sure thing. Your trust is probably well-placed, but not necessarily.

The good news is that poor science, even the most esoteric kind, is likely to be eventually uncovered. But it’s uncovered by the folks who take the time to really understand the data, not by the peanut gallery who scoff at the unfamiliar. The scoffing is just noise.

My brain has gone all over the place now, and you just have to stay tuned to see why I even wrote this post. There’s no denying that a systematic, ordered approach to demonstrating what we don’t yet know has taken us amazing places--even in my life time. I like science, logic, and rationality, because they work really well.

Index to series:
Rational faith 1: Science
Rational faith 2: Spirituality
Rational faith 3: Grand unifying theory
Rational faith 4: Creative calculus
Rational faith 5: Wrap up

10 comments:

Rebecca said...

Okay, this line: And thus we have the Internet, antibiotics, space shuttles, etc. Go team.

SO funny. I always like a little funny at the beginning of the day. So thanks!

My dad is a psychologist (with two PhDs - how shall I ever live up to THAT?), and he ALWAYS goes and checks the sources and the data to see if studies are accurate. Even THINKING about doing that makes me tired and confused. But really, you're right - we all SHOULD be checking before we believe things and cite them. Go you.

Scot said...

A favorite topic ;-).

Unfortunately, the progress from simple direct experiments like Mendel’s pea plants to sophisticated nano-scaled machines means that most of us are just going to have to accept most of science on faith.

Which definition of faith are you using here, L?

The way it’s practiced, all science demands doubt, never belief. The very practice of science, which all people actually do daily, assumes doubt right in the method. Else we’d never experiment; we’d just know the “truth”.

Now, you can trust a person’s findings or not; you can defer to “experts”, if you want. You can buck 99% of scientists and test your perpetual motion machine. If the doctor says a pill will help, you don’t have to trust him; you could turn to a shaman. You can never want to actually read a research article, but I think it’s kind of an excuse not to be bored to tears (I do believe, after picking up a bit of jargon, most folks can greatly understand them, save some math and physics heavy research).

“…I have no choice but to trust that people have this stuff figured out, and my trust is rewarded with results.”

How do you not have a choice? From my perspective, you don’t have to trust them. You can test and doubt the whole time, or never test and just believe it’s wrong.

You’re not practicing faith here either by the definition with which I’m familiar. Before any blog post, you had some understanding of the underlying phenomena, some successful experiments with other computer technology, and an hypothesis (typing here, pressing this button and so on, will result in, say, feedback appearing there, or feeling better somehow), right? Now you test that hypothesis (as I do too, and often ;-)), and everyone in the world can get together and test that same hypothesis, press that “publish” button, and see the results.

Seems you were just having trouble posting, right? To me such is far from faith, it’s a provisional hypothesis, and you’re not surprised when it’s wrong, right? Especially when it comes to computers :-).

Also, this is how all science works; we don’t know how the most basic blocks of existence function. It’s something at which we chip away, but may never understand.

Unfortunately, faith in science can be misplaced.

To my use of the words, faith in science is always misplaced. “Proven” is only for mathematics and logic (even there it’s a problem :-)). This is why we all get together and criticize each other. It’s why we never believe anything with certainty, including the laws of motion, and thermodynamics; it’s all provisional, up for doubt, and debate. It’s why I’ve been trying to get a paper published for 6 years, and only now does it seem it will get to print, as more people are coming to similar findings (grumble…).

"There are occasional mistakes that take scientists down a false path for a long time before realizing the error. "

Occasional? I wish. You've not been in my lab :-).

This is exactly the reason science demands doubt, not belief. Its findings are provisional, and its methods are self-assailing, and self-correcting. We are always trying to tear each other down and we love it ;-).

-L- said...

Scot, I'm glad you're here. I wondered when I posted this whether anyone would give a flying flip. Nice to hit one of your favorites.

The way it’s practiced, all science demands doubt, never belief.

Baloney. The self-assailing, self-correcting process you describe only doubts at the most superficial level. Down a little deeper there are layers upon layers of trust, confidence in principles for which you have no first-hand experience, basic faith. And there's even confidence in opposition to doubt at the most immediate level--confidence in a hypothesis that hasn't been proven yet, confidence in the collective wisdom of mentors, confidence in the whole scientific enterprise and methods.

I understand faith most fundamentally as belief in something that is not known firsthand. This is a necessary part of basic human function. It's your "provisional hypothesis". Depending on the level of evidence and the endorsement by other smart people, I may or may not be surprised if the object of my faith turns out to be false.

If you want to categorize religious faith specially away from the kind of trust and confidence I'm talking about, I'm all for it. But recognizing that there is an interplay between confidence and doubt, by whatever name you choose, is a pretty fundamental basis for the discussion. I completely agree that everyone does "science" every day as a part of life. If you can't see that the same is true for faith, then we just have to part ways early in this series, I guess.

When something is adequately "proven" is for another post another time. I've talked a little bit about epistemology and p values before, but I don't want to find the links. I'm lazy like that.

Also, this is how all science works; we don’t know how the most basic blocks of existence function.

True dat, true dat. But science isn't the only way we have of finding out such things. Philosophy either. Stay tuned. ;-)

-L- said...

Oh yeah, I never clarified that the limitations of our first hand scientific knowledge are temporal ones. I tried to make that clear in the original post. You can become an expert and get a lot of first hand knowledge on any given topic, but you can't do it on all topics because there isn't enough time in a life. And to the extent those other topics are necessary in the overall picture of the experiment (or life) you have to have faith.

Scot said...

I wondered when I posted this whether anyone would give a flying flip.

You kidding? I love this stuff.

The self-assailing, self-correcting process you describe only doubts at the most superficial level.

If you’re not doing it right, sure, but practitioners aren’t the practice ;-). By “The way it’s practiced” I meant the method. The method assumes doubt; it does nothing, does not cycle without doubt. I did not mean how people and politicians use it. Also, “experts,” “smart men” are hunted down and attacked all the time :-), and rightly so. There are many out there doubting the deepest, most entrenched findings of science, and they will survive or fail on their ability to make accurate predictions… As long as politics don’t get in the way :-).

Down a little deeper there are layers upon layers of trust, confidence in principles for which you have no first-hand experience, basic faith.

Basic faith? These are the definitions I find for faith in Webster’s:

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs [the Protestant faith]


When talking about religion, and the faith described in and described as desirable in most religious texts, I see 2, with 2b being most valued (e.g. Thomas). That’s the opposite of how science works. Science makes saying something like “I know this theory is true” a sin of sorts ;-). "Strong conviction", is a handicap. Why would you test something in which you had “complete trust” and the results wouldn’t matter anyway if belief offered up with “no proof” (I’d actually prefer “evidence” there though, as nothing gets proven in the strict sense).

But you’re using another definition.

“I understand faith most fundamentally as belief in something that is not known firsthand. This is a necessary part of basic human function. “

If by belief you mean belief without feeling certain, then, by that definition, yes, but why a different definition? You really want to water faith down like that? It’s so common, just another anticipation similar to that our car will likely start when we turn the key instead of give birth to a baby hippopotamus.

We can know nothing firsthand but the stream of information we experience: sights, smells, desires to act, sensations of taking actions, sensations of rewards and punishments, and so on. We could be the cliché lone brain in a vat, constantly fooled by that information, or the cliché man in a world where everything was made and set in motion a second ago, complete with memories of a false past. There is even thought that we can’t claim with certainty “I think therefore I am,” the more basic claim being something like “information is” and to assume it’s attached to an I is to assume too much into this stream of information you’re now, presumable ;-), experiencing.

Also, it should be pointed out, that the decision to provisionally trust, say, the findings in a certain journal or by a certain expert, is done through experiment too. Because it’s paid off in the past, you try it again. You test and go with your findings, but if, say, Nature started posting the “research” of a man giving anecdotal claims of ESP communication with Big Foot from his New York apartment, your test would fail, and you’d be far less likely to trust Nature or it’s contributors.

But recognizing that there is an interplay between confidence and doubt, by whatever name you choose, is a pretty fundamental basis for the discussion.

Of course. All I’m saying is that science doesn’t allow “confidence” in the sense that you feel certain. You have you’re best guess, you’re spark of insight, and you doubt it and so you test. And you test, and others test, and even if the hypothesis is that the moon won’t rise tomorrow as a big ball of frozen custard--because that’d just be ridiculous--you must admit that you’re can never be certain, no matter how many tests. Particularly if you believe in the supernatural, the moon possibly could do that.

If you can't see that the same is true for faith, then we just have to part ways early in this series, I guess.

Don’t get huffy with me… mister :-). You’re using a seemingly new definition of faith that includes my devout “faith” that hitting thim m-key will eventually produce an ‘m’ on your screen. It’s different from the dictionary and not much of a religious concept. I mean, a believer’s thought that the LDS church is true is merely a provisional hypothesis to them and they don’t really think they know the church is true, or all the rest, as is said in near every testimony I’ve heard?

But science isn't the only way we have of finding out such things. Philosophy either.

Judging by the range, depth and breadth of human belief presently and through history, there seem to be many ways in which people find things out. It just sucks, as many less fortunate throughout history could attest, being on the business of such means, and have no way to appeal to our shared world and experience as an arbiter.

-L- said...

Scot, what are you talking about?

LOL

Rather than spend a lot of effort responding to your specifics, let me just clarify that I never intended to say religious faith is a necessary part of science, and since that seems to be central to your objections, I hope this helps. The way you've described science sounds good to me, but I don't think I've inaccurately described it either.

If you can hold off for a bit, things might be more clear in the next couple posts.

On the other hand, I really don't know how to respond to that last paragraph. Except perhaps to send you a scrip for Valium.

So, just relax for a few minutes and enjoy the ride. :-)

If you want to read an earlier iteration of some of the ideas I'm working toward (but haven't even posted yet!), read this or this.

Scot said...

I may have been too much trying get a laugh with my examples, but reading back I’m confused on what’s unclear.

And valium, relax? No need to use that sort of thing, L. It’s a valid concern.

We aren’t communicating well. I’m unclear on what’s unclear in what I’ve written here, and unclear on your position in this post even after reading on . Maybe this would help: If “faith”, as you use the word, is a provisional hypothesis, then is “religious faith” the dictionary meaning of “faith”?

-L- said...

This series (most of which is not yet written, just planned) is supposed to be a look at faith and how to be rational about it. I started with science, rational and limited as it is, because it's something people can get behind as a legitimate way of looking at things. I'm not trying to say anything at all controversial about science, and your objections are a little frustrating. I've acknowledged the limitations of knowledge, the limitations of proof that science can provide, and the importance of careful analytic thought repeatedly in this blog. That you restate these things in slightly different language (for example, with an emphasis on "doubt" rather than just "careful analysis") in a context that seems to be contradictory (and somewhat condescending considering that I'm a scientist as well) leaves me a little speechless. I know you haven't meant to be off-putting. It's probably just my mood.

Your asking for a definition for faith is quite appropriate, but I was hoping you could accept that I'm using faith in a generic "confidence in the unknown" sort of way from the context. People use faith in this less specific, non-religious manner all the time.

Really though, as I mentioned before, my only purpose in bringing up faith was to emphasize the non-final nature of science in establishing true knowledge, and the fact that uncertainty is a part of life. That there will always be an "interplay between confidence and doubt". Your comments seem to indicate that we agree on all this stuff, but they're phrased as if you're taking me to task.

I say enough controversial things on this blog that I think my patience isn't where it ought to be when I get unexpected objections. If you still think we're disagreeing about something (because I haven't been convinced we are, based on your comments here) rather than just quibbling about wording, please clarify and I'll be happy to respond. As for which definition of faith I prefer, or how much confidence is appropriate, etc., that's going to be covered more later.

Regarding your final paragraph up there, it just struck me as over the top... at least, if I understood it at all. Do you really feel victimized? Do you really feel that I'm so unreasonable that I ignore our "shared world and experience"? Did you think I was talking about torture as a way of "finding things out"? Cuz I wasn't. :-) I genuinely didn't understand what you were saying, but suspected that you took my post as an indication that my world view is to blame for all that's wrong with the world.

If you can joke about my car giving birth to a hippo (which was hilarious), I reserve the right to joke about sending you some Valium. If you want the tone in a particularly solemn direction, that's fine, I'll try to pick up on your cues.

Scot said...

Reading back, I can see now it was greatly the word “faith”. It still seems confusing to use this word differently, particularly on this topic, but I think I get it.

I’m sorry I was condescending or rude.

I can see in places I was rambling on a topic I simply enjoy, but I wasn’t necessarily expecting you to disagree with me (Yes, I do know your occupation).

I genuinely didn't understand what you were saying, but suspected that you took my post as an indication that my world view is to blame for all that's wrong with the world.

No, not all of it...

Hey, I’ve repeatedly said that such belief is responsible for much good in the world.

I should have kept that paragraph at its original length, as it would have nipped some of that in the bud. But I am saying this is uniquely dangerous stuff, when you go to these other methods. People do get hurt, and by these methods that you’d also think are false and unjust and similarly unverifiable. Am I right?

In reading elsewhere, I think you’ve said, though not in the same words, pretty much the same thing. You’ve rejected other’s use of such methods in your next post as error. When a difference happens with these methods I think you’ve agreed that there’s not much to be done, but I also think you wrote the parties should go their separate ways. But I’m just saying here people can’t just live and let live when it comes to this stuff. These other methods tell them how to treat other people, for unassailable reasons, from votes to blessedly out-of-vogue torture (which, though it didn't cross the mind at the time, I'd suppose could help people "find things out").

If you want the tone in a particularly solemn direction, that's fine, I'll try to pick up on your cues.

You have a way with words :-). A joke, fine. It admittedly reminded me of this guy pushing some ufo theory who would tell anyone who gave him any hassle they should "relax". I shouldn’t have taken it as I would have from him.

Nevertheless, I wasn’t talking about your car. And besides, it’d be quite something to be proud about, if that happened.

So can I post a comment in the next thread or you sick of me? [puppy dog eyes]

-L- said...

If you didn't post on the next thread, I would have to send you an apologetic fruit basket. You know I love your guts. You're practically the only person who will tolerate my pensive side.

You’ve rejected other’s use of such methods in your next post as error. When a difference happens with these methods I think you’ve agreed that there’s not much to be done, but I also think you wrote the parties should go their separate ways. But I’m just saying here people can’t just live and let live when it comes to this stuff.

My assessment that some spiritual ideas are superior to others (although most are to be respected and tolerated anyway) was NOT to be understood as an excuse for people not to engage one another, discuss, reason, share, and point out possible errors. When it's something that isn't a matter of just personal belief (but affects the lives and rights of others), then I think it's not only appropriate but imperative that public policy mediate in a manner that our government ideally has and does.

Where it seems you've read me as promoting some kind of self-righteous anarchy, I'm really pretty in favor of tolerance, responsibility, and following conventional rules of decency and right. The times when God expects anyone to violate the standard rules are so infrequent that they are essentially good for philosophical discussion alone. Yet they get substantial press time here in my blog... because they're interesting.