Should there be a philosophy of science?

.
.
.

That is exactly what the scientific method (or more precisely, the dynamic set of accepted methodologies for science) is. It is a philosophy/science/method which does incorporate ethical principles and does concern itself with the potential ramifications of discovery, though only rarely will such concerns be seen to outweigh the goal of advancing our understanding of the natural world.

So, perhaps you could give a list of the scientific discoveries of the past that you feel should not have been made, given your present luxury of hindsight? Also, please remember that technology is not science. Gunpowder was in use centuries before the chemical reactions involved were understood, and one need not posess a deep understanding of geology or physics to murder someone with a stone.

Specialized disciplines exist because it is not possible for the “average scientist” to master the depth of knowledge required to do original research in all areas of a broader “field”. That problem will not disappear if you rearrange or retitle the categories. Thankfully, scientists as a rule understand this and have for decades valued the free exchange of information between specialists in different fields. This has proven to be a very effective, though not perfect, means of overcoming the unavoidable fact that no individual can master the accumalation of information while still taking advantage of the insights and advances possible through specialization.

Interestingly enough, it has also produced such side effects as the Internet.

m3 said:

You may think it’s fair to say that, but that isn’t evidence. And I asked for evidence.

Where to begin?

First, we are living longer. This gives cancer a lot more time to develop. Second, we are exercising less and third we are eating food that is less healthy. For women, they are starting puberty younger, having less children, not breastfeeding as long, etc.

So, yes, there are a wide variety of factors. I would recommend Cancer: The Evolutionary Legacy by Mel Greaves if you’re interested further. (I wrote a review article about the book and interviewed Dr. Greaves, but cannot post the link here because it currently resides on Themestream, a site that pays me for each hit. If you are indeed interested, you can either e-mail me or go to that site and do a search. Or you can just ask me more questions and I’ll answer them – as long as you can the flippant attitude. There is also a discussion going on about similar topics over on Skeptic News ( http://www.skepticnews.com ) because of an item I posted about families suing a company for allegedly causing neuroblastoma in their children.)

All of them? Wow, what a great overgeneralization. No chance any of them were small corporations? Or government labs? Or made by somebody trying to help (as opposed to being solely motivated by money)?

That has nothing to do with this bizarre “divide and conquer” thing you’ve come up with. DDT was tested, like every other similar chemical. However, sometimes things take longer to develop than we would expect, or the testing isn’t as good as it should be, or any myriad of other reasons. But you seem to take it as given that they did something wrong merely because the end product didn’t turn out so hot. That is a logical error.

Yeah, because the petroleum companies are all in league with pharmaceutical companies. It’s a big conspiracy.

Jeez, man, lay off the X-Files.

Sure it would, but it ain’t gonna happen. Cancer has evolved with us. We all have the seeds for cancer within our bodies. Some develop, some don’t. Sometimes it’s a gene that makes the difference. Sometimes it’s pure random chance. Sometimes it’s that extra cigarette you smoked. Sometimes, yes, it’s that chemical you inhaled. But it’s not nearly as black-and-white as you make it out to be.

Oh, and I’m still waiting for you to actually respond to my message (the one this was an alleged reply to), where I asked you to back up your statement: “the education of most scientist is myopic and hyperspecialized.” Let’s see it.

  1. In the 19th century infectious diseases were the number one killer of people.

  2. Over the last century the discovery of antibiotics and the discovery of many new vaccines has lowered the chances of dying of infectious diseases.

  3. These discoveries have resulted in an increase in life expectancy.

  4. The chance of developing a cancer increases with age.

Therefore:

The number of cancer cases has increased in the last century.

I would disagree. It is my understanding that many cancers have no established enviromental link. Of course, you are invited to show otherwise. I’d be interested in hearing about it.

Well, it seems a bit grandiose to presume that your study would carry the weight of gravity’s law, but if you want such a study, why don’t you just go ahead and spearhead it?

First of all, I have no idea what vein you mean. Second, your methods are suspiciously like those of the Creationists. Make an assertion and then call for evidence.

You are ignoring the political implications of research. Science, along with government, religion, and the arts, is positively infested with politics. When ethics meets expedience in politics, it is ethics be damned.

My view on what? As I made plain, I am still trying to figure out what you’re talking about. Perhaps you might consider modifying your approach a bit.

Spritus Mundi,
I’m not saying that any discoveries should be retracted or that science is “discovering things man was not meant to know”. Just that the knowledge of knowledge or “science of science” is underdeveloped. Yes there is communication between fields, but why shouldn’t this communication grow be a field unto itself?

David B
evidence:
I posted a link on the matter and pointed to another. Yes, I can’t find the information I’m looking for at the moment. But I think I provided enough to justify the view that scientists working for industries have developed products that led to health problems. That’s not as sweeping as my initial point, but suffices for now.

Yes, I generalized. I didn’t realize how fixated everyone would be on taking me to task on this.

I’m not trying to point to a conspiracy, just trying to point to power that money exerts on scientific study. I don’t think anyone was purposely giving us cancer to sell us a cure.

hyperspecialization:
Do you want me to show you that every scientific field is overspecialized and make an argument with supporting links for each one. What sort of proof do you need?
I’m trying to convey ideas (very poorly apparently) and all everyone asks for is proof.

That is an idea. I have conveyed it.

I would be foolich, though, to expect anyone to take my idea seriously unless I can provide a more compelling argument.

The idea you have conveyed is less concretely developed than the one I did. therefore, some people have asked you to develop it more explicitely. Other people have responded to the idea as it stands by asking what data compels you to put forth such an idea.

You have, in general, reacted by whining that they are asking too much of you.

My reaction to that is so strong that I find myself quoting Libertarian.

m3 said:

Yes, you did. But did you read the info at the link you provided? Let’s take a look at the very first sentences:

Did you read that? Most are determined by lifestyle choices – which means they aren’t caused by what you claimed! Furthermore, that is just the environmental cases, not all of them. In other words, you shot down your own claim that “it is a fair generalization to say a large proportion of it has been a result of various chemical and mechanical ‘solutions’ to problems.” Whoops!

And just when do you expect to find it?

You may think so. I don’t. Others apparently agree with me. And we’ve explained why, yet you haven’t addressed those points very well.

Suffices for what? Are you going to admit that your “initial point” was wrong?

Now you know. So will you be admitting your error?

Then why not focus on that and explain it? So far, you haven’t done that very well.

I need you to back up your original claim: “the education of most scientist is myopic and hyperspecialized.” Either that, or admit you were wrong.

Imagine that! On Cecil Adams’ website, in the area for Great Debates, people actually expect you to back up your claims. Truly amazing!

The problem is that you can’t just convey ideas and expect everybody to say, “Oh, yes, you must be right” unless you are prepared to show that the ideas in question are based in reality.

I could start a thread asking if the Purple People Eater living inside of Pluto eats pancakes, too. But what if somebody first asked me for evidence of the existence of the PPE? Gosh, I’d be SOL, wouldn’t I?

There is a quote that I like to use, called “Hyman’s Categorical Imperative” by its creator, Ray Hyman: “Do not try to explain something until you are sure there is something to explain.”

We’re waiting for you to show us that there is something to explain or discuss here.

[hijack]
I can’t resist … Not my Job!
[/hijack]

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Great Debate …

David B,
I said a large proportion. Does that mean majority? NO. The website goes on to state that occupational hazards associated with working in the industry were one of the next leading causes.
The incidence of cancer over time was not as easy to find as the death rate, and I will let you know if I find out more.
I pointed to at least one very common form of cancer that has been on the rise as well (skin cancer).
I formed my impression on cancer rates from reading various articles that I didn’t think were too revolutionary. They were related to individual cancers and I don’t recall any of them making a claim that the cancer rate was dropping.
I didn’t realize how contentious the issue is, but I don’t think it’s fair to equate it with the PPE.

I generalized about large industries making noxious chemicals with the aid of scientists. I conceeded that it was a generalization because smaller companies can do this sort of thing too. Want some examples? How about Union Carbide? Does that ring a bell?

I’m not surprised people want proof I just think that people are asking me to prove something before they even apparently understand what I’m talking about. How can I prove something before I’ve even successfully explained what it is I’m trying to prove?

I’ll try to explain again, but I need a breather from all of this. I’m too busy defending particulars which you folks seem all too eager to portray in an embarrassing light.

I am so thoroughly lost. Is this cancer business in some way related to your opening five-point manifesto and subsequent lament about the poverty of your science education?

It’s related, but I don’t think it’s crucial.
I’m going to re-read the thread and try to see how I could have explained myself better. Maybe start from scratch if I have to.

overspecialization, and “divide and conquer”:
I didn’t make up the “divide and conquer” phrase that’s why I didn’t realize how thoroughly I needed to explain it. I know that some of you will find this patronizing but others still seem to be clamoring for an explanation. If you understood this already, just skip the next paragraph.

In the beginning of science people like Newton could make discoveries in seperate fields like math and physics. As the wealth of our knowledge grew, it became harder to learn all of the knowledge that one field could hold. Hence, more and more specialization began to take place. By dividing the fields of knowledge into ever more specialized fields more knowledge could be gained. Thus, one isn’t just a physicist anymore one is a stellar physicist or a particle physicist.
(Pretty bizarre concept, huh?)

I realize the benefits of this method, but I think we have carried it to the extreme (overspecialization). I’m not challenging the knowledge that has been gained, or even the need for specialization. I’m asserting that the level of specialization we have is creating problems of its own that need to be addressed.(ooo…watch out here comes the purple people eater!)

What are these problems you ask?
Well, how about doctors that unneccessarily prescribe antibioticshelp create organisms that are resistant to the antibiotics? "That’s not specialization that’s bad medicine,"you might say. But this response that the doctor has is exactly what he has been taught: here’s the disease, here’s the cure. The disease/cure dichotomy is part of the “divide and conquer” methodology that is the norm in medical science. Some people discover cures for a problem, other people hand them out.
However, the doctor might be able to help the patient more by discussing her lifestyle, how she handles stress, etc…
There are doctors that will do this, but I can’t completely fault the ones that don’t because that’s the approach that they were taught.

How about scientists that discover the genetic structure for basmati rice (a grain that has been grown traditionally in India for generations) so that a Texas company could patent it? It is hard for me to believe that this patent is serving anyone but the company. Maybe there was incremental increase in humanity’s knowledge, but only a few stockholders were really excited about it. Meanwhile, millions of rice farmers are pissed. The scientists were doing their jobs just like they were taught. They’re not ethicists (although hopefully they studied ethics at least a little)so perhaps they shouldn’t be expected to understand the impact of their work.

Enough examples? Am I connecting my assertions well with them? Do you want more? What else would help you understand?

What exactly am I proposing with this “science of sciences”?

I’m proposing that serious study be made in how science could further human understanding through some method other than specialization. This would require a conscious effort on the part of scientists to formulate how and why research gets done on a level that reaches outside of their respective fields. I don’t think I can debate exactly how this should be done, because it shouldn’t rest in any one opinion. I’m more than ready to debate whether or not it should be done. I’m not pretending to know what conclusions would be reached. I’m not saying specialization should be abandoned, just that it’s only a hammer and not everything in the world is a nail.

Here’s a little metaphor that just might help. A man wants to build a bridge across a river to trade with another town. He doesn’t know how to build the bridge, or what materials are necessary, and he can’t ennumerate every reason why they should build the bridge. Still he advocates building the bridge because he wants to get there. I feel that there should be bridges between the sciences that aren’t there.

Whew… I hope this helped a little.

DDT has saved millions upon millions of lives. It may have saved more lives than just about any other chemical we’ve ever developed. Just not in our wealthy country, where we feel free to debate whether we should ban it. I suggest that you go ask the people in the malaria-stricken areas of the world.

Let me ask you - if we discovered that the polio vaccine caused eggshell thinning in migratory birds, would we ban it? If we did, and the incidence of polio victims reached the levels of the 19th century, would we still want the government to keep the Polio vaccine out of our hands?

I wouldn’t ban the polio vaccine, but I might help pass a law to keep people from giving it to migratory birds :wink:

Yes there are benefits to DDT, but what are the long term consequences? You save people now, but how will their ancestors live in a poisioned environment? It’s true that the choice is easier to make here, but DDT is not a god send.
Does that mean you’re happy with the progress of science, or did you just drop in to make that point?

I believe I will try the general to the specific:

No. Two examples would probably not be sufficient anyway, but it is especially not sufficient when the examples are ill-chosen.
No. The examples you have chosen do not support your assertion.
No. But if you want to convince me that your position is worth consideration you will have to supply more.
Examples that directly support your assertion would help support the idea that overspecialization is a problem in the scientific community.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that scientific generalists and popularizers do exist. They simply are not generally doing cutting edge research as well (though there are a few notable exceptions). You also seem to be laboring under the conception that there is some force other than human capacity which is preventing scientists from excelling in multiple fields. The word polymath exists for a reason.

This metaphor does not seem apt. Specialization is not a tool, it is a result. The need to do original research is the driving force, the plethora of fields and techniques is the toolkit, and specialization is the acquired competence. You may as well say that orchestras are overspecialized and that virtuosity is a hammer.

Now for the specific.

You forgot his much less highly regarded work in theology and alchemy. You also failed to mention that his notation of fluctions was less useful than Leibnitz’ calculus and held back British mathematicians for decades. Newton was a prodigious thinker, but his life’s work can be used at least as effectively to argue the benefits of a specialized field of study.

From the article you linked to:
[ul]**
[li]parents should be certain that the baby truly has an infection before antibiotics are doled out. This is impossible when antibiotics are prescribed over the phone[/li][li]Even in the office, the diagnosis of an ear infection is not always straightforward, and doctors frequently make “judgment calls.”[/li][li]parents certainly shouldn’t cajole doctors to prescribe antibiotics that aren’t necessary.[/li][li]experts acknowledge that most ear infections will get better without treatment and that only one in seven actually require antibiotics[/li]**[/ul]

I might, and I will. That’s not specialization that’s bad medecine. In fact the specialists, called experts in the article, are the ones who understand that the antibiotics are probably being over-prescribed.

The article deals with ear infections in newborns and infants. Lifestyle and stress seem unlikely elements of the disease. Really, though, are you actually proposing that only the people who discover a cure or treatment should be allowed to prescribe it? If not, then we will always have a situation where, “Some people discover cures for a problem, other people hand them out.”

This is not a problem with specialization. If anything, it seems to be a case where general practitioners (pediatricians, GPs, MDs) are failing to uphold good standards of practice.

From the article you linked to:
[ul]**
[li]n the paddy fields of Texas, the Rice Tec Inc company is growing a strain of rice which it advertises as “comparable to the best basmati rice, but different.”[/li][li]Farmers in northern India, where most of the natural rice is grown, say there is a threat to India’s culture and heritage.[/li][li]The WTO talks, which open on Monday aim to extend patent rights to staple food and crops[/li]**[/ul]
First, you have mischaracterized the facts. The rice in question is not basmati. It is a strain similar to basmati in genetic structure. When I read your quote I assumed that the company was hoping to patent the rice and attempt to stop Indian farmers from growing basmati. That is not the case.

Patents are designed to serve the interests of the entity that holds the patent. That is the purpose of a patent: to protect intellectual property.

Yes. The Indian farmers are upset because the rice is similar to basmati and they feel this threatens their “culture and heritage” (and, I suspect, profits). This is a problem of politics and economics, not science.

It is not scientists who are determining whether or not grains may be genetically patented; it is politicians. Your complaint seems to be with the WTO. The scientists who did the work simply developed a new strain of grain. Are you saying that developing a new food is an ethically unsound act?

So you are arguing that it is better to let people die? The case against DDT may seem “clear” to you, but you seem to have the luxury of living in an environment where malaria, enciphalitis, etc. are rare diseases.

While I won’t deny having a profound insight, I will admit that I’ve started working my way through Human Action. Since it was from you that I originally heard of the book, I would say that you are certainly entitled to a measure of pride, if you like. It is a wonderful thing to read a work that expresses clearly thoughts I would have, were I smart enough to think of them on my own.

As an aside, I was considering using the above link as support for my argument, if only because you’d get a kick out of it. And kudos to Spiritus as well. Well said, the two of you. And dhanson and David B. as well.

m3 said:

Then what, exactly, does it mean? It seems you used a vague enough term that you could claim you were right no matter what.

The site said that probably over half of cancer cases are caused by the environmental stuff. Within those, “most” (more than half) are caused by choices. So we’re down to around 25% max caused by other things even if we assume their numbers are correct. And those other things are not all the chemicals and the like that you’ve been bringing up. Plus you still haven’t addressed all the other factors that I and others have mentioned. All in all, you’ve done a piss-poor job of backing up your own claims, I must say.

What industry? Next leading cause in what percentage? Etc.

You do that.

Yes, and? Is this because of chemicals, or because people live longer, or because they’re being stupid and spending too much time sunbathing, or what? You haven’t addressed any of these points.

Gee, that’s great. Then maybe you can back some of your statements up.

Who said it was? We’ve just been saying that you can’t assume that merely because it’s going up, that’s because of manufactured chemicals. You are making an illogical leap.

It’s only “contentious” because you have steadfastly refused to deal with points raised in this debate and have avoided admitting when you were wrong or backing up your claims. And, frankly, the way you’ve been handling it, it most certainly is equivalent to the PPE, as I explained.

No, dammit, I don’t want just one bad-sounding example. I want some damned evidence to back up your claims. What part of this don’t you understand? You are really beginning to piss me off…

You’re right – we don’t understand what you’re talking about. I’m not sure you understand it. But you’ve still made claims and repeatedly refused to back them up. And it’s getting annoying.

You could start from the beginning and not make claims that you can’t back up. That would be a good start. But you seem opposed to it.

m3 said:

Yes, here it comes. If you are going to claim something, you’d better back it up. I’m still waiting for you to back up that earlier statement that you keep trying to ignore: “the education of most scientist is myopic and hyperspecialized.” When will you be addressing that?

Wrong. It’s not nearly so simply as you would like to think. Part of it is “bad medicine.” Part is that patients too often feel like they are being ignored if the doctor doesn’t give them something. Personally, if the doc tells me, “It’s a virus, go home and sleep it off,” I say “fine.” But many don’t. They want to be given a medicine. So the doc gives them some antibiotics. Early on, nobody really realized what this would do in terms of resistance. If you’re claiming this lack of knowledge has something to do with specialization, then I would ask you, again, to back up your claim.

What does this have to do with anything? So a company patented a genetic structure? So what? How does this affect anybody? And what the hell does it have to do with your overall point?

You keep doing this – going off in apparently random directions. I really don’t even think you know what you’re trying to get at here. Or if you do, you’re doing an incredibly bad job of explaining it.

Enough? For what? To confuse the issue more?

You being clear about what points you’re actually trying to make would help us understand, I think. Give it a try.

What makes you think this isn’t already being done? There are people who study the history of science or the philosophy of science. What makes your idea so revolutionary?

So who would be in this debate? Every scientist in the country? Who would decide what gets done and what doesn’t? Is there going to be some scientific oversight board that says, “No, you’re an evil chemical company and you can’t study that”?

Hell, you’re not even doing a good job at pretending to know the questions or the issues.

Not really.

I’m going to try to articulate M3’s general argument, because I think that I get it, and can see where the holes are.

1. For many courses of action undertaken with a scientific justification, there are negative consequences. For example, DDT will kill pests, increasing farm yields and decreasing pest-bourne disease, but later it’s discovered that it is too persistent in the environment and poisons the food chain in certain ways. Or, antiobiotics can stop bacterial infections, saving lives and improving the health of the general population, but its heavy use has led to conditions under which antibiotic-resistent bacteria are becoming more prevalent.

Nitpicking aside, this doesn’t seem to be too challenging a premise.

2. Scientists are the ones who develop these ‘scientific’ solutions - they’re the ones who invented DDT, antibiotics, nuclear weapons, etc.

This is a bit more sweeping, since it blurs the line between research academics and company engineers, but generally it claims that the people coming up with these solutions are professionals or specialists who are developing them according to their own appreciation of what’s possible and what should be done - a chemist thinks of a molecular solution, a doctor of drugs or surgery, a physicist of something that explodes.

3. Those who develop ‘scientific’ solutions are responsible for ensuring their safety, or at least apprising those who use their solution of the risks involved (i.e., of the negative consequences).

Sticky moral question, this, as far as it obligates a scientist to know every possible outcome of every possible use. On the one hand, a doctor who withheld information of harmful side effects in a drug he was prescribing would be guilty of, at least, malpractice. On the other hand, when antibiotics were developed, was the possibility of antibiotic resistent germs reasonably foreseeable?

4. Scientists specialize.

Something we’ve all agreed on.

5. Specialization is responsible for the failure of scientists to fully appreciate the effects of their solutions because they are not knowledgable enough about areas of expertise outside their own. For example, how would the chemist who invented DDT know about the effects of DDT on the eggshells of migratory birds?

Very sweeping claim about the process of scientific research (remember, we’re including company engineers here).

The conclusion to all this, for M3, seems to be that some means of sharing information among scientists is necessary in order to ensure that specialization does not prevent negative consequences from coming to light. Perhaps a board of generalists that reviews discoveries and has the power to send them back for more study; perhaps some form of “liberal arts education” across different specialties for scientists be required; perhaps a scientific ethic of peer review across multiple specialties.


M3, please let me know if this is a fair approximation of your argument.

Assuming it is, there are a few problems with it:

People are mainly attacking you on no. 5, that specialization is the reason negative consequences are somehow “slipping through the process”. You’ve failed to demonstrate that scientists are myopic, or that they aren’t considering all the long-term effects.

In one sense, of course they aren’t considering all the effects - no scientist can possibly see all the ends to which her solution is put, or all possible effects of its intended use. Scientists are already bound, to some degree, to investigate the consequences - that’s why drug trials take so long. But it’s difficult to believe that any amount of testing will exhaustively determine every possible consequence.

There’s also the fact that outside pressures may cause a scientific solution to be implemented without sufficient study, or in spite of the results of study. I’m thinking specifically of torpedoes in American submarines that were rushed into service under pressure from the admiralty, despite the objections of the engineers who knew of a potential problem. Later, one of these torpedoes exploded in the tube of the U.S.S. Scorpion, sinking her with all hands aboard [Blind Man’s Bluff, Sontag and Drew, 1998].

There’s also the case of scientists/engineers working in environments that aren’t conducive to cross-specialty study or public review. I doubt that Monsanto wants it’s researchers to solicit peer review of their genetically modified seed even after its released on the market.

To prove no. 5, you need to illustrate some cases where the negative consequences were reasonably foreseeable, but not looked for because the scientist’s narrow focus precluded that line of inquiry. You need to demonstrate that the person who developed DDT could reasonably have determined its effects on the food chain, but didn’t. You need to demonstrate that the doctors who developed antibiotics could reasonably have known that their widespread use would lead to antibiotic-resistent bacteria, but didn’t look into it (and not that they knew it was possible, but accepted the risk, or thought that the benefits made for a good trade-off).

no. 4 is also troublesome, since you seem to be assuming that specialization is the be all and end all of the practice of science. While we agree that scientists specialise, we don’t agree that scientists never raise their heads outside their cubicle walls. It’s my opinion that scientists always have something of a general science education in their background (at least insofar as their degree required classes in other specialties), and that they generally have some facile awareness of work in other fields. Since you’re the one making the argument, you’ve got to support this premise as well, that specialization is indeed too narrow.

Finally, you need to clarify no. 3. You need to say something about the limits of scientific responsibility as determined by foreseeably consequences. Yes, if a drug company releases something untested, they’re doing wrong. But if they test it for twenty years, find no adverse reactions, and release it, are they still responsible? Remember, Thalidomide was approved by the FDA.

That’s a long post, and will be irrelevent if M3 says that I’ve unfairly caricatured his argument. Hope that’s not the case.

I’ll be in the drawer if anyone needs me.