The illusion of completeness in scientific knowledge
My mother, always on the lookout for things I will like, sent me this NYT blog post, by attractive evolutionary biologist Olivia Judson.
She defends an article she wrote about facial expressions and mood, which was criticized for being speculative. Judson says speculating and using imagination is both valuable in itself and conducive to the broader scientific enterprise.
She says that the usual presentation of science (“facts to be memorized, equations to be solved, concepts to be understood, discoveries to be applauded”), gives two misleading impressions.
You’ll have to read it for the rest, but I’ve often wondered about her first point:
One is that science is about what we know. One colleague told me that when he was studying science at school, the relentless focus on the known gave him the impression that almost everything had already been discovered. But in fact, science — as the physicist Richard Feynman once wrote — creates an “expanding frontier of ignorance,” where most discoveries lead to more questions. (This frontier — this peering into the unknown — is what I especially like to write about.) Moreover, insofar as science is a body of knowledge, that body is provisional: much of what we thought we knew in the past has turned out to be incomplete, or plain wrong.
It seems to me that “science” looked at broadly – say, when contemplating the aggregate results of all physics, chemistry, and biology departments in the world – really does give this illusion of completeness. This is especially true (in my limited experience) of textbooks.
I think this is interesting, because very few actual scientists are themselves under this delusion. Yet, like matter itself, science as a whole gives the false impression of not being constituted by mostly empty space.
I’m wondering if my many, many, many, many readers agree with this impression. Does the public face of science give this impression? Am I right that scientists themselves wouldn’t agree with this impression? Who does agree with this impression?
I haven’t condescended to comment on this blog for some time, but I feel that a voice of reason is neccessary here. By “voice of reason” I mean “voice of science”, although my voice is in many other ways one of infallability (see my comment on “Movie Review: Up”, posted on June 14 on this blog). That aside, I would like to begin with asking, nay, pleading that you never again even begin to hope to understand the scientific world. I would like to know: Have you even taken a real science course (by which I exclude high school “science”)? If, on some off chance, you have, then I would like you to close our eyes and try to remember that class. Now, imagine that your instructor emphasized imagination. What do you think would come of this? I will help you. We would get a field infested with artists sans paint, who would marvel at the pretty colors billowing out of the beaker containing chemicals they can’t name. We might actually have people like you entering the wonderful world of science. Enough said.
P.S. I can’t wait till scientists start getting imaginative with the H1N1 vaccine.
Dear Brainpatheticpieceofshitwizard666,
I bet you haven’t changed your clothes in two weeks; and I suppose the three 6s signify what you do with your Dungeons and Dragons pals.
Disdainfully,
Chet, your H.S. bully
(Now, observe that this post is equally as substantive and scientific as yours. Proffer some arguments next time, chump.)
Chet,
Ah, I see this “discussion” has already denigrated into obscenities and mud-flinging. I hope your post wasn’t meant to show how imagination can be used in a logical discussion. And I never would have guessed what the purpose of your post was without that little parenthetical aside. Thanks for the clarification.
Now, to the point. Chet, you have just helped to prove my point. Trying to use imagination (by imagining a science classroom) clearly does nothing for your brain or for your understanding. Logic, while sometimes masked as imagination, can always be deduced as the result of a simple cause and effect chain of events. Columbus had a Portuguese map, Watson and Crick had Franklin’s photo, and Edison merely tried hundereds of different kinds of metal until he found one that worked. All involved using already aquired information or a methodical process. Not imagination.
Brainwizard666,
Yikes!
Tell Olivia Judson this, not me.
Yes.
Depends on the context. If the context is working out equations, nothing would come of it, since it would just be inapplicable fluff. If the context is the history of science, and approaching difficult unanswered problems, it would be quite useful and stimulating, as Olivia Judson helpfully illustrates.
Obviously that’s not the sense in which Olivia Judson is using the term imagination. Maybe an English major could help you here.
I can’t decide between two good responses to your post script. Here they are:
(1) Yes, nothing spells success like the recent development and distribution of the H1N1 vaccine.
and
(2) What on earth do you mean? What would it mean to get “imaginative” with the H1N1 vaccine? Are you under the impression that Olivia Judson is using “imagination” not only in a silly way (pretty colors), but also as an exclusive alternative to the primary scientific methods?
I will begin with your last point, and work up from there.
By “imaginative”, I mean focusing on new ways of developing vaccines rather than continuing the practice that we know works. The vaccine was developed within weeks of the epidemic, no time wasted on speculation.
Obviously, my artist analogy strayed a little from the point I was making – did you not like my specualtion and imagination? Oh, I apologize.
It is precisely in the context of working out equations where focusing on imagination and speculation would harm the strength of the logical scientific process. Equations are proven to work, and speculation/imagination is completely uneccessary. If one begins to try and mess with equations, needless delay and side-tracking ensue.
Which science course have you taken?
You clearly support Olivia Judson’s ideas, and I think you have been disillusioned into thinking that attractiveness lends itself to merit. In discussing the article with you, I see no problem with adressing issues you have adopted by siding with Ms. Judson’s views.
Yikes!
Brainwizard666,
Good. So we’re talking about different things, and discussion can cease. You think that imagination means not developing the swine flu vaccine, and instead being imaginative. That’s not what we’re talking about, so you should go bother someone else.
No one thinks imagination means false analogies. You came up with the bad analogy through not following anybody’s arguments, not through imagination.
Then we agree. So long.
I took all the ones least vulnerable to your ad hominem.
(1) Obviously I don’t think attractiveness adds intellectual merit. (2) Obviously the point of bringing up Judson wasn’t to say you can’t talk about issues – once again you don’t follow the argument. The point of bringing up Judson was to discredit your notion that her views are somehow due to not taking science courses, or failing to understand “the scientific world.” I guess somewhere between Stanford, Oxford, and her scientific research career, she really should have given up all “hope” in her attempts to understand science.
Brainwizard666,
What’s probably most interesting about your comments is that the imagination point is the part of her article that I did not discuss in my post. Do you have anything substantive to say about what anyone actually wrote?
I think “the illusion of completeness in scientific knowledge” is due to poor textbooks and poor science education generally. I must be on a Feynman streak because I’m going to refer to him again. This excerpt from one of his books is not as long as the Danner piece so I think I can reasonably add it to your reading list: http://www.feep.org/articles/feynman.html
In it, Feynman blasts the state of science education and of a particular textbook says, “it’s not science, but memorizing, in every circumstance.”
I feel compelled to add that, based on my understanding of science, a previous commentator’s example of “continuing the practice that we know works” as opposed to trying new things sounds like one of the least scientific approaches ever. Sure, a policy decision might be, we don’t have enough time or money so let’s stick with what we already have. But the scientific enterprise requires experimentation and questionning current understanding. How else could you discover new things? As Einstein said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
Oh. Sorry.
Hello Joshua
I am a new reader. Ironically, I found your site via Loftus. Interesting, that he removed his links to you. In view of the tantrum of his posted here, I’m not surprised. Which brings me to Brainwizard666 and his rude reply to your post. What is with these people?
It appears that he has only removed his most recent reference to me, regarding my post on the certainty in mothers vs. gods. I don’t know why he removed it. Other posts remain.
I don’t know about Brainwizard666. I think he or she was turned off by my intentionally over-the-top review of the movie Up, probably the silliest post on this blog.
I think what’s needed is a Unified Feel Theory.