A Public Policy Scientific Consensus?
by BradfordStimulus for Science is an article appearing at the New York Academy of Sciences website. The article begins by noting a quote from President Obama in which he pledged to "restore science to its rightful place." That's a curious phrase in my view but we get indicators of what is meant by it. Follow the money trail. It is noted that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus bill, authorized $24 billion in funding for science and technology research and development. It is not that the bill creates a great many new jobs when compared to the number of people employed by the world's largest economy. However, for the long term, beefing up research bodes well for this nation just as the general explosion in spending does not bode well in the same the long term.
There was this revealing part of the article:
There's an urgency for more scientists to involve themselves in policymaking, he (Holdren) says. "In the US, scientists have been aloof from the political process. We need them in policymaking positions where they're part of the decision-making process."
I do not believe that scientists were aloof from the political process and find it odd that scientists should be considered policymakers. It would seem wiser that scientists have a technical advisory role as do high ranking generals in military matters. But if they wish to craft public policy then they have the option of running for office. Elected officials are charged with that responsibility. In any case what policies would one advocate based exclusively on consideration of one's scientific credentials?
May 26th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Good question, Bradford. Poke around a bit (as I know you have done) and you'll find lots of instances where someone will start a sentence with, "Science says…" and end it with a statement of value.
Here's one high-profile current example (the same principle extends to other science-related issues): "Science says we should support saving lives through embryonic stem cell research."
The value statement buried in there is that already-born humans are of greater worth or value than not-yet-born humans. People may disagree on whether that's true or not, but their disagreement is not based in science.
One way to test that is by offering a response based in religion. "The Bible shows us that human life has the highest dignity and worth, right from the start, and we believe that applies from zygote to blastocyst to embryo and on until the end; and the Bible says it is wrong to sacrifice the lives of the helpless innocent."
Set aside for a moment whether that belief is right or wrong. Can it be countered (or supported) scientifically? If not, then how can anyone think ESCR policy decisions are science decisions? Sure, science informs the decision: Does ESCR have life-saving potential? What are its financial costs? What are the alternatives? And so on. These things enter into the moral balance, certainly. But it's an information/advisement role, as you said. Science's role does not–indeed, cannot–extend to making policy decisions.
Comment by TomG — May 26, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
May 26th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Tom G:
Right. You've identified something that has fascinated me for a long time- the ideological strategy of smuggling values under the radar.
The science sez + value add on is particularly insidious on a number of levels. If made by a scientist or one speaking from authority it can falsely convey the impression that science lends credibility to the value promoted particularly to those whose scientific knowledge is not their forte. It also diminishes the perception of objectivity many perceive scientists as having when they speak about scientific issues.
It concerns me when ideological movements hijack enterprises, not within the purview of their concern, to promote their own ends. We see echoes of that in another thread where the educational system is viewed by Dawkinites as a vehicle by which values, antithetical to Judeo-Christain morals, can be inculcated into public school pupils. This from the same crowd that has decried the "ID movement" allegedly led by a relatively obscure group based in Seattle and having little political clout.
Comment by Bradford — May 26, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
May 26th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Slightly off-topic, I thought I'd mention this score: 73-0.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — May 26, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
May 26th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
JJS, it's not off-topic. To the contrary, if productive results acrue from research involving adult stem cells, the emphasis on embryonic stem cells, at the very least, suggests evidence for value smuggling.
Comment by Bradford — May 26, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
May 26th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Right.
It's especially telling in this case. ESCR proponents keep saying opponents are "anti-science," as if we were opposed to research in general! But I've never heard an ESCR opponent complain about adult stem cell research, or about that list of 73, or about trying to grow that list even larger.
Or they'll say ESCR opponents want to stand in the way of saving lives. Also obviously false.
So what's the real ideology behind the push for ESCR? Is it pure research? Maybe so, for some; it might be pure curiosity. But how much public policy play does pure research for scientific curiosity usually get?
Is the real ideology that of saving lives? Somehow it seems like they would be more forthcoming about the fact that embryonic stem cells have uniformly harmed much more than they have helped.
There's another possible answer to the question about the real ideology. It's not a scientific one. It's the attempt to make some people look bad on a different, overlapping issue (saving unborn babies' lives) by tying their values to an "anti-science" and "anti-medical progress" theme. It's painfully transparent, really.
And there's another relevant overlap: the "ID is anti-science" claim. Other than some highly theoretical, empirically unsupportable gurglings about "If you think God was involved, you're never going to ask another scientific question," there's no evidence behind that one at all. But it makes for a good sound bite.
Comment by TomG — May 26, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
May 26th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Tom G:
My experience, after years of exchanges with ID opponents, is that ID critics are the ones with their fingers in their ears and their minds closed to possibilites. What IDist says "I'm not interested in a physical phenomenon because God did it?" That's one of those mythological cliches that fool only the proponents of it.
Comment by Bradford — May 26, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
May 26th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
It's not a question of whether you think God is involved. It's a question of whether you think God is the sceintific answer. If so, that's the end of the scientific investigation. What scientific questions about His involvement are possible?
Comment by don provan — May 26, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
May 26th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
dp:
You seriously can't think of any? Here's one for starters: "How did he do it?"
Comment by CJYman — May 26, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 3:44 am
God is omniscient, omnipotent, and active. We could never discover how He did it, only how He wants us to think He did it.
But if you're thinking of a lessor god, then how would we answer that question any differently than science is currently answering the question of how things came to be? Sciece already has that answer: He did it using the process of evolution.
Comment by don provan — May 27, 2009 @ 3:44 am
May 27th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Of course you can find the how answers. We've been doing that for centuries- ever since some early Christian natural philosophers made up their minds to look into how God exceuted his plan.
Comment by Bradford — May 27, 2009 @ 9:28 am
May 27th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
[...] is an interesting post by Bradford at Telic Thoughts entitled A Public Policy Scientific Consensus? Bradford ends the post by asking a highly relevant question: …what policies would one [...]
Pingback by 73 To 0 | Evolution Engineered — May 27, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Yes, if you just assume the "how" answers can be actually discovered, you end up with modern science. In that case, "God did it" is vacuous: "it happened" is equally as descriptive.
The only real difference of truly concluding God did it is precisely that that introduces the possibility that any observations we make could have also been generated by God specifically for the effect they have on us.
That fallacy here is that concluding "God did it" somehow changes the rules about what constitutes proof. It doesn't change anything except introducing a self-aware force that is capable of deceit, an element that undermines all proofs uniformly.
Comment by don provan — May 27, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
dp,
But also in that case, "undirected (random) variation and natural selection did it" is false.
And "God did it" is vacuous only for those who are interested in nothing but natural mechanisms. Why should that be the only interesting question?
Oh, and from where did you ever get the idea that God is capable of deceit?
Comment by TomG — May 27, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Does it? Could undirected (random) variation and natural selection be the tool God used? Or, more to the point, couldn't God make it look like that's what he used?
The complaint was that people say "God did it" is a science stopper. Now you seem to be asking why we should care if it's a science stopper.
Comment by don provan — May 27, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
What do you mean by undirected/random mean? Something merely non-computable by us, or something absolutely non-deterministic?
Of course, if you're willing to discuss God's involvement I assume you're willing to drag Satan into the discussion as well. Most Christian traditions believe that Satan intents to deceive the human race, and had a hand in corrupting the creation toward some kind of "grand delusion" that will surface at the end of the age. If you're willing to consider God's activity in all of this, you may as well go all the way and consider that an evil power is at play to. Now, this will likely lead to a theological discussing on theodicy, etc, etc, thus turning the thread into a theological one. But hey, one should expect that any answers to all these issues will exist at the bitter end of the causal road. No use traveling half way.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 27, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
I'm not sure what TomG meant.
It's not a matter of what I want to "drag in", but rather what the proposed explanation says. I'd be surprised if proposed scientific explanation "God did it" implied something about some other entity called "Satan", though. That seems way beyond anything I've heard anyone at TelicThoughts try to claim.
Comment by don provan — May 27, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Theology and scientific explanations are not the same thing obviously. Science can only deal with nature as it is now. It cannot tell us if nature itself and objects within it have been interfered with from outside of nature as we know it. Which is why I certainly don't advocate mixing the two.
Well, it was a theological question, so I tossed out a theological response.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 27, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Here's the original statement. I don't see how it could be interpretted as talking about theology:
Comment by don provan — May 27, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
May 27th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Don P:
But you did ask:
Thems theology werds.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 27, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
May 28th, 2009 at 9:23 am
What I meant by undirected was undirected, i.e. that God did not direct it, and nothing else did. Let me be more clear. The statement I was kicking off from was:
What I said in answer was,
What I meant, which apparently needs to be spelled out, is that in that case the idea that it all happened by strictly naturalistic causes is false.
So what if "God did it" is "vacuous"? (Which it isn't; as I said above, it's only vacuous to those whose limited curiosity extends only as far as mechanistic processes.) The first question ought to be whether it's true.
Comment by TomG — May 28, 2009 @ 9:23 am
May 28th, 2009 at 9:28 am
We can directly observe evolution due to those mechanisms. So it is certainly not false, and certainly not scientifically vacuous.
Comment by Zachriel — May 28, 2009 @ 9:28 am
May 28th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Zachriel,
You must have come in late. That's the only explanation for your saying that "it is certainly not false" that it all happened without God, if God was involved in the process. That's what "in that case" was pointing to.
And just what kind of magic do you use to observe the past history of evolution happening by those mechanisms?
Or do I need to patiently explain to you once again that presently-observed populations within species is not what this teleology debate was ever about?
Comment by TomG — May 28, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
May 28th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
The same magic used to determine that gravity caused the planets to move in the past. We observe the mechanism today and we have historical evidence consistent with that mechanism.
Of course that's what it's about. Large changes over long time periods are explained by small changes over short time periods (1st order approximation). The key observation is that observed rates of evolution are faster (much faster) than the historical rates. Telic entities are superfluous .
Comment by Zachriel — May 28, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
May 29th, 2009 at 2:41 am
How do you figure? It sounds like we're talking about an entity God. Nothing about these words says anything about religion.
Anyway, discuss it with TomG. If his point was about theology, then I apologize for saying anything.
Comment by don provan — May 29, 2009 @ 2:41 am
May 29th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
What you seem to be missing is that the scientific conclusion "undirected (random) variation and natural selection did it" is consistent with God directing it. Only God can know for sure what he did, but science has reached a conclusion based on observations, and neither the observations nor the conclusions change. We're left with two facts: 1. God did it, and 2. how it was done shows no evidence of guidance. You seem to think the second conclusion is invalidated by the first, but we don't accept the second because of what it says, we accept it because of the self-validating procedure called "science" that was used to reach it.
We're stipulating that it's true, so we don't have to worry about that. The next question is, "What does that tell us?" And, so far, it's looking like it doesn't tell us a dang thing beyond its theological implications.
The original claim was that "God did it" led to how questions. But no one seems to be able to tell me in what why the new, improved how questions are different than the how questions we're already asking and answering without knowing that God did it.
Comment by don provan — May 29, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
May 30th, 2009 at 8:08 am
dp:
"Undirected" is consistent with "God directing it"? Wow. How does he direct it without directing it, I wonder?
I am aware of the literature on randomness not necessarily meaning undirectedness. But that's not what the discussion has been about, so I don't know why you brought it up.
And if that doesn't interest you, then I would say your interests are limited. Especially since you stipulated that it's true that God did it. Wouldn't you want to know more about the God who created all this?
Why do the questions need to be different? Natural science was natural science for believers like Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Mendel, and many, many more. It's still natural science for believers today: the study of nature, God's creation. It's not a direct study of God, it's a study of his work.
What does need to be different is the range of potential solutions on the table, specifically, that philosophical naturalism is recognized for the dubious metaphysical assumption that it is, and that the practice of methodological naturalism be carefully guarded against its strong tendency to slip into philosophical naturalism.
Comment by TomG — May 30, 2009 @ 8:08 am
May 30th, 2009 at 8:27 am
For a claim to have *scientific* merit, it must lead to some empirically observable distinction. From a scientific vantage, it looks just as if life evolved over millions of years through a process of diversification by natural variation and selection.
Soldiers after a battle may thank Providence—all the while knowing that the bullets that kill some and spare others follow well-known laws of physics.
I agree there is an important distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism. But what do you mean then by "potential solutions"?
Comment by Zachriel — May 30, 2009 @ 8:27 am
May 31st, 2009 at 6:33 am
I am referring to the range of possible answers to questions that are being asked.
Comment by TomG — May 31, 2009 @ 6:33 am
May 31st, 2009 at 5:22 pm
What you should be wondering is how God directed it without leaving behind any trace for us to see.
Do you agree that "God did it" isn't a scientific answer, then?
The claim was that "God did it" led to new scientific questions. New questions need to be different.
The range of potential solutions has always been the same. Some people may have ruled out God, but we didn't. In fact, we agreed God was the explanation. And now we're looking for any way that explanation changes our scientific explorations. And we've found nothing.
Comment by don provan — May 31, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
June 1st, 2009 at 9:09 pm
dp:
I'll agree with that. Would you agree that "God did it" is (or could be) an answer nevertheless? (It doesn't have to be scientific to be true, or to be an answer.)
This depends on whether we're talking about scientific inquiry or not. Not all inquiries need be scientific. But I'm sure your questions are mostly scientific, so I'll answer this way. There may not be new scientific questions arising from "God did it." But Mike Behe, Mike Gene, and many others have proposed several new questions that can arise from, "Did this all necessarily happen by chance and necessity, or might there have been something else, intelligence, in the mix?" You know what those questions are, at least some of them.
Who is "we"? It seems to me you've missed some awfully good questions to explore.
Comment by TomG — June 1, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Of course. The complaint isn't about people accepting "God did it" as an answer, but people trying to inject "God did it" into science. If you aren't aware of those people, then that would explain why you think there's something wrong with "ID is anti-science".
I deny they are new questions. Most of them have long since been asked and answered. What's fundamental to the ID movement is the claim that "intelligence" doesn't need to be scientifically defined, and the demonstrating the existence of a cause is unnecessary for claiming proof of a cause. While different ID advocates approach the issues differently, overall the claim is that science is broken in one way or another because it won't allow this line of inquiry.
I was speaking of us in this conversation, principally you and I. Please remind me what scientific questions we've uncovered that follow from "God did it". It seems like no matter how much we talk about it, we end up with science continuing on as before.
Comment by don provan — June 2, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
June 26th, 2009 at 7:22 am
[...] Stimulus for Science is an article appearing at the New York Academy of Sciences website. The article begins by noting a quote from President Obama in which he pledged to "restore science to its rightful place." That's a curious phrase in my view but we get indicators of what is meant by it. … more on this… [...]
Pingback by metrolink » Blog Archive » A Public Policy Scientific Consensus? — June 26, 2009 @ 7:22 am