The Dismissive and Closed-Minded Scientists
A while ago, I posted an “atheists are bigots” post, reflecting my feelings on comments on the BBC’s website suggesting that religious people were backward and religions shouldn’t be allowed. Of course, the post should really have been entitled “atheists are just as capable of being bigots as anyone else” but that would have been a bit long.
This led to an entertaining debate with Sean from the Atheist Resource who rightly highlighted a lot of atrocities that are, or have been, carried out in the name of religion, along with the issues of “Intelligent Design” being attempted to be legitimised as a scientific theory.
It turned out Sean and I agreed on a lot of points: such as the fact people shouldn’t be bigoted; should seek their own answers, shouldn’t read every point of relgious scriptures as literal fact (his argument being that they aren’t divine and merely reflect inherent prejudices of the time, and my argument being that even if they are divinely inspired originally, they are largely transcribed from an oral tradition which will have been coloured by interpretations and prejudices of people at the time).
We’re both in agreement that Intelligent Design isn’t a legitimate scientific theory, because it’s not testable; and that to dismiss evolution as “only a theory” would require doing the same to all scientific theories — including our understanding of gravity, of the laws of thermodynamics and so on.
For me, a true scientist (and I count myself as one) would seek to use an evidence based hypothesis to increase our scientific understanding of the world. It may be that from time to time that theories are challenged, and that evidence needs to be re-examined, but in order to scientifically overturn an existing theory, you’re going to need to be able to prove it.
What I was seeking to reject was those people who say they are atheists or scientists (and frequently both at the same time) who are perfectly happy to reject the scientific approach when it suits them, and pronounce purely according to their own beliefs and prejudices. For example, despite being unable to produce a testable hypothesis, they are prepared to declare that there isn’t a God, when scientifically all we can say is that we can’t prove there is one. After all:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absenceCarl Sagan
For example, anyone who decries a perpetual motion machine as “impossible” isn’t acting scientifically. It is impossible according to our current understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, but those laws aren’t sacrosanct:
Scientists and engineers accept the possibility that the current understanding of the laws of physics may be incomplete or incorrect; a perpetual motion device may not be impossible, but overwhelming evidence would be required to justify rewriting the laws of physicsWikipedia — Perpetual Motion Machine
However, I personally believe it’s is very unlikely that a perpetual motion machine will ever be developed, but if someone claimed to have invented one, it wouldn’t be scientific for me to dismiss it without first examining the evidence (although given the claimed perpetual motion machines to date, it may be convenient for me to do so).
That’s the whole point of science. It progresses by challenging old ideas — for example, Lamarckian evolution was successfully challenged by the Darwinian type — and while something like the concept of perpetual motion goes against our current understanding, that doesn’t necessarily mean our current understanding is correct, and if we aren’t prepared to allow our understanding to be challenged, then we as scientists are guilty of the same sin as the Atheist Resource points at religion — that a specific item of belief is treated as inviolable “Holy Writ” and cannot be challenged or altered.
Which is part of the problem I have with some scientists. A scientist should not be credulous — they shouldn’t be prepared to believe anything without evidence to back it up. Equally however, a scientist shouldn’t be so closed-minded that they aren’t prepared to accept something where the evidence flies in the face of their current beliefs. A scientist should be sceptical and capable of critical thinking at all times — both of new theories and of existing ones, including their own pet favourites.
A scientist who dismissed something as “bunkum” without examining the evidence is not acting scientifically. In the vast majority of cases, he or she may well be right, but they’ve not arrived at that conclusion scientifically.
This happens most frequently when scientists are reluctant to so much as countenance the possibility of psychic powers or paranormal phenomena. Note that I’m not saying such things do exist, merely that in order to behave like a scientist you have to judge the case on its merits, and not pre-judge it simply because it doesn’t fit your personal world view. It’s also fair to point out therefore that I’m not prepared to declare that they don’t exist either.
This point was very eloquently put by the scientist, author and investigator of paranormal phenomena Dr. Rupert Sheldrake on a radio program recently, when his arguments were attacked by Prof. Peter Atkins (who specialises in an entirely different discipline):
- Interviewer
- On the other hand when he produces his evidence, he said 25% was what you would expect, but what he got was 45%, that is remarkable [odds against this being a chance coincidence of billions to one]
- Atkins
- No, that’s just playing with statistics.
- Interviewer
- Let’s put that to Rupert. Rupert Sheldrake, he says you’re just playing with statistics. He doesn’t believe a word of it. What do you say to him?
- Sheldrake
- Well I’d like to ask him if he’s actually read the evidence? May I ask you Professor Atkins if you’ve actually studied any of this evidence or any other evidence?
- Atkins
- No, but I would be very suspicious of it.
- Sheldrake
- Of course, being suspicious of it in advance of seeing it is normally called prejudice.
What was under discussion was the possibility of telephone telepathy. It is certainly entirely reasonableto require evidence to make claims, particularly claims where the claims contradict our current understanding, such as this one. It is not however scientific to reject claims which are provided with evidence without even looking at the evidence. That’s not science: that’s simply the equivalent of saying “it cannot be so, because I don’t understand how it can be so”: the same argument that is rightly refuted as unscientific when creationists launch one of their persistent attacks on evolution.
If Rupert Sheldrake’s evidence suggests something we don’t understand has occurred, then the evidence needs to be closely examined. You need to assess the likelihood of that experimental result occurring purely by chance. In this case, I’d suggest that if the possibility of it occurring by chance was over 5%, the telepathy idea would not be statistically significant. At 1% or a 0.1% chance that it could have occurred by chance, I’d look to try and repeat the experiment to increase the confidence level. However here, the chances of it occurring by chance are billions to one against. In the case of telepathy, I’d suggest that it’s an extraordinary claim, and would require extraordinary proof. But a billions to one chance that this could have “just occurred” seems a fairly extraordinary piece of supporting evidence.
So it probably didn’t occur by chance. Does that mean telepathy exists? Not necessarily. There may have been some kind of fault with the experimental method: is the experiment repeatable elsewhere when carried out by different scientists (if the argument is that a particular person is telepathic, then you might need to use the same subjects, but set up the experiment differently)?
I’m not saying that this would necessarily happen: what I am saying was that if you could eliminate experimental factors, duplicate the experiment, and return high levels of statistical significance, then the scientific method would lead us to believe that something was occurring — and it was not occurring by chance.
If Dr. Rupert Sheldrake had been referring to something to do with the mating habits of geese, it wouldn’t be rejected out of hand, so why should it be rejected out of hand if it relates to something “paranormal” such as telepathy? One reason, and one reason only: inherent prejudice.
You’re either scientific, and follow a scientific evidence and hypothesis based method, and test, challenge and re-evaluate your preconceptions, or you ain’t a scientist. If you aren’t prepared to allow your preconceptions to be challenged, then you might as well term them Holy Writ and start excommunicating heretics.
Oh, wait … isn’t that what’s happening to Dr Sheldrake? I suppose at least he should be grateful he’s not being burned at the stake.
Open-minded is not the same as credulous. Sceptical is not the same as closed-minded. A scientist should be open minded but sceptical. They should demand evidence but not make judgements based on their preconceptions without examining that evidence.
Update: I notice this closed-mindedness has been picked up on elsewhere, such as by the excellent Science Is A Method Not A Position.
Hello. I am 
Those ‘laws’ of physics could need to be rewritten soon… Steorn.
I was brought up by my parents to always have an enquiring mind, which I believe is the other major unerlying trait necessary for science. As soon as anything becomes rote or dogma something is lost - mainly progress I expect.