What of Truth and Evidence?

[Iggy]

I'm concerned that some 'arguments from science' are often unscientific and dangerous and misguide people's behaviour. Such claims are often made to either prove a conclusion or gain some social, or financial interest.

 

I hope to be true to reality ie an objectivist, but suspect people's argument from science is often false, specifically:

 

1. The "anecdotes are not evidence" argument. Say someone conducts a cruel/unethical experiment and brings an unknown liquid (acid) into a room of participants to test. The first person puts his finger into the liquid experiences pain and burning. Would the other (rational) participants do the same because the evidence is only anecdotal; a small sample, and inconclusive?

 

2. The "no evidence exists for" argument. For example, some people claim that fracking is dangerous, while others claim it is safe. Proponents argue that there is "no evidence for" fracking being dangerous, but:-

• Scientific studies are often carried out by vested interests (and are consequently biased), while opponents and sceptics often lack the funding to test the evidence or their theories. Even mainstream science is funded by the government whose interest is political not scientific truth, eg the anti-global warming scientists are dismissed from their posts, and notably the UK science advisor was dismissed for his anti-global warming message.
• Anecdotal evidence is often dismissed as unscientific yet the potential for harm from new technology or methods is often ignored or summarily dismissed risking costly and life-threatening consequences. Known benefits are stressed and unknown costs ignored.
• Real world testing over extended periods of time is the ultimate test, yet scientific knowledge progresses incrementally and partial knowledge can be worse than no knowledge if it leads us to take potentially costly or lethal risks.

 

I'm not anti-scientific only sceptical of scientific claims especially when used for short term self interested goals, and not in the exploration and determining of truth from falsehood.

 

Thanks for your thoughts, arguments and corrections!

[Rainbow Dash]

I completely agree with you. I would also encourage people to extend this skepticism of scientific claims to evolutionary science as well.

[alexqr1]

1. The "anecdotes are not evidence" argument. Say someone conducts a cruel/unethical experiment and brings an unknown liquid (acid) into a room of participants to test. The first person puts his finger into the liquid experiences pain and burning. Would the other (rational) participants do the same because the evidence is only anecdotal; a small sample, and inconclusive?

In this example, there is evidence that suggests that if I put my finger into the liquid I may expect burning, however, I have no proof for that. I can come up with many potential scenarios that would prove that evidence to be wrong. “Anecdotes are not evidence” is wrong, but “Anecdotes are no proof” is 100% right.

Scientific studies are often carried out by vested interests (and are consequently biased), while opponents and sceptics often lack the funding to test the evidence or their theories.

Then it is not science, you are attacking a straw man.

Real world testing over extended periods of time is the ultimate test, yet scientific knowledge progresses incrementally and partial knowledge can be worse than no knowledge if it leads us to take potentially costly or lethal risks.

The decision to take a risk is an economic one and thus subjective. The ultimate test is really the predicting capacity of a theory. How long is an “extended period of time”? Who determines that and why?

I completely agree with you. I would also encourage people to extend this skepticism of scientific claims to evolutionary science as well.

Are you talking about the theory of evolution or the fact of evolution? It is easy to confuse the two.Like you could be skeptic about a theory that attempts to explain how gravity works, but that does not mean that you hold a belief that gravity is not real.

[Rainbow Dash]

Are you talking about the theory of evolution or the fact of evolution? It is easy to confuse the two.Like you could be skeptic about a theory that attempts to explain how gravity works, but that does not mean that you hold a belief that gravity is not real.

I am talking about for example when it is claimed that two species share a common ancestor. I know that DNA gets mutated and natural selection determines which genes get passed down; this is not controversial.

[Iggy]

Thanks for the input guys, I have no argument with evolutionary theory so I'll focus on your points alexqr1 which I'll summarise as:

 

1. Anecdotes are evidence but do not constitute proof. (Agreed)

2. Questions over the validity of a particular scientific experiment or study does not invalidate the scientific method in principle. (Agreed)

3. To argue that a party has vested interests in an outcome does not mean their claims or conclusions are false. (Agreed)

4. Risk is only economic and by implication can be taken by anyone willing to bear the consequences.

5. The validity of a theory is determined by its predictive capacity, and not indeterminate periods of time. (Agreed)

 

So, firstly thank you for clarifying my thinking - it was helpful.

 

My argument is not with science per-se but with science as rhetorical instrument, that is for financial, political or social gain.

 

Bad science is not science, but it does muddy the water so-to-speak of what is true and what is not true.

 

Science is often a costly and time consuming exercise with vested interests; scientists have a career and livelihood to maintain, while private companies (and indeed the government) often need scientific validation in order to pursue their interests. As such the risk of bad science can not be ignored, and scientific claims may be accurate or part of a rhetorical device.

 

When those making a financial gain differ from those taking the risks (who may be unaware of the issues involved, and lack the skills or resources to argue their case effectively) the potential for harm escalates, thus fracking, nuclear power, and GMOs all become simple business opportunities. When there is a lack of knowledge and certainty (which I advocate is frequently the case especially in our current system of vested interests) the potential for harm escalates, and agreements with a party or parties ignorant of the issues, or unable to agree (i.e. future generations) is aggressive and immoral. Therefore proposals which risk the health and wealth of parties ignorant of the risks involved or unable to give their consent demand special scrutiny.

 

Conscious and unconscious motives may lead people to misrepresent the data, and the legacy of Chernobyl, Fukishima, and other disasters caution us against scientific claims as with other claims when individuals have so much to gain.