Real Science is the Hardest

This is the third and last entry related to chapter 6 in Mitch Stokes' book, How to be an Atheist. We left off yesterday with the notion that "the beliefs we have strongly influence the beliefs we form." So, when it comes to scientists, what beliefs do they have? Stokes describes how scientists undergo training that is extremely formative and very effective, and prepares them for membership in a unique culture: "Ever after, scientists tend to look at the world differently, through a different set of lenses." A worldview.

Textbooks often depict science as a relatively neat and hygienic accumulation of knowledge, spending little time on chronicling science-related dead ends, misfires, and failures. In a way, that makes sense and is quite practical; there is so much to know that just learning about the successes is a herculean task. But with that, science gains a reputation of cool reason, sober observation, and, in some sense, infallibility. Science education also teaches students what kinds of authorities to trust; Stokes writes: "This is crucial, because most of what a scientist knows - indeed most of what each of us knows - is by way of testimony, from what others tell us." While the reputation of science is as a discipline of objectivity and skepticism, in many ways, it tends to orbit around a shared collection of community-accepted sources of knowledge.

Stokes goes on to discuss how existing theories (from these community-accepted sources of knowledge) influence observation, which in turn influences theory, which influences observation: "We have here a kind of scientific hermeneutic circle, even for something as apparently objective as seeing. Seeing is believing, but the converse is true too." And once a theory is in place it's hard to let it go. Humans often hold onto their beliefs as long as they can and will do whatever it takes to keep a belief system in place. Scientists are no different; they don't give up on a theory immediately when trouble arises. They will often take heroic steps to save it. This is not a bad thing; all theories are challenged by data points. If scientists gave up on every theory that was challenged by anomalies in the data, no theory would get off the ground. But commitment to a theory can also lead to a "save the theory at all costs" disposition. A disproven theory can threaten one's life's work and, like with most humans, work often becomes our identity - who we are. To abandon a theory could leave a person without purpose and hope. Pride also is a factor. So, you can see why a scientist could hold onto a theory despite the evidence that sober skepticism elicits.

Perhaps, scientists are only human after all.