An immensely valuable essay. I'm glad I'm a geologist. As a geologist, I know I don't know much about the systems I work on. There are always new questions. And as a paleoclimatologist, I have been appalled by "Climatism". A book detailing what we don't know about climate would be far thicker than one detailing what we do (think we) know.
The author points out the dangers of scientism and wokeness well.
But he goes overboard in stating that "..discover an Ultimate Truth about the workings of Nature....What we could never know with absolute epistemic certainty, however, is if we had ever managed to accomplish such a feat." That is false. To give one counterexample from math, we know with absolute certainty that in Euclidean geometry C = 2 x PI x R, everywhere and always.
I wasn't referring to mathematics when making that statement about "Ultimate Truths". Scientific knowledge only. Perhaps I should have explicitly stated I wasn't referring to math.
This was a really useful comment and something I will bare in mind going forward. Thanks for reading and providing feedback.
"There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths. That openness to new ideas, combined with the most rigorous, skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, sifts the wheat from the chaff. It makes no difference how smart, august, or beloved you are. You must prove your case in the face of determined, expert criticism. Diversity and debate are valued."
This all seems true, in the scientist's relationship with data. This all seems false, in the scientist's relationship with knowledge (and thus science). These two things are routinely confused.
QUESTION: Can human beings successfully manage ever more, ever larger powers, delivered at an accelerating pace, without limit?
If you answer no, then you've begun to challenge the "more is better" philosophical foundation of modern science.
"We must systematically compensate for our inevitable blind spots by allowing as many individuals as possible, to take as many sledgehammers as possible, to as many ideas as possible.
Hence, the less freely we can exchange ideas and inquire openly, the less we will be able to identify and correct errors as they arise, and the more we subsequently impede the scientific process. "
The first sentence is great, five thumbs up!
The second sentence would seem to require one of those sledgehammers. Is it your assumption that more scientific progress is automatically a positive? Can we question that too?
My experience has been that the science community loves to give us little lectures about challenging everything, until that process becomes inconvenient to them, and then they tend to vanish.
This article started out great, then, within the span of a few paragraphs, devolved into a high-brow, post-hoc defense and vindication of the then highly premature and conspiratorial “just asking questions” bologna that bound and wound the far-right during the early phase of the pandemic. By the time I got to what felt like the start of a justification for ivermectin, I was done.
The author bashes Fauci (whom is by no means above reproach, don’t get me wrong) without giving due process to the extremely tenuous and potentially catastrophic situation Fauci and others were trying to navigate. Not least of which involved the rapidly-changing and nascent nature of the outbreak (which, traversing that learning curve, the author at first recognizes as being a crucial part of the scientific process) as well as the equally virulent conspiratorial rhetoric having a huge effect on the public’s response. He seems to think the public at-large should be a part of the scientific process and determine national or global health policy, which is extremely shortsighted. If the public was allowed to decide for themselves about seat belts, the myriad other lifesaving, scourge-crushing vaccines we have, or countless other examples, we’d all still be walking and driving around (and suffering and dying) without them. The fact that insights into the origin of the virus and mishandlings or outright wrongdoings by officials or organizations are being investigated or coming to light should absolutely not be taken as proof that my neckbearded high school drop out neighbor was actually making a well-informed and humble decision back in March of 2020.
I honestly didn’t finish the essay, but I don’t think I need to to both appreciate the scientific process (which is why I started reading) or to learn the author’s clear political bias.
“[a]bout 10 - 15% of the seemingly-good studies on ivermectin ended up extremely suspicious for fraud.” What about the other 85-90%?
"A quick look at ivermectin supporters shows their problem is they believed Science too much.” This quote in the context of your article is absurd. Ivermectin is not a settled issue. It continues even more thoroughly suppressed now than lab leak.
An immensely valuable essay. I'm glad I'm a geologist. As a geologist, I know I don't know much about the systems I work on. There are always new questions. And as a paleoclimatologist, I have been appalled by "Climatism". A book detailing what we don't know about climate would be far thicker than one detailing what we do (think we) know.
Glad you liked it. Really good point about the need for a book on what what we don't know. Perhaps Koonin or Lomborg do so in their books 👌
The author points out the dangers of scientism and wokeness well.
But he goes overboard in stating that "..discover an Ultimate Truth about the workings of Nature....What we could never know with absolute epistemic certainty, however, is if we had ever managed to accomplish such a feat." That is false. To give one counterexample from math, we know with absolute certainty that in Euclidean geometry C = 2 x PI x R, everywhere and always.
I wasn't referring to mathematics when making that statement about "Ultimate Truths". Scientific knowledge only. Perhaps I should have explicitly stated I wasn't referring to math.
This was a really useful comment and something I will bare in mind going forward. Thanks for reading and providing feedback.
Thank you.
But even in, say, physics, isn't it a certainty that gravity is an inverse-radius-squared law?
It is a certainty as far as it goes, but still an incomplete description of gravity, just as Newton's laws are accurate at scale, yet incomplete.
Sagan writes....
"There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths. That openness to new ideas, combined with the most rigorous, skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, sifts the wheat from the chaff. It makes no difference how smart, august, or beloved you are. You must prove your case in the face of determined, expert criticism. Diversity and debate are valued."
This all seems true, in the scientist's relationship with data. This all seems false, in the scientist's relationship with knowledge (and thus science). These two things are routinely confused.
QUESTION: Can human beings successfully manage ever more, ever larger powers, delivered at an accelerating pace, without limit?
If you answer no, then you've begun to challenge the "more is better" philosophical foundation of modern science.
If you answer yes, proof please.
You write...
"We must systematically compensate for our inevitable blind spots by allowing as many individuals as possible, to take as many sledgehammers as possible, to as many ideas as possible.
Hence, the less freely we can exchange ideas and inquire openly, the less we will be able to identify and correct errors as they arise, and the more we subsequently impede the scientific process. "
The first sentence is great, five thumbs up!
The second sentence would seem to require one of those sledgehammers. Is it your assumption that more scientific progress is automatically a positive? Can we question that too?
My experience has been that the science community loves to give us little lectures about challenging everything, until that process becomes inconvenient to them, and then they tend to vanish.
This article started out great, then, within the span of a few paragraphs, devolved into a high-brow, post-hoc defense and vindication of the then highly premature and conspiratorial “just asking questions” bologna that bound and wound the far-right during the early phase of the pandemic. By the time I got to what felt like the start of a justification for ivermectin, I was done.
The author bashes Fauci (whom is by no means above reproach, don’t get me wrong) without giving due process to the extremely tenuous and potentially catastrophic situation Fauci and others were trying to navigate. Not least of which involved the rapidly-changing and nascent nature of the outbreak (which, traversing that learning curve, the author at first recognizes as being a crucial part of the scientific process) as well as the equally virulent conspiratorial rhetoric having a huge effect on the public’s response. He seems to think the public at-large should be a part of the scientific process and determine national or global health policy, which is extremely shortsighted. If the public was allowed to decide for themselves about seat belts, the myriad other lifesaving, scourge-crushing vaccines we have, or countless other examples, we’d all still be walking and driving around (and suffering and dying) without them. The fact that insights into the origin of the virus and mishandlings or outright wrongdoings by officials or organizations are being investigated or coming to light should absolutely not be taken as proof that my neckbearded high school drop out neighbor was actually making a well-informed and humble decision back in March of 2020.
I honestly didn’t finish the essay, but I don’t think I need to to both appreciate the scientific process (which is why I started reading) or to learn the author’s clear political bias.
Anybody going to attend this event: https://www.nobelprize.org/events/nobel-prize-summit/2023/ ? I imagine it will provide material for future posts on this substack.
“[a]bout 10 - 15% of the seemingly-good studies on ivermectin ended up extremely suspicious for fraud.” What about the other 85-90%?
"A quick look at ivermectin supporters shows their problem is they believed Science too much.” This quote in the context of your article is absurd. Ivermectin is not a settled issue. It continues even more thoroughly suppressed now than lab leak.