Crichton on science

I liked this speech by novelist Michael Crichton on the increasing - and worrisome - politicization of science.

The speech winds up with a discussion of global warming. I don't really want to get into that. (Anyone interested in my opinions can check out the comments thread of this post on the blog Paranormalia.)

What interests me is Crichton's take on science in general. And I particularly liked this part:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Crichton, by the way, is very sympathetic to the idea of paranormal phenomena, and wrote about his own investigations of this topic in his memoir Travels.  

Comments

[Tony M]

Yesterday in a New York TImes blog in which Dean Ornish (low fat) "responded" to Gary Taubes (low carbs) by addressing the "growing consensus" about diet, I posted that Taubes doesn't care about consensus, he cared about data. An interesting personal synchronicity that you posted Crichton's remarks today...

[Zetetic_chick]

In context of that interesting post, I'd recommend you the book "The Paranormal and the Politics of Truth: A Sociological Account" by Jeremy Northcote.

It adresses many aspects of the politization of science, specially regarding psi research.

Also, Henry Bauer exposes the myths about the scientific method (and its use by professional scientists) and the "scientific community" in his book "Scientific literacy and the myths of the scientific method"

I've seen that most scientists are very naive regarding the functioning of science; they see it as a neutral and non-biased searching for the truth, but they're not conscious about the influence of burocratic, economic and ideological factors in the prevalence of certains theories (or in the suppression of certain discoveries), or in the formation of "consensus".

Specially in medicine, the "consensus" has to do with the interests of pharmaceuticals organisations (these groups finance many of the medical research). For example, the "consensus" about the eficacy of chemotherapy isn't based on scientific evidence.

At the Journal of Clinical Oncology, australian oncologists, using a meta-analysis, exposed the inefficacy and the fraud of many statistics used in the promotion of chemotherapy:

http://www.free-news.org/MorganTheControfCytotoxic.pdf

That study have been ignored by mainstream media.

In spite of the above criticism, science is very useful to get (or approach to) the truth. If it's used as a method to research the reality (and not as a ideological instrument), it's one of most important tools for get reliable and objective knowledge about the world.

[Michael H]

I'd recommend you the book "The Paranormal and the Politics of Truth: A Sociological Account" by Jeremy Northcote.

Mohrhoff has a good review of this available at AntiMatters.

Dean Radin posted an interesting piece on this topic at Reality Sandwich just a few days ago as well. I think he makes the point that the statistical analysis supporting the validity of psi is stronger than the analysis that led to the acceptance of aspirin as an effective preventative measure for heart disease.

Still, the majority can't see the elephant in the room, and those scientists who do choose to explore these topics (and others that conflict with "consensus" views) do so at tremendous risk to reputations and careers.

[TomC]

while jocks become politicians or law enforcement to gain power, nerds become scientists instead. either way, it's power trip for both of them- having an authoritative role and being in the little boy's club.

so called 'thirst for knowledge' for some, it's really 'thirst to be someone who's always right.'

it's sad, but i have become more cynical and critical about what scientists claimed in the mass media.

[Zetetic_chick]

"while jocks become politicians or law enforcement to gain power, nerds become scientists instead. either way, it's power trip for both of them- having an authoritative role and being in the little boy's club.

so called 'thirst for knowledge' for some, it's really 'thirst to be someone who's always right"

LOL!!!, I've thought the same thing, specially regarding the "skeptics".

I've known in person some "hard-core skeptics" in my country (Spain), and I've noted some common traits in them (or most of them):

a)All of them were considered "nerds" in high school and college. (I don't know if it applies to all the skeptics, but it certainly applies to all I've known)

b)Most of them have never had a girlfriend. And some of them have age of 40 or more and haven't get married.

c)Some of them have been diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome (a type of autistic syndrome, that doesn't affect cognitive faculties. In fact, many of these patients are very smart)

d)Many of them are very lonely, and are very inept in social relationships. It seems their social skills ave been impaired. (It could be a consequence of Asperger, but I've seen in some skeptics without that syndrome)

They stay all day in front of a pc.

e)Most of them have suffered of emotional traumas in their youth with religious people (e.g. an autoritarian religious relative or parent). It seems these experience were important to the origin of their extreme atheism.

f)They're very judgmental and they get irritated easily (I confess that I liked to make them get angry in discussions... I admit my behaviour was very quite puerile at that time, sorry... :)

The above made me think that some cases of extreme skepticism has a psychological basis, not (only) an ideological one. It seems to be an interesting field to study.

Keep in mind that the above traits have been present in the cases I've known. It's only my personal experience with them. But it doesn't entail that all (or most) extreme skeptics are like that. It's possible that only a porcentage of them are so.

[Zetetic_chick]

"Still, the majority can't see the elephant in the room, and those scientists who do choose to explore these topics (and others that conflict with "consensus" views) do so at tremendous risk to reputations and careers"

It's truth, Michael H.

Brian Martin, one of the best experts in the study of scientific supression, have been systematizing the ways that scientific establisment and organisations use to suppress alternative views and new ideas that challenge mainstream "consensus". Read this interview:

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/06Klaehn.html

[Michael H]

Thanks for the link, ZC. This is a real problem. It reminded me of something that Mohrhoff wrote about in his review of The Spiritual Brain:

Sometimes academic scientists are so convinced that providing support for materialism is the purpose of science that they end up violating conventional civil rights. Beauregard and O’Leary report what happened to Richard von Sternberg, a paleontologist who permitted a peer-reviewed article to be published in his journal, the Smithsonian’s Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article suggested that the explosion of complex life forms that occurred quite suddenly about 525 million years ago might best be explained by intelligent design. Sternberg was not himself a supporter of ID, but he believed in putting all the options on the table. As a result, "he was cross-examined about his political and religious beliefs by his employers, removed from his position, and denied access to collections of fossils he needed for his work as a paleontologist."

When the biological society made a statement disowning the article, "he was counseled not to attend, because, in his words, “I was told that feelings were running so high they could not guarantee me that they could keep order.” He appealed to the Office of Special Counsel, a federal body that protects the civil rights of government employees, who found that he had had been subjected to retaliation and a misinformation campaign. A December 2006 Congressional report again vindicated Sternberg against many false allegations, accusing senior Smithsonian officials of having “harassed, discriminated
against, and retaliated against” him. It became apparent that Sternberg had violated not a written law but an unwritten one . . . Sternberg was supposed to have known better than to publish such a paper even though it had passed peer review."

As mathematician and ID theorist William Dembski has pointed out, "Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins."

This issue infects everything. It just remains incredible to me that there are so many scientists and the defenders of scientism who think that this generation is somehow immune to the paradigm blindness that's infected every generation that preceded them.

[william]

“The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus”

The first paper on germ theory was written in the early 1800’s. It took about 100 years before it was accepted practice for surgeons to wash their hands before surgery. How many people died, especially women giving childbirth, before doctors even considered germs not seen by the human eye a cause for these devastating infections.

Women in England in the mid 1800’s began to have their children at home to avoid the high mortality rate in the hospitals. Infections are still a problem in most hospitals. The clean rooms where computer chips are manufactured are 10 to 100 times cleaner than operating rooms. My yoga instructor had her children at home to avoid the dangers of infections in hospitals.

“Joseph Lister was a Scottish surgeon who read some of Pasteur's work on germ theory in fermentation and made the mental leap that it might be similar ‘germs’, which cause infection. In 1874 he developed the use of carbolic acid to kill those germs and so prevent infection during and after surgery” (source timelifescience).

What amazes me today is that we think we are past such consensus behavior. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Darwinism as it is taught in our schools is a classic example of consensus behavior.

“This issue infects everything. It just remains incredible to me that there are so many scientists and the defenders of scientism who think that this generation is somehow immune to the paradigm blindness that's infected every generation that preceded them.”

Well stated and considering the example given by Crichton you used the words infects, infected, and immune in that paragraph.

[Pete]

"They stay all day in front of a pc." -Zetetic Chick.

Not like anyone here, then.

[Ben]

Michael P, Chapter 8 of Griffin’s “Unsnarling the World Knot” explores the reasons for the current problems in science, and is directly relevant to your post.

Having shown how both the materialists and the Cartesian (mind/body) dualists have admitted after 50 years of trying that the nature of consciousness cannot be explained by their methodologies, Griffin develops his theory of panexistentialism from the work of the major philosopher A N Whitehead. Whitehead started off as a materialist, but changed to a kind of panpsychism because he came to understand the limitations of materialism. The reason Whitehead was ignored at the time was...

“…thanks to the "narrow efficiency" of the scheme of ideas based on scientific materialism. That is, this scheme of ideas was extremely successful in directing attention to, and getting relevant knowledge about, "just those groups of facts which, in the state of knowledge then existing, required investigation. This scheme of ideas was efficient precisely because it was narrow, suitable only for a particular range of facts that needed to be considered first, namely, the "simplest things". The great success of this method made it impervious to philosophical criticism, such as that of Berkeley and Hume. Because of "its expulsion by science from the objectivist sphere of matter," philosophy "retreated into the subjectivist sphere of mind," thereby losing "its proper role as a constant critic of partial formulations"

Whitehead’s criticism of the current scientific assumptions is based on his “Fallacy of misplaced concreteness”:

“Now, however, Whitehead says, this scientific materialism, with its abstractions, has become too narrow for science itself, "too narrow for the concrete facts which are before it for analysis. This is true even in physics, and is more especially urgent in the biological sciences".”

“However, the present attempt to develop a science of mind or consciousness, which requires putting mind back into nature, provides the context in which Whitehead's analysis of misplaced concreteness may get a hearing. The attempt to produce a fully naturalistic science of mind makes abundantly obvious—even more so than does biology, including physiology—that the received ideas are "too narrow for the concrete facts which are before [science] for analysis." This is the recognition behind the dissatisfaction of Madell, the perplexity of Nagel, the agnosticism of Strawson, and the pessimism of McGinn, Robinson, and Campbell. The basic reason for the problem, as these thinkers more or less clearly recognize, is the one Whitehead gave—that this scheme of ideas "provides none of the elements which compose the immediate psychological experiences of mankind. Nor does it provide any elementary trace of the organic unity of a whole".

Science, like Society as a whole, always has an underlying paradigm to support it, and this paradigm can only be supplied by contemporary philosophers. I have to confess that until I read this, I had no idea (like most people it seems) that Whitehead had despaired of his original materialist stance. This is pretty amazing stuff. Move over Anthony Flew!

[Tony S]

Zetetic Chick-

I've noticed many of the same traits as you point out. In particular:

Some of them have been diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome (a type of autistic syndrome, that doesn't affect cognitive faculties. In fact, many of these patients are very smart)

Some of the traits of Aspies is that they are intensely focused on a narrow range of interests. They tend to be very rigid in their routines and thinking. (IE to them there is only one way to go about things, they aren't good at thinking 'outside the box')

That can certainly explain why they get bent out of shape when something challenges established science, even when their reputations or funding aren't directly at stake-- radical new ideas upset the order of their life.

Anyway on the topic in general, Thomas Kuhn wrote a book called 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions' which deals with how most scientific advances are made by people who challange the existing paradigms.

[Art]

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. - Michael Crichton
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Uh??? The Holographic Universe and Near Death Experiences? Am I the only one that notices they seem to corroborate, parallel, and support one another? It's obvious, and it tells me about the nature of reality and why we are here is also obvious.

[Michael H]

They tend to be very rigid in their routines and thinking. (IE to them there is only one way to go about things, they aren't good at thinking 'outside the box')

That can certainly explain why they get bent out of shape when something challenges established science, even when their reputations or funding aren't directly at stake-- radical new ideas upset the order of their life.

I'm afraid this trait isn't exclusive to those afflicted with Asperger's, or 'skeptics' in general, Tony S. At least the bit about rigid thinking and the sense of 'upset order' many experience when their worldviews are challenged.

Human beings are excellent "box builders". The comment about 'Aspies' finding it difficult to "think outside the box" reminded me of George Pransky's article, What is the Box and How Did it Get There?, where he asks:

If you want to think outside the box, you might entertain the following questions. What is the box anyway? What is the box made of? Where is this box? Who made these boxes? What is in the box? And, of course, what is outside the box?

As Ben writes, "Science, like Society as a whole, always has an underlying paradigm to support it". The paradigms that support science and our current societal organization and structure are nothing but the "big boxes" that certain groups of people share. I would suggest that disagreements, conflicts and polarization come about because so few recognize what the boxes are, or what they are made of.

It seems to me that genuine progress will arrive not because philosophy has provided us with a shiny new new box, but when the common understanding of human psychology involves broad acceptance of the downfalls of building boxes in the first place. It's quite possible that even those afflicted with Asperger's could learn to see that.

[Tony S]

I'm afraid this trait isn't exclusive to those afflicted with Asperger's, or 'skeptics' in general, Tony S. At least the bit about rigid thinking and the sense of 'upset order' many experience when their worldviews are challenged.

very true, I didn't mean to imply that it was an exclusive trait. And also aspergers isn't cut and dried where you have it or you don't, you can have degrees of it.

If you have it, it also doesn't mean you'll be a skeptic, I know some religious Aspies, for instance. No doubt you'll find them among paranormal enthusiasts.

But Asperger's is also psychological construct where we can put the rigid thinkers with poor social skills under a single label.

[Michael H]

I didn't mean to imply that it was an exclusive trait. And also aspergers isn't cut and dried where you have it or you don't, you can have degrees of it.

I understand that Tony - What I'm suggesting is that we are all afflicted with rigid thinking to one degree or another. It's just that the majority of us are not so attached to our boxes that we are rewarded with a label, or find our own ideas more important and valuable than social interaction.

In other words, I think Asperger's may just be an extreme manifestation of a common global affliction. I've been reading Emerson lately, and he put it well:

People wish to be settled; only as far as they are unsettled is there any hope for them.

[william]

“Uh??? The Holographic Universe and Near Death Experiences? Am I the only one that notices they seem to corroborate, parallel, and support one another? It's obvious, and it tells me about the nature of reality and why we are here is also obvious.”

Art what is obvious to one is not obvious to another. When we look through our societial and individual paradigms it is obvious to us. To an atheist it is obvious that matter creates consciousness. To the young guys that flew through the twin towers it was obvious to them that they were doing God’s work for “him”. To the Christian it is obvious that Jesus died for our sins and they are going to heaven because they believe it is so. With paradigms it goes on and on and on.

It is obvious to me that for infinite oneness to express itself we perceived selves must be something less than conscious perfection. Etc etc etc…………

From my point of view you made a big jump from nature of reality to why we are here. As I have stated many times on here to your response about why we are here I prefer to go with what advanced spirits are telling us than with a snapshot of a NDE. It appears that we have many dimensions to travel through before we see and have the vitality of this Oneness.

It is an interesting journey to say the least from identifying with our ego to identifying with and attaining the level of consciousness and awareness of our godliness’.

But then I could just be looking through my own paradigm and be suffering from paradigm paralysis.

That is the nature of paradigms.

[Teri]

William, I have noticed that your last couple of posts have been really very insightful and beautifully expressed. Have you found more time to concentrate, or is there another reason?

This is not intended to be patronising. It's just that I could use your secret.

[The Major]

I would like to know how Art made the leap from contintental drift to the holographic universe.

[Roger Knights]

Regarding Asperger's: There's a book called The Essential Difference that divides people according to where they fall on a continuum from autistic (stereotypically masculine, rule-bound, rigid) at one end, to empathetic (feminine, outside the box, flexible) at the other.

Isn't it a bit mean to label people? What happened to Love?

[Art]

I would like to know how Art made the leap from contintental drift to the holographic universe. Posted by: The Major
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Asperger's Syndrome. Everything is about The Holographic Universe. Sorry!

[Roger Knights]

Regarding Henry Bauer and his book, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method: Although he is a strong critic of the myth that science, especially "frontier science," and "data-poor sciences" where inference plays a large role, he also defends consensus-based judgment calls--which he calls "the knowledge filter"--as the best that science can do. But with the caveat that it mustn't be confused with objective knowledge, which most scientists don't realize.

[Roger Knights]

Oops: Insert "are objective truth" after "large role" above.

[Zetetic_chick]

"Regarding Henry Bauer and his book, Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method: Although he is a strong critic of the myth that science, especially "frontier science," and "data-poor sciences" where inference plays a large role, he also defends consensus-based judgment calls--which he calls "the knowledge filter"--as the best that science can do. But with the caveat that it mustn't be confused with objective knowledge, which most scientists don't realize"

Yes. In fact, current science is a social enterprise. When the consensus is a product of independent and serious research, it's a good thing, and we should take it seriously.

We have more confidence in a theory when experts in any field (including spiritual matters) agree in their view than when when they disagree. It's a way of cross validationm and independent replication.

But I think the problem is when we assume that consensus is, per se, truth or correct. It's not. And many consensus (specially in fields where ideological or economics interest play a role) are false.

For example, in the case of medicine, the scientific community agree that HIV is the only cause AIDS. However, as Henry Bauer have argued, there are scientific reasons to be skeptical of that "consensus". He's a blog dealing with the evidence against that theory:

http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/

He wrote a book about his findings, and I think they're been discussed in the meetings of the Society for Scientific Exploration.

Keep in mind that the data to challenge the official theory have been get by the own mainstream science, not by "fringe researchers". However, that data is seen as "anomalies" that can't affect the "scientifc truth about the HIV as the sole cause of AIDS".

[william]

“Have you (william) found more time to concentrate, or is there another reason?”

Maybe I have taken more time to think about my posts and my idea of humor apparently did not go over all that well. My humor is very dry like the place I live in AZ.

Also something significant happened to me this last month as someone I have been looking for many years I found last month using craigs list. This turned out to be a very wonderful and emotional reunion for both of us as I had not seen her since she was one month old as her mother never told her about her other father for personal reasons. After DNA tests my family size doubled I now have four grandchildren, a son, and now a daughter.

The things that have happened to me this last month highly suggest that we live in soul clusters. The long lost possible daughter I decided to look for many years ago was living ¼ mile from my sister in a rather large city in the same subdivision under a married name of course and her sister’s best friend in high school on the other side of town was my brother’s daughter. And my brother’s other daughter live two blocks from the brother of my daughter without his knowledge. It goes on and on but I will not bore you with the details.

This scenario appears to support Michael Newton’s life between life research concerning soul clusters or bands. There is much more to this story that suggests soul clusters but too long to discuss on this blog.

These experiences may have caused a change in my comment style. Don’t know that for sure but thanks for the comments. Sorry for the personal comments but it is one thing to read about soul clusters and quite another to experience it.

[Ronnie]

I have asperger's syndrome. >_>

"The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

This is something I feel is often terribly overlooked.

[Thorsten]

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Wrong on so many accounts.

The problem is
a) that we always have people even with academic titles (!) that deny a specific scientific result even with the best evidence possible. Anywhere on this big planet we will find scientists who think that the earth is not round and 10 000 years old. So there will always more or less lone voices crying: "Fraud ! Untruth !". Knowing that how can we decide who is right or wrong on a specific issue ? If we don't want to invest time (and that will happen in the majority of cases) we will simply stick to the majority.

And it can get worse:
There is a discussion that the LHC collider may threaten the Earth by possibly producing a mini black-hole or strangelet.
I can't understand the necessary points of discussion and I was trained in physics and I doubt that I will get far enough to understand it really even if I invest time.
The same here: The more information you get, the more conflicting evidence will occur.

And you can't say: Let's wait until the time decides because the repercussions could be so severe that a decision must be
made. Let's say for the sake of argument:
Global warming is really true. Do you really believe the counterarguments which are brought forward *now* will impress people in 2050 *after* they know it's true ? My guess is: No, they will sound exceedingly feeble (as every defeated opinion). The people in future will say: How could you oversaw the obvious signs of global warming ? And noone wants to be responsible for the disaster.

b) data is useless without interpretation. And this interpretation requires knowledge which must be learned the hard way. If I were God and offer Michael here any data which he wants under the condition that he may not share it with anyone, there would be no scientific discoveries at all. Why ? Michael would have to invest time to indulge to find the *right* questions to ask
to get the right answers which will give him
the scientific discovery.
Then, every scientific experiment can get wrong. The apparatus is faulty, there are external disturbances which must be locked out or leveled out in calculation. You can record the wrong data or incomplete data.
All these possibilities must be carefully expected which means the supervision of experts, experts in plural.

And even then we never have complete data which opens always the door of an ad-hoc excuse. Is the law of gravity "solid enough" for Crichton ? Tell me then, what is right: ART, Brans-Dicke or MOND ? AFAIK all are consistent with the current data. How do you decide that ? The consensus (and nothing else) says currently ART. Should we
abandon the law of gravity because according to Crichton's definition it is not solid enough ?

So we need consensus to make decisions. That does not say that consensus is right (it can get horribly wrong), but this Crichton phrase is horseshit if taken literally. And in fact, the reason people
like Einstein etc. are famous is because consensus is seldom broken. And exactly those famous people got it wrong, too: Galilei (No, the tides are not caused by earth rotation), Newton (No, you can't accelerate indefinitely) and Einstein (Yes, God DOES throw dice, and he does it all the time).

[Michael Prescott]

Some of them have been diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome

I'm wary of psychoanalyzing one's opponents. For one thing, the tactic can easily boomerang. For another, it's awfully hard to know what's going on in another person's head.

Besides, some of these alleged psychological disorders seem, to me, to be nothing more than descriptions of relatively uncommon (or unpopular) personality traits. They may not be any sort of illness at all, just part of the normal spectrum of variation.

Is the law of gravity "solid enough" for Crichton ? Tell me then, what is right: ART, Brans-Dicke or MOND ?

I think there is a difference between empirical observations and theoretical interpretations. No serious person disputes the existence of gravity, but it is too soon to say that we understand it on a theoretical level. Any "consensus" about the theory (not the fact) of gravity may well be mistaken.

consensus is seldom broken

I don't know about that. Richard Milton used to have a Web site called Alternative Science that listed a large number of instances in which the scientific consensus was mistaken. His site is gone, but offhand I recall the consensus (circa 1900) that Newtonian physics had answered all the fundamental questions about matter and energy; the consensus that a heavier-than-air machine could never fly; and the consensus that stones (meteorites) could not fall from the sky "because there are no stones in the sky."

[william]

“and Einstein (Yes, God DOES throw dice, and he does it all the time).”

You are now speaking for God? That is a lot of weight to carry on one’s shoulders like an entire universe with over 95% unseen matter and energy.

What looks like dice throwing may be perfectly imperfect phenomena. Besides God is not a he but a she. :-)

[Zetetic_chick]

"I'm wary of psychoanalyzing one's opponents"

Me too, specially if it's used as a tactic.

The skeptics with Asperger that I knew were diagnosed by psychiatrists, not by me. One of those skeptics would accept his condition without any problem; in fact, he seems to feel good about it because suppossely "most geniuses are aspies"

I didn't consider them as "opponents" at all, in fact they never posed any intellectually relevant point against psi or afterlife; only dismissed it as pseudoscientific speculations or delusions of wishful believers. Most of them seems very misinformed about these topics.

I liked to discuss with them only for fun (to see them irritated), not for any intellectual pleasure. In retrospect, I consider my "discussions" with them not only as a puerile attitude of mine, but as a waste of time too.

On the other hand, I have serious interest in knowing the psychological basis of beliefs. It never should be used as a tactic, but as a study of the psychological correspondence of specific worldviews. It could help to see in ourselves and in others (with empathy) the psychological resistence to grasp specific ideas under controversy.

Currently, I'm exploring some literature dealing with the psychology of beliefs and its influence in the choose of specific philosophical systems. It can explain why many people examine the same evidence or the same problem, but draw different (and even contradictory) conclusions... making almost impossible any rational agreement about that problem. (It has important implications to philosophy)

And it applies to all of us, not only to our "opponents"

[DMDuncan]

Thorsten, I think you are wildly missing Crichton's point. Does it really need stating that there is a consensus, for example, that viruses can cause sickness and death? Right from Crichton's own speech he gives examples of discovered truths that there is now a consensus about.

What Crichton is getting at is the difference between the consensus which develops around well established facts through science, and the consensus which is enforced by proclamation in the absence of facts under the guise of science, ESPECIALLY when the guise is worn by the scientists themselves!

I agree with you on global warming: It is better to be safe than sorry; a man holds a gun on you in an alley and demands your wallet, you are not going to ask for proof his gun is loaded before you hand it over.

When the United States invaded Iraq, we did so based on the consensus of intelligence authorities, a stated in the NIE, that Hussein had WMDs. Yes, there were dissenters, but they were few. And in that case the consensus was horribly wrong.

Too late for a whoopsy! there.

And I would rather act on global warming now and be wrong about it later, because it is better to get off fossil fuels and live more lightly on the planet. Even if we were wrong about it, the changes we would implement would be good.

Still, we NEED dissenters like Michael Crichton so that we do not lose our sobriety. As real as it is, there is still a terrible amount of politics in global warming which can be used by politicians to manipulate people for much different reasons than the ones they state.

The planet will not be doomed by smog, but by our love of appearances over reality, which promise fixes that never happen.

[Thorsten]

@Michael:

> Is the law of gravity "solid enough" for > Crichton ? Tell me then, what is right:
> ART, Brans-Dicke or MOND ?

I think there is a difference between empirical observations and theoretical interpretations. No serious person disputes the existence of gravity, but it is too soon to say that we understand it on a theoretical level. Any "consensus" about the theory (not the fact) of gravity may well be mistaken.

But that is exactly the problem which Crichton carefully tries to avoid. Currently we have the problem that galaxies rotate too slowly for the observed mass which is explained in the consensus by a mysterious "dark matter". MOND explains it away as a modified physical law, no dark matter necessary.
Now if scientists are begging for a multi billion dollar spacecraft to explore the properties of the "dark matter", don't you think that it is highly relevant that this
"dark matter" may not exist at all ?
Suddenly this seemingly arcane question grows important and may be "politicized". Crichton does not fight global warming because it may be untrue, he fears that billions of dollars may be spent fruitlessly
to fight against it.
And if the different theories of gravity propose different outcomes, it may be extremely important if the sun is 93 or 93.01 million miles away. Then yes, the consensus of experimenters may be necessary to settle the question that the earth is indeed 93.0025 million miles away.

> consensus is seldom broken

Seldom in regard of our lifetime and in one discipline. To add Crichton's quote: "The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus" AND because it is seldom.
If the consensus changes every year, no scientist could ever get gain famousness. People are remembered because they achieved something which is *not* common. If you draw any broad consensus change in the timeline of one discipline, the timeline is scarcely interrupted and the changes are concentrating in the beginning of a field.
That does not mean that there are no or few consensus changes.

@william: I am referring to Einstein's quote: "God does not play dice". Einstein couldn't cope with the fact that quantum theory introduced inevitable randomness in physical observations and he always hoped that some still unfound "hidden parameters" can resolve it again to perfect determinism. But all evidence points to the inexistence of hidden parameters, there is (or seems to be) in fact inevitable randomness in nature. So that's my quip.

@DMDuncan:
No, I don't think I missed Crichton's intention. He knows very well that he is in a minority position, so he must explain to the readers why the majority clings to a wrong position. So he must attack the strongest argument: consensus.
So he tries to build up an antithesis of two forces to reinforce his argument by guilt of association: Consensus is the area
of the keywords "pernicious","ought to be stopped","refuge of scoundrels","reach for your wallet","business of politics".
Science on the contrary is the area of the keywords "science","happens to be right","verifiable","real world","reproducible results".

So he tries to build two opposites and finally declares: "If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus".

I am angry because that is the typical caricature of science displayed in schoolbooks and in skeptic societies: The search for the truth, meticously and objectively reasoned out of honed evidence
and faultless data. If, for an unknown reason, one scientist disagree with other scientists, the lone scientist will be praised for his boldness to challenge consensus. After experiments are done, the successful scientist will be hailed by the Nobel Prize and if unsuccessful, all scientists will say: Alas !

That is bullshit and it always was. Science is a human activity with all its triumphs and drawbacks, and *consensus* is a necessary and inevitable part of it. It is not a silver bullet to find the truth and it can be unjust and tormenting if people are refused to be acknowledged for their work (Waterston, Babbage) till their death.
But it is also a necessary part of scientific inquiry: It is needed to find solutions, to overview the work of others, to agree how to tackle a problem.

If he tries to tell us that consensus is
not fool-proof, hey, bless him. No disagree.
But Crichton is fundamentally dishonest in his attempt to discredit "consensus" thoroughly because without consensus teamwork in science is impossible. The usage of emotional response by tainted words is propaganda.

What Crichton is getting at is the difference between the consensus which develops around well established facts through science [...]

No. Crichton asserts that every, ahem, *reasonable* person will bent its opinion to the facts if they are laid out before him. So no reason for consensus at all.

[Tony S]

On the other hand, I have serious interest in knowing the psychological basis of beliefs. It never should be used as a tactic, but as a study of the psychological correspondence of specific worldviews. It could help to see in ourselves and in others (with empathy) the psychological resistence to grasp specific ideas under controversy.

I agree, I don't really see hardened skeptics as 'opponents', I think they are part of the balance of this world.

Also, I stated above that AS is not exclusive to skeptic circles, you can find Aspies in all sorts of belief systems.

I too am interested in why people believe and act in certain ways, I agree it helps build understanding, rather than resentment. It's not some tactic to discredit other's views-- they could still be right.

[Michael H]

Currently, I'm exploring some literature dealing with the psychology of beliefs and its influence in the choice of specific philosophical systems.

Though it's out of print (the author's personal decision), George Pransky's The Renaissance of Psychology is well worth tracking down.

It's been clear to me for some time that philosophy is influenced by psychological assumptions, while the chosen philosophy reinforces whatever psychological assumptions are made. The two are closely linked, and Pransky's take on human psychology hints at how and why that is.

[Zetetic_chick]

"Also, I stated above that AS is not exclusive to skeptic circles, you can find Aspies in all sorts of belief systems"

Correct, Tony. In fact, I believe that most AS persons aren't skeptics.

"Though it's out of print (the author's personal decision), George Pransky's The Renaissance of Psychology is well worth tracking down"

Thanks, Michael H. I'll try to get a copy of it.

"It's been clear to me for some time that philosophy is influenced by psychological assumptions, while the chosen philosophy reinforces whatever psychological assumptions are made. The two are closely linked, and Pransky's take on human psychology hints at how and why that is"

I agree 100%. Some years ago, I thought that emotional factors don't any play a role when the controversy is between infomed and expert people; the only important was "evidence", and any rational person would to accept it gladly (this is the "rationalist/positivistic" paradigm). But I've changed of opinion; specially in philosophy, many controversies affect basic beliefs, and many of them seems to have a clear basis in the specific psychology (and biography) of each person.

In fact, I'm sure that it's possible to do a typology based on common emotional traits and specific worldviews. Maybe it isn't applicable in 100% of cases, maybe there are exceptions; but I think as a general rule, it could work. I've written some ideas in this sense in my blog... only as a tentative and provisional approach.

The above isn't only a intellectual pastime or a mere academic exercise. It has practical applications, e.g., in some cases, we can examine our own resistence to a specific idea or theory making explicit our emotional attachment to a contrary or radically different view.

Also, it's possible to understand other people attitudes, and work with them not only in a intellectual level, but in a emotional level too.

In any case, it seems that absolute objectivity is unobtainable to human beings... at least, to most of us.

[william]

“In any case, it seems that absolute objectivity is unobtainable to human beings... at least, to most of us.”

Absolute objectivity? Would that not be pure awareness with no sign of ignorance? We would no longer be human but infinite Isness. Our ignorance makes us who we are. Perceived individual identities or stated another way this pure awareness making use of unawareness to express itself in an infinite number of life forms.

Even mosquitoes?????????:-(

[Michael H]

The above isn't only a intellectual pastime or a mere academic exercise. It has practical applications, e.g., in some cases, we can examine our own resistence to a specific idea or theory making explicit our emotional attachment to a contrary or radically different view.

Also, it's possible to understand other people attitudes, and work with them not only in a intellectual level, but in a emotional level too.

These are the most valuable aspects of understanding this, in my opinion.

In any case, it seems that absolute objectivity is unobtainable to human beings... at least, to most of us.

Again, true. Whatever objectivity there is is inevitably filtered by the subjective lens. We all tend to see what we expect to see and believe what we already believe.

It's a slippery slope, and this is exactly why those who challenge scientific orthodoxy face so much resistance from the consensus. Dissenting ideas are rejected not necessarily on merit, but on philosophical and psychological grounds.

[DMDuncan]

Thorsten, I see it differently than you.

[Thorsten]

If you see it exactly like me, you would be actually myself, so no surprise :o)

[Hope Rivers]

"Even mosquitoes?????????:-("

Hahahahaha William, thats your reality!

sorry couldnt resist :-o