Science & progress

Some have left comments (which I have deleted) to the effect of “scientists once accepted X, but now accept -X, therefore why should one put stock in acceptance of evolutionary theory?” This is obviously a complicated issue, and there is a whole domain of philosophy of science which is not even an obscure field (e.g., Popper & Kuhn are relatively well known names). But I think the problem with this sort of statement is that more often scientific progress occurs like so:

X +/- 10 ? X +/- 1 ? X +/- 0.1

Scientific models become more precise and are refined so as to generate more fruitful predictions. It seems more accurate to say that Relativity did not overturn Newtonian Mechanics so much as extend, supersede and refine.  R. A. Fisher’s Genetical Theory of Natural Selection did not overturn Darwin’s original formulation of the process by which evolution was driven by natural selection, rather, it added a mathematical formality which aided in the process of verification and refutation.

Why am I posting so much about science?  First, I do think it is fair to say that the Right has a “Science Problem.”  But secondly, my own conservatism is grounded and framed in the scientific understanding of human nature, at least to the extent we understand it.  Any conservatism which is empirical and takes the idea of a human nature seriously must ultimately assimilate the most recent findings of the evolutionary & behavioral sciences.

This entry was posted in philosophy and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Science & progress

  1. Bob says:

    Well, the example of Newton -> Einstein is a good one for the “supersede and refine” view. In the example of Darwin -> Fisher, however, you’ve got to agree it’s a rather different issue if you continue the timeline beyond Fisher. Modern social theory has proven that genes actually have no effect at all. Hardly a modest refinement.

    Cheers,
    Bob

  2. David Tye says:

    David,

    As your conservatism is grounded and framed in the scientific understanding of human nature, it must be a different conservatism than Hume’s, since he couldn’t very well frame his conservatism in a scientific understanding that did not exist during his lifetime (e.g. evolution.) It seems like a third flavor of conservative is called for, as Hume was neither a religious conservative nor a “scientific conservative”, if it is fair to describe you as such. What would be the name for the non-religious, non-scientific conservative? And is it fair to lump his secular conservatism in with yours, since it had a different foundation?

    Also, I was wondering: If your conservatism is based on scientific discoveries, and scientific discoveries are empirically contingent, what might science have discovered to make you a liberal rather than a conservative? I am thinking of counterfactuals here. The question can be put in the future tense as well: What might science possibly discover that would change you into a liberal?

    Cheers,
    David

  3. David Hume says:

    Modern social theory has proven that genes actually have no effect at all. Hardly a modest refinement.

    Clarify. I’m inclined to disagree, but catchall assertions are problematic in evolutionary biology….

  4. David Hume says:

    David Tye :

    Also, I was wondering: If your conservatism is based on scientific discoveries, and scientific discoveries are empirically contingent, what might science have discovered to make you a liberal rather than a conservative? I am thinking of counterfactuals here. The question can be put in the future tense as well: What might science possibly discover that would change you into a liberal?

    Cheers,
    David

    e.g., the vast majority of humans have a nearly infinite potential malleability in tastes, preferences and outlooks, absolutely contingent upon social inputs (e.g., pure blank slate behaviorism).

    @David Tye

  5. David Tye says:

    David,

    That’s fair enough and thank you for responding to my comment. Why would this make you a liberal?

  6. Brett Thomas says:

    I also think an important corollary to this is the common hubris on the left that science somehow *proves* a leftish view of the world. This attitude is distilled in post on the blog “Skepchick” (a blog mostly by and for skeptical women). “Writerdd” asks the question, “Can a libertarian be a skeptic?”

    http://skepchick.org/blog/?p=2341#more-2341

    She then clarifies “What I really mean is how can skeptics, who look at the same evidence, come to so many different conclusions about politics?”, but does not seem to reach the obvious conclusion – “because science tells us very little about whether (e.g.) high or low taxes are a good idea.”

    While I’d describe myself as more “libertarian” than “right” (though, I’m a pretty “soft” libertarian by most standards), I suspect I share with the authors of this blog a frustration that many of my scientist friends, who are so rational on empirical topics, seem to have a big gaping blind spot on politics. In addition to educating the right that one needn’t believe in an invisible sky wizard to be a Republican, it would be nice to get those on the left to understand that science (as yet) has little to say about which policy choices are the best ones.

    Personally, I suspect science may never have much to say – there may not be an empirical answer to questions like “is it better tax people to pay for healthcare for all, or let the market handle it, knowing some people are going to be under served?” The leftist thinks about the poor people unable to afford health care and social justice; the rightist (or libertarian) thinks about unintended consequences and the immorality of taking money from people. Science is mute on the issue – both outcomes have obvious positives and negatives, and which one you prefer is almost an aesthetic choice. Personally, I’d love for both sides to get over the hubris that their policy answers are objectively the correct ones, and recognize that in many cases the arguments are simply over which side of the scale to value more. One outcome of this could be that religion and left/right could become unlinked, and we’d see more liberal Christians and conservative atheists.

  7. Penry says:

    The ability of science to adjust its beliefs in the face of new evidence is a feature, not a flaw.

  8. Bob says:

    David Hume :
    Clarify. I’m inclined to disagree, but catchall assertions are problematic in evolutionary biology….

    My apologies for my attempt at sarcasm. I’d just read a screed that annoyed me at another site, and my comment seemed like a humorous one at the time. Your calm request for further discussion in the face of an assertion like I made is a really powerful technique. I’ve got to learn to do that.

    Cheers,
    –Bob

  9. David Hume says:

    In addition to educating the right that one needn’t believe in an invisible sky wizard to be a Republican, it would be nice to get those on the left to understand that science (as yet) has little to say about which policy choices are the best ones.

    Yes. But, I do have to add that I suspect that the attitude that one can’t be a conservative and a non-believer being bellowed by some on the Right is a problem. In fact, I know it is a problem because of interactions I’ve had with liberal scientists who can’t really grok the idea of a non-religious non-liberal. To them that shouldn’t exist.

    Your calm request for further discussion in the face of an assertion like I made is a really powerful technique. I’ve got to learn to do that.

    Well, it just seemed a really weird comment, so I assumed I had misunderstood your meaning or intent. It turns out the latter.

    As I’m sure you have seen, I do not react calmly when I feel people are misrepresenting me or being lazy (i.e., assuming all sorts of propositions as implicit from their definition of who I am).

Comments are closed.