Honorable Forum:
As many of the 9,000+ Ecolog subscribers may not be interested in such an open
discussion, I propose that it take place off-list, and when it has run its full
course, the results be summarized and posted to Ecolog after that has happened.
Each participant may remain anonymous by invoking a "handle" or nom-de-plume,
and the moderator (MM or ?) will distribute the thread unedited to the
participants as blind copies. In this way, the threatened feeling Meiss cites
will be minimized, and mere opinion will give way to supported reason.
This discussion is for those who intend to participate fully, who are dedicated
to contributing their responses to each contribution, and who, if they decide
to participate at any point, will withdraw from the discussion openly. Extended
absences also should be openly revealed.
The purpose of the discussion will be to answer Meiss' question, restated here
as "What is science and what is not science?"
The following is Meiss' email, broken down into sections for ease of reference
in responses. The first job of the Open Discussion Group might be to revise
this foundation. As a form of continuous peer-review wherein each posting will
set forth propositions in response and refinement of Meiss' points, either by
discussing their merits or deficiencies, followed by the same kind of feedback
from other participants.
This is only the germ of an idea of how to proceed with a high degree of
intellectual discipline; as such, alternatives and refinements are solicited.
WT
Please respond off-list. I will accept temporary responsibility; I would prefer
that Meiss be the thread "moderator," but will give it a try if he isn't able.
Meiss's text follows:
I find this exchange very interesting, and it points up a major problem caused
by
1. the burgeoning of scientific knowledge and
2. the limitations of the individual.
3. As scientists, we believe (have faith) that the scientific method is the
best means of arriving at truth about the natural world.
4. Even if the method is error-prone in some ways, and
4a. is subject to various forms of manipulation,
5. it is historically self-correcting.
6. The problem is that no individual has enough time, knowledge, and background
to know if the scientific method is being properly [applied or used] by all
those who claim to be doing so.
6a. We hear someone cite a suspicious-sounding fact (i.e., a fact that doesn't
correspond to our perhaps-erroneous understanding), and we want to know if it
is based on real science or pseudo-science.
7. So what to we do?
7a. We ask if the supporting research appeared in a peer-reviewed journal
(i.e., has this been vetted by the old-boys network?). This sounds a little
like the response of the people who first heard the teachings of Jesus.
7a-1. They didn't ask "How do we know this is true?"
7a-2. They asked "By whose authority do you speak?"
8. These two questions should never be confused[.]*
8a. yet the questions "Did it appear in a peer-reviewed journal" and "Is that
journal REALLY a peer-reviewed journal?" skate perilously close to this
confusion.
9. We are looking for a short-cut,
9a. for something we can trust so we don't have to be experts in every branch
of science and read every journal ourselves.
10. I don't know the answer to this dilemma, and perhaps there is none, but we
should be looking for something better than "Does this have the stamp of
approval of people who think like I do?" We should be looking for something
that is not just an encodement of "Does this violate the doctrine of my faith?"
11. The pragmatic necessity of letting others decide whether certain research
is valid should be no excuse for relaxing our personal vigilance and
skepticism.
12. Otherwise, we fall into the same trap that ensnares the religionists who
are trying to undermine science because it threatens their faith.
Martin M. Meiss [cut up by Wayne Tyson, July 09, 2009]
