My two previous posts, Science is rational; scientists are not and its follow up Scientists are rational?, generated a lot of response. I would like to clarify and refine my thoughts and some of the arguments brought up in the comments. Some propositions:
- A few scientists are responsible for most scientific advancement
- The practice of science has varied as a function of time; e.g., the gentlemen scholar of the Victorian Age vs. the modern scientific-industrial complex which necessitates the grant-monkey
- Even the brilliant scientists who are responsible for most productivity are embedded within an enabling social and cultural framework; e.g., Voltaire in exile in England noted with admiration how much honor was heaped upon Isaac Newton, a commoner whose talent overshadowed those with more prestigious pedigree
- Even brilliant scientists have also been capable of ridiculous intellectual production.; e.g., Isaac Newton's preoccupation with alchemy
- In terms of proximate method science consists of a mix of rational theorizing, observational and experimental empiricism, and a stance of skepticism toward the data generated and their relation to a proffered hypothesis
- The fact that scientists tend to study nature makes their task of understanding much easier than that of humanists, whose topic of preference is far more diffuse and slippery
But I want to go back to my first post, and reemphasize that I wanted to make people cautious of engaging in the fundamental attribution error:
In attribution theory, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or overattribution effect) is the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based, explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing situational explanations. In other words, people have an unjustified tendency to assume that a person's actions depend on what "kind" of person that person is rather than on the social and environmental forces influencing the person. Overattribution is less likely, perhaps even inverted, when people explain their own behavior; this discrepancy is called the actor-observer bias.
I believe that many scientists and non-scientists engage in this when it comes to the ability of scientific scholars to tackle any problem or topic with agility and insight. Note that most scientists do not engage in enough productivity to make a non-trivial mark upon the body of knowledge over time. Then it stands to reason that when the typical scientist engages in disciplinary imperialism they are trading on the prestige and power of science which is due to the labor of other humans (the few brilliant individuals, who generate knowledge through talent or luck). There is a black-box called "Science," which they are part of, and because Science is a phenomenon of such power one wishes to smear the distinctions of the various moving parts and pieces which contribute to the scientific process so the numerous inferiors may catch the reflected glory of the few superiors. I've noticed that this also happens with non-scientists. There have been several parties or social situations where I have witnessed an phenomenon where someone will make an assertion, and then go on to note that they derive their position from a friend or significant other who is a scientist. They too are trading in the power of Science, which due to its objectivity is transferable so long as one maintains accuracy of the constituent concepts and their relational integrity. Yet often the authority seems highly tenuous at best; e.g., person X's fiance is a veterinary student, and so their opinion on the importance of biological diversity carries great weight (real example). No, I don't think so.....
What?
and a stance of skepticism toward the data generated and their relation to a proffered hypothesis
That's the fundamental component that distinguishes useful science from cargo-cult science (or "pseudoscience", or "voodoo science", or whatever they call it these days).
A bunch of folks on your other blog might want to wise up to that.
e.g. Isaac Newton's preoccupation with alchemy
Alchemy looks pretty "ridiculous" to us moderns because we live in the post-Lavoisier age. Before Lavoisier, all chemistry was alchemy because nobody had yet made sense of what was going on. Available models were gross, fantastic, and (as we now know) mostly wrong, but that's all they had. The only thing you could do was experiment some more, and that's exactly what Newton did.
Notice that some of these "magical" concepts were actually a reflection of reality. Obvious example, the periodic table of elements, which is a rigorous version of the "theory of octaves".
The thing is, chemistry really is that weird.
Pretty much spot on, Razza. But I suggest that "A few scientists are responsible for most scientific advancement" is more commonly true for theoretical advances than for the experimental measurements on which they are (usually) based.
Yeah, the revolutionary science vs. normal science contrast can be overdone and misunderstood, but it's real.
I think of the great scientists as quarterbacks. They really do need the linemen who never score touchdowns. For example, Watson and Crick were dependent on an enormous body of hard work by a large number of highly trained lesser scientists.
The more personally ambitious someone is, the more they tend to overestimate the quarterbacks, I think. For a lot of people a heroic definition of Science is pretty closely interwoven with their own personal narrative and personal goals.
I'll mention again the various works of Steven Shapin, who wrote about early modern science in England. One thing he emphasizes is the dependency of scientists on competent research teams, some of whom were capable of independent scientific work, and the fact that the lead scientist (PI in today's language) had to have been born a gentleman.
"A few scientists are responsible for most scientific advancement"
This is exaggerated in popular history of science as the intellectual climate and more general spirit of the times is collapsed into a few great works. Exceptional men are responsible for great discoveries, however the notion that most aren't otherwise inevitable seems tenuous on the balance of other contemporary works.
also contrary to received historiography of science in text books and what not, regarding Alchemy
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7164/full/449788a.html
"A few scientists are responsible for most scientific advancement"
I've got to disagree too. A few scientists are responsible for most major advances and discoveries, but there's a lot of gaps to be filled, ideas to flesh out, and experiments to run. It's very hard to make those dramatic advances without that prior work having been done. You need the less-intelligent peon scientists (like me!) to do that.
Physics wouldn't get very far without the geniuses to make the great advances. But it wouldn't get very far with only geniuses either. There's just too much stuff to do.
"and experiments to run"
the overall point is fair, and to some extent an empirical question. my criterion is simple: if you substitute individual X with another random scientist how much drop off in productivity would ensue? there are many tasks which exhibit substitution; you just need training and time. OTOH, there are particular talents, aptitudes and creativity which may not be substitutable from a random scientist....
oh, and you're a fucking fascist gun nut matt.
Once science as a concept and a science as a field of study were going there was much less need of individual genius- or perhaps there are many more potential geniuses than we think. Much the same discoveries would be made at pretty much the same time. Without Galileo or Newton, say, history might be very different; but if Darwin had died on H.M.S. Beagle we'd all be Wallaceites and spiritualism might be more respectable; if Einstein had set out to become manager of a patent office at night school other people- more than one, in his case, which is why we know he was a genius- were on the edge of similar theories; one of the driving forces for Watson in The Double Helix was his knoledge that so many other people were as close as he and Crick to working out DNA's structure.
That thing Roger said. Also, what he said applies to Newton as well. Remember Leibniz, for one thing. Surely someone else would've worked out the laws of motion and the mathematics of planetary orbits in that intellectual climate even if Newton had never lived.
Per all the stuff from you're first post on scientists and science, I think that saying that scientists aren't any better than the average bozo about stuff that isn't scientific is better put in terms of what is it that scientists, or at least alot of them, have.
The thing is, is what scientists have, and they do have something, generally g? I'd say not. Though a lot of g scoffers might use their existence as an arguement there is no such thing as g, saying that if g is 'general intelligence', discounting anything like I guess non general intelligence, i.e. being good at languages but not much else, is kind of a mistake, but one one might make when arguing with someone who denies the reality of g. The existence of 'general intelligence' doesn't preclude the existence of 'non general' intelligence and to not take that into account would seem to be limiting.
Take some guy like Godel, whatever Godel had going for him, and he did have something going for him, it definitely wasn't g. If one goes through say great 20th century genius types the only one I'd say had a lot of g would probably be Von Neumann. The rest were freakishly good at a rather narrow range of things, and someone with lots of g 'general intelligence' would be 'well rounded', which say Godel definitely wasn't. One cannot imagine Godel coaching the Princeton football team.
On the other hand, I think g by itself won't get you to genius territory all by itself, unless one uses the term rather liberally, geniuses are freaks, and have to have a certain je ne sais quoi non g thing going for them.
I suppose this is a way of saying in a long winded fashion what most people mean when they say "He's smart about <>, but he's got no common sense", which is a pretty everyday observation.