by Take the example of one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century, Lord Kelvin, who was not immune to overconfidence. In a 1902 interview “on scientific matters now before the public,” he was asked about the future of air travel: “Have you no hope of solving the problem of aeronautics in any way?”
Lord Kelvin replied firmly: “No; I don’t think there is any hope. Neither the balloon, nor the airplane, nor the gliding machine will succeed in practice.” The first successful flight of the Wright brothers was a little more than a year later.
Scientific overconfidence is not limited to technological matters. A few years earlier, Kelvin’s famous colleague, AA Michelson, the first American to win a Nobel Prize in science, expressed a similarly brilliant view about the basic laws of physics: “Most of the basic principles are probably now solid. established.”
Over the next few years – largely due to Michelson’s own work – fundamental physical theory underwent the most significant changes since Newton’s time, with the development of relativity and quantum mechanics “radically and irreversibly” changing our view of the physical universe.
But is this overconfidence a problem? Maybe it really helps the progress of science? I suggest that intellectual humility is a better and more progressive position for science.
Thinking about what science knows
As a researcher in the philosophy of science for over 25 years and a one-time editor of the leading journal in the field, Philosophy of Science, I have studied and reflected on the nature of scientific knowledge across my desk. The biggest questions are not settled.
How confident should people be about the conclusions of science? How confident should scientists be in their own theories?
One thought is the so-called “pessimistic induction,” most advanced today by the philosopher Larry Laudan. Laudan pointed out that the history of science is filled with discarded theories and ideas.
It would almost be tempting to think that now, at last, we have found the science that will not be discarded. It is far more reasonable to conclude that today’s science will be largely rejected by future scientists, or significantly altered.
But the pessimistic induction is not the end of the story. An equally powerful theme, prominently advanced today by the philosopher Hilary Putnam, is the so-called “no-miracles argument.” It would be a miracle, so as they say, if successful scientific predictions and explanations were only by accident, or bad luck – that is, if the success of science did not result from getting something right about nature of reality.
There must be something right about the theories that, after all, made air travel – not to mention space travel, genetic engineering and so on – possible. It would be almost tempting to conclude that today’s theories are simply wrong. It is much more reasonable to conclude that there is something right about them.
A pragmatic argument for overconfidence?
Philosophical theorizing aside, what is best for scientific progress?
Of course, scientists can be wrong about the accuracy of their own positions. However, there is reason to believe that over the long arc of history – or, in the cases of Kelvin and Michelson, in relatively short order – such mistakes will be exposed.
In the meantime, perhaps trust is very important to doing good science. Perhaps science needs people who pursue new ideas hard with the kind of (over)confidence that might lead to rare declarations about the impossibility of air travel or the finality of physics. Yes, it can lead to dead ends, retractions and the like, but maybe that’s just the price of scientific progress.
In the 19th century, in the face of persistent and strong opposition, the Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweis consistently and repeatedly advocated the importance of sanitation in hospitals. The medical community rejected his idea so much that he ended up forgotten in a mental asylum. But he was right, it seems, and eventually the medical community came around to his opinion.
Maybe we need people who will be so fully committed to the truth of their ideas to make progress. Perhaps scientists should be overconfident. Perhaps they should shun intellectual humility.
One might hope, as some have argued, that the scientific process – the review and testing of theories and ideas – will eventually weed out the false ideas and theories. The cream will rise.
But sometimes it takes a long time, and it is not clear that scientific examinations, rather than social forces, are always the cause of the collapse of bad ideas. The science of 19th century (pseudo) phrenology was reversed “as much by its employment of social categories as by its absence within the scientific community to replicate its results,” as a group of scientists noted that put a kind of final nail in the nail. the coffin of phrenology in 2018, almost 200 years after the era of skull features correlated with mental capacity and character.
intellectual humility as a middle ground
The market of ideas gave the right results in the cases mentioned. Kelvin and Michelson were corrected fairly quickly. Phrenology and hospital sanitation took much longer – and the consequences of this delay in both cases could have been disastrous.
Is there a way for people to actively pursue new, unpopular scientific ideas, while at the same time recognizing the great value and power of the scientific enterprise as it currently exists?
This is where intellectual tanks can play a positive role in science. Intellectual humility is not doubt. It does not imply doubt. A person who is intellectually humble may have strong commitments to various beliefs – scientific, moral, religious, political or otherwise – and may pursue these commitments with vigor. Their intellectual humility lies in their openness to the possibility, indeed a strong probability, that no one is in possession of the absolute truth, and that others may also have insights, ideas and evidence that should be taken into account and their judgments they are doing it better. .
Therefore, people who are intellectually humble will welcome challenges to their ideas, research programs that are contrary to current orthodoxy, and even the possible popularity of radical theories. Remember, doctors of his time were convinced that Semmelweis was a big pot.
This openness to inquiry does not imply, of course, that scientists are obliged to accept theories they believe to be wrong. What we should accept is that we might also be wrong, that pursuing those other ideas and theories might lead to something good, and that it might be the best way forward for science. and for science the best way forward for science and to tolerate science instead of persecuting those people. society.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a non-profit, independent news organization that brings you facts and analysis to help you make sense of our complex world.
It was written by Michael Dickson, University of South Carolina.
Read more:
Michael Dickson does not work for, consult with, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article this, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. This article was produced with the support of UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center and the John Templeton Foundation as part of the GGSC’s initiative on Increasing Awareness of the Science of Intellectual Development.
