Thread
A recent exchange leaves me thinking about problems with how arguments are often conducted in science.
I don’t know about you, but I quite often see people who I know to be very smart expressing or supporting scientific ideas that I suspect are flawed. How can this be? [1/n]
I don’t know about you, but I quite often see people who I know to be very smart expressing or supporting scientific ideas that I suspect are flawed. How can this be? [1/n]
Of course, there is always the chance that they are simply wrong, or (even!!) that I am. But how to know?
But I’m thinking more and more that it’s rather rare (and unlikely) that a smart person is simply utterly deluded. [2/n]
But I’m thinking more and more that it’s rather rare (and unlikely) that a smart person is simply utterly deluded. [2/n]
I figure it is more productive and instructive if I try to find what that is.
Instead, what I’ve found and seen in some exchanges is that they become a matter of who can win the argument. [3/n]
Instead, what I’ve found and seen in some exchanges is that they become a matter of who can win the argument. [3/n]
And here’s the worst of it: what this often entails is interpreting what “the other side” is saying in a way that attributes maximal ignorance to them. [4/n]
So instead of thinking “This person is smart, so if I think they are saying something plain wrong or dumb, I’ve probably not understood properly what it IS that they’re saying”, it becomes “Look, I can interpret what they’ve said here as an argument that I know how to win!”[5/n]
(Who is a "smart person", BTW? Why not just assume at the outset that everyone is? But often their track record makes it abundantly clear anyway.) [6/n]
I’ve had this happen to me several times, and I also see it happen to others – often, I think, without malice. It is as if this is how scientists have been trained to think and debate: not to wonder if there’s something on the other point of view worth thinking about, but.. [7/n]
...to look for the easiest and often laziest way to trash it.
Needless to say, this seriously degrades the quality of the debate and ensures that no one learns from it. It acts to the detriment of science. [8/n]
Needless to say, this seriously degrades the quality of the debate and ensures that no one learns from it. It acts to the detriment of science. [8/n]
I think we need to train scientists how to debate better: to be more generous and curious in how they listen and respond. “Winning” is not learning. Gladiatorial science is not optimal. [9/n]
This point is made very eloquently in Lindy Elkins-Tanton’s book A Portrait of the Scientist as a Young Woman. I hope it gets heard. @ltelkins [10/n]
themarginaliareview.com/a-portrait-of-the-scientist/
themarginaliareview.com/a-portrait-of-the-scientist/
FWIW, I am working on bringing this attitude to at least two perspectives I have previously criticized: The Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, and the “selfish gene” view. [11/n]
I still don’t think either is ontologically realistic, but it’s more important to ask where they can be productive perspectives: ways of thinking, not descriptions of the world. [12/n]
And that seems to me to be the way that some of the smartest people who advocate those two positions regard them. It's probably not coincidental that they are also the easiest to debate with. [13/13]
