[Philosophy of science] Bias inherent in the Scientific Method itself?

[onomatomanic]

A very "meta" idea crossed my mind today, and I'd like some feedback. Apologies in advance in case the half-formedness of said idea results in a meandering post.

The specific connection I made was that the creation-versus-evolution "debate" could be characterized, at its most basic, as the collision of a static view (created kinds) devised by a static approach (received truth) with a dynamic view (evolving clades) devised by a dynamic approach (scientific method). Now, is this match between the nature of the approach and that of the resultant view meaningless, or does it point to the former shaping the latter, however mildly?

Looking at other such "debates" from that angle, this match recurs, I'd say: Biblical literalists presumably imagine the Earth as more or less unchanging, except for the effects of The Flood and catastrophism of that ilk; science says it changes both globally (temperature-wise, first and foremost) and locally (plate tectonics, and so forth). Flat-Earthers imagine it at rest, under a celestial dome; science says it spins and wobbles its way along a multitude of superimposed orbits. Steady-Staters imagine the universe as homogeneous and isotropic in time as well as in space; science says Big Bang.

As an aside, the situation turns murkier when contrasting "static" with "progressive" instead: This does apply to the approach, in which a new model needs to be "better", by some measure, than the old model in order to replace it. But applying it to these resultant views works only for some of them, and then only somewhat.

I suspect the static-static match may spring from valuing simplicity over utility: On the one hand, closing one's mind around one idea takes less effort than keeping it open to new ideas. On the other, common-sensical explanations take less effort than counter-intuitive ones, which results in misinterpreting change occurring at unfamiliar scales as it not occurring at all. Ultimately, this is neither all that original nor all that interesting... YMMV.

What I do find interesting, though, is whether, vice versa, accepting the dynamic approach of the scientific method fundamentally predisposes one to then favour dynamic over static views more generally. If so, then the scientific method has an in-built flaw. Or maybe an "as applied by the human mind" qualifier should be added to that statement. Or maybe it's actually a feature rather than a flaw, iff the universe one then applies the approach to genuinely favours dynamic over static situations.

Looking forward to your responses! :)

 

[Jarvis323]

What I do find interesting, though, is whether, vice versa, accepting the dynamic approach of the scientific method fundamentally predisposes one to then favour dynamic over static views more generally. If so, then the scientific method has an in-built flaw. Or maybe an "as applied by the human mind" qualifier should be added to that statement. Or maybe it's actually a feature rather than a flaw, iff the universe one then applies the approach to genuinely favours dynamic over static situations.

Looking forward to your responses! :)

At risk of sounding even more half-formed-ed. Here is my thought.

In general, overall, I think people are biased towards static views, largely in a very detrimental way. We have to fight ourselves to overcome our inbuilt defenses against changing views. I think gray area is scary, or uncomfortable. People like to feel that they have an understanding of their universe. People convincing themselves of this, and resisting losing that confidence in spite of contrary evidence is a major theme in human life, society, and history. People that agree with us give us confidence, often false, and comfort. This isn't necessarily all a bad thing. We don't have the capacity to constantly change our view. Changing ones view requires a lot of processing. We don't just have a collection of independent beliefs and ideas, we have a web of interconnected beliefs and ideas. We organize them carefully, and form a mental model of our world that we rely on. It is real work to curate and maintain. And it is connected strongly with our sense of identity, how we judge ourselves, what we think is important, etc. We use it to guide our lives, and set our goals, and make decisions on a daily basis. People don't all live to search deeply for answers to the mysteries of the universe or the problems of societies on a large scale. People have other local responsibilities. Consistency, practicality, and priority take some precedence. Static views can be functional. They can also be highly detrimental as we have seen throughout human history.

Modern science in a part, in a sense, is born from recognizing this pitfall, and takes steps prevent that from corrupting itself. Even still, scientists fail sometimes at this goal temporarily, and sometimes fields get hung up by stubborn dogmatic views and group thought. But the design of the process should eventually break us through those barriers. In another sense, scientists are constantly searching for unchanging things (constants, laws, rules), and favor simple models. They also strive to have a working understanding of things, and be pragmatic. In a lot of ways, some of the good forms of static views come into play in science to our benefit. Many will also say that resistance to change in science to some degree plays a healthy role, since it narrows down the amount of ideas we have to process, and usually only the better ones should get through those barriers. But this is a practical feature we build in, and sometimes can be used as an excuse for maintaining a status-quo or to be lazy.

In summary, I think: we can only process so much information. Out of practicality we limit the scope of our thinking, and maintain static views. To do this we have to live a lie. We help each-other cope with this through agreement. This becomes problematic. Science tries to avoid allowing this natural behavior to corrupt itself. Even scientists often still need to work to keep their own biases in check and keep their minds sufficiently open. If they were to keep their minds too open, they would be lost. Scientists are much more than happy to discover constants/universals. Everyone finds their own balance.

 

[Rive]

collision of a static view (created kinds) devised by a static approach (received truth) with a dynamic view (evolving clades) devised by a dynamic approach (scientific method).
...
whether, vice versa, accepting the dynamic approach of the scientific method fundamentally predisposes one to then favour dynamic over static views more generally.

I think there is an interesting logical jump here which may require some scrutiny first. While in biology the result of the scientific method can be characterized as 'dynamic', the scientific method itself is actually not necessarily 'dynamic' at all. It can be considered very conservative, even 'static' in some aspects since it usually prefers to take the proven as basis, and always reaches into unproven with keeping the utmost respect to the 'proven'.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for Moderation...

Update -- Since this thread was started based on philosophy (see the title), it will remain closed. We have not allowed philosophical discussions in GD for a while now.

Purely speculative or philosophical discussions are no longer permitted and may be deleted or closed without warning or appeal.

 

[Evo]

I believe QM is the only place discussions that have a philosophical leaning are allowed. They are not "regular" philosophy, which we no longer allow at PF.