Crichton on Consensus Science
John on November 23, 2005 at 10:48 pm
Bill Dembski has made the point that Intelligent Design is a search for intelligence in the history of life, not unlike SETI’s search for intelligence in the universe. In that regard, I came across this interesting article by Michael Crichton [HT: Thinking Christian]. Chricton argues that SETI is not science and that it led to a brand of politically driven science including the scientifically dubious “Nuclear Winter” and “Global Warming”.
Reading the piece, one might assume that Crichton, to the extent he is against SETI, would be against ID for similar reasons. That may be the case, though when I saw Crichton on the Charlie Rose show a year or so ago, he stated that he believed in a creator/designer of the universe. He specifically mentioned that the most interesting way to create something would be to start with simple laws and build it up into increasing complexity, which sounds a bit like ID.
What’s really interesting is the way in which Crichton takes a wrecking ball to the idea of scientific consensus. He gives numerous historical examples where consensus was ultimately harmful, then concludes by noting a recent episode involving the publication of a book critical of global warming. He says in part:
Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was “rife with careless mistakes.” It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocust denier. The issue was captioned: “Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist.” Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?
Again, I’m not suggesting that Crichton has any fondness for ID. Many of the criticism he levels could in fact apply to ID; nevertheless, the circle-the-wagons mentality he castigates here is identical to what is happening vis-a-vis ID today. ID will have more peer review when it has less peer pressure.
Category: Science & Tech |
Crichton on Consensus Science
Every time we see an article on this, we have to check it out:…
November 24, 2005 @ 9:51 pmCrichton, in this frequently quoted talk, confuses science and policy. The resykt is an appealing line of argument to those who want reasons to disagree with a contemporary consensus – climate change is one current example, the risks of low-dose radiation is another – there are lots of such examples at the intersection of science and political controversy. But taken to its logical conclusion, Crichton’s argument would require us to abandon all scientific consensus in favor of any outlier we see. That’s obviously silly.
He is right to assert that scientific consensus is no guarantor of truth. But he offers no alternative on those issues where public policy decisions are required in the face of scientific uncertainty.
In any interesting frontier science – the nature of black holes, for example – there is usually a broad consensus to be found and a few interesting outliers questioning that consensus. Usually, the consensus turns out to be right, and science rolls on with no particular notice. Occasionally, the consensus turns out to be wrong, and the science lurches off in an interesting new direction. Crichton gleefully rattles off cases of the latter, without acknowledging that the former is more often the case, and without offering any mechanism for distinguishing between the two while the debate between outliers and consensus is underway.
Of course, if it’s just black holes, we can all wait. If it’s something of more immediate import – the relative risks and benefits of the mumps, measles and rubella vaccine, for example, or whether to permit genetically modified foods – we can’t afford to wait. So we have a long-valued and perfectly reasonable approach. It amounts to assembling the smartest people we can find on a subject and collecting their expert views – determining whether a consensus exists, and what it might be, and using that contingent knowledge to guide our actions.
November 25, 2005 @ 1:35 pmRe: John Fleck: “Crichton gleefully rattles off cases …[when the consensus was wrong]… without … offering any mechanism for distinguishing between… [consensus being wrong and correct].”
But Crichton did. 1. Blind review of computer models by other scientists. 2. Readily sharing data among scientists.
November 26, 2005 @ 9:20 am