Re: Psychology & Education ( was: the Zapno (tm) anti-static device and dishonesty)

[William Beaty <billb@ESKIMO.COM>]

On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Joseph Bellina wrote:

> Well said.  As I read what John wrote I began to wonder if this wasn't
> the sort of thing that was going on when folks like Bacon began to
> fashion what we not call the "scientific method."  It was a logical
> structure that helped ensure that these other factors played less of a
> role in one's thinking.

Exactly.  Still, logical structure is only a tool, while the real power
behind science exists because truth-seeking is made our goal.
Truth-seeking, as opposed to the defending of the current worldview in a
fight to the death using fair means or foul.  If I actually inspect my own
position and determine that I am wrong, doesn't that make me a pitiful
"loser" type?  Shouldn't I carefully avoid looking inside myself, since
doing this might hurt my confidence or even cause me to lose the battle?

   "In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a
   really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would
   actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them
   again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should,
   because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it
   happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that
   happened in politics or religion." -Carl Sagan

The scientific method isn't just the use of experiment and logic.  It also
has a central core which is different than most other human endevours:
we don't compete.  We drop all defenses and let opponents figuratively
kick us in the most sensitive spots they can find.  We don't defend
ourselves against opponents, but instead we help them try to damage our
own case, as well as searching for new weapons that we then give to the
opponents to use against us.

This attitude is so unlike normal life that it's fairly hard to adopt.
I've watched physics people on the newsgroups try to distort facts to
persuade others or to win fights about controversial subjects, and they
seem clueless that it's some of the most unscientific behavior imaginable.

But this shouldn't be amazing, since the "scientific hyper-honesty"
attitude isn't taught in school (at least I myself never encountered any
trace of it in my school career.)

Uh oh.   I feel a sermon coming on.   :)


While I know that scientific reasoning is based on honesty, I always
thought that the logic used in debate was based on a need to beat your
opponent.  In debate, logic is only one of several weapons, and it's only
safe to use as long as it doesn't endanger one's position.  "Truth" is
assumed to be relative, and if your opponent sways you to believe that
your position is wrong, that's an example of successful persuasion.  If
there REALLY is no such thing as being correct or mistaken, then
persuasion is king.  Honesty becomes very secondary if it makes us
vulnerable to attack by opponents who are skilled at cheating without
being caught.  The point of debate becomes persuasion, not truth-seeking.

I found one philosophy academic who thinks differently.  These two papers
make a good combination with Feynman's lecture on the ethics of scientists
in his "Cargo Cult Science"...

  P. Suber, The Clinical Attitude Toward Arguments
  http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/inflogic/clinical.htm

  P. Suber, the One-sidedness Fallacy
  http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/inflogic/onesided.htm


Imagine a lawyer or politician who wanted to expose the truth, as opposed
to trying to beat their opponent.  Much of modern life is still based on
trial by combat where any winners are treated as if they were "supposed"
to win, and the cheaters who never get caught are the epitome of the
successful.

I wonder if Dr. Suber is alone in his attitude, or do other philosophers
and debate specialists believe that truth is more important than winning?


Separate topic:  I note that the space shuttle Challanger was not
destroyed by a failure in its engines.  It was destroyed by covert liars
who infested a community which was supposed to be based on science (i.e.
based on extreme intolerance of dishonesty.)  We're all taught to be nice
guys, to be very tolerant of others, but over the years I've found that
this is wrong.  Tolerance of liars is a very bad idea.  Burke's quotation
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing" actually has direct application to science.  If we remain only
investigators, but never act as "warriors for truth" who are ready to make
sacrifices, then our community lacks self-correction.  Even more
"Challenger disasters"  should be expected in the future.  To avoid this,
not only should we be hyper-honest, but also we should strive to become
hyper-aware of those in our midst who habitually employ dishonesty.  I've
wondered what I would have done if I was involved in Morton-Thiokol just
before launch.  Would I have destroyed my career to expose any lies I knew
that my bosses were telling?  If I was alone, and everyone else refused to
rock the boat, could I have done anything at all?  Would I have even SEEN
the lies being told, or would I have talked myself into believing that
they were no big deal?   After all, everyone lies.


(((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                            SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com                            http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-789-0775    unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci