It may be that values are not involved in the most technical/mechanical portions of experimentation. However, I think that bit represents a small portion of the scientific endeavor and its institutions’ operations. I don’t hold out much hope for western science in atheistic and “value-free” environments. I’m interested in folks re-building the natural sciences from a specifically christian or western (Jewish/Greek/Muslim) basis. What would it look like to pursue the sciences with a view to an ordered set of goods–with the Good Himself at the top. What would it look like to see Hillsdale College pursue the natural sciences? I am curious.
What’s the basis for your lack of hope? I can’t say I really understand what you’ve been getting at in this thread. Science as it is currently practiced is done by people with a very wide range of worldviews and philosophies, with no discernible difference between their work. Practitioners have included atheists for a very long time. What exactly is the problem?
3 Likes
And the first scientists believed in God and thought they could use a orderly scientific method to study God’s creation, because they believed God was not to be capricious, but rather that God made an ordered creation that would follow laws that would be testable. Doing science for them was a type of worship. Some examples include Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur
1 Like
Certainly, individuals may excel in their scientific career from a great variety of religious backgrounds, including non-religious ones. My argument is more subtle than that. National regimes that have been explicitly espoused atheism have destroyed their scientific endeavors or at least seriously polluted them (Soviets and Nazis). And as BioLogos often points out, modern science arose under theism—certainly not coincidental.
Again, I am simply suggesting some topics around philosophy of science and epistemology. Important Christian thinkers like Lesslie Newbigin and Alasdair MacIntyre have written on the assumptions and value-based frameworks associated with modern science. And the topic runs through the Enlightenment, Pre-Enlightenment and Church Fathers. Thanks.
Interesting blog that relates. I have often thought much the same, but this article expresses it well. Perhaps these things are why there are frequent warnings against false teachers in the Bible.
1 Like
Hi gbob, I don’t think you summary of Tetlock (i.e., experts do not exist) is accurate. Here is what Tetlock himself says:
“In short, the media misinterpreted [my work] to claim that experts know nothing, and know-nothings seized on that claim as proof that knowledge itself is somehow useless. This is not, to put it mildly, what EPJ said, and so the first purpose of this preface to the new edition is damage control. Experts serve vital functions. Their knowledge enables them to perform highly skilled operations—from computer programming to brain surgery to aircraft design—that the rest of us would do well to avoid. Only experts can even begin to craft coherent legislation on complex topics like tax law, health care, or arms control. Experts are also, by and large, the generators of new knowledge, in fields from archaeology to quantum physics. The era of the amateur scientist is long past…But when it comes to judgment under uncertainty—a key component of real-world decision-making—expertise confers a less-clear advantage, even in fields like medicine, where one might suppose it essential.”
1 Like
Hi Josh, I might have pushed too hard on this, but what I quote above, applies–in real world decision making expertise is less advantageious. Most decisions we make are real world decisions. Decisions to drill a well, which was what I did for a living is surrounded in expertise. We were paid well for our experrties, but shortly after I entered the oil business, an article in Science suggested we might do as well or better by randomly drilling oil wells to basement rock. H. W. Menard ad George Sharmon, Scientific uses of Random Drilling Models, Science Oct 24, 1975. (Just had to look that up because I didn’t have it in my database of info).
There are several reasons for this. In the US we have largely drilled structural traps on the top of underground ‘hills’.these re called structural traps. But there is another kind of trap, stratigraphic trap, and getting them drilled was like pulling teeth out of a wide awake cheetah’s mouth. Bosses wouldn’t do it. The interesting thing is that in Canada, most oil fields are stratigraphic, and in the US they are structural. One Canadian oil man bet an American oil legend, Michael Halbouty, that he could find a strat trap in the US. He did, very quickly. Halbouty ever after hated the name of Kurten field. Bias among management here in the US has probably left lots of undrilled strat traps. I personally know of several I wanted to drill but couldn’t get funding.
So was my expertise useless? My bosses didn’t think so, but Monte Carlo simulations suggested it was.
One more point I did note in post 26 that expertise was necessary. Below is from that.
To finish the tale, but the mid 1990s our success rate had risen from 1/7 in 1975 to 1/3. Maybe random drilling wouldn’t have beaten that, but still we have lots of undrilled stratigraphic trap potential in the US, that likely will never be drilled.
Does an expert become more credible when his or her expertise is a Science? If yes, which science would one speak of? We see opposing scientists all the time in a court of law especially pathology.
And what does Christianity have to do with it.
First, could someone define “Scientific Experts?” Experts in biology, chemistry, physics? Geology, paleontology, astronomy? Political science, economics, social sciences, gender studies? Theology used to be called the queen of sciences. Is it still on the list? My answer wouldn’t likely be the same for each area–some folks consider all of these to be “sciences”; I do not. So to discuss this, we first need to define what science is and what makes a person an expert in the sciences.
And how do credentials work? PhD vs. MA, or 2 PhDs? How about scientists working outside of their credentialed area?
And of course, during this covid crisis, we have a plethora of experts refuting each other, even within their own disciplines. And does expertise in medicine trump economics or sociology or psychology or law enforcement? Which expert do we listen to, or is there a PhD in “big picture science” gives expertise in pulling it all together–integrating the evidence from various disciplines? For now, it is the top office holders in the country, states, counties and cities that are making these decisions and second guessing everyone who has contrary views.
1 Like
I should thank God that I wake up every morning in England.
Such groupings are always fuzzy, but a reasonable starting point would be something like ‘people with a history of successful publication in the scientific literature and who are actively involved in research’.
Yes.
Not for this purpose.
No. The meaning of ‘science’ changed.
See above.
Their credentials have little relevance. What matters is what area(s) they have done research in.
We have experts disagreeing about some things and in broad agreement about others. Most experts I’ve read or listened to have been pretty good about distinguishing the two. If there is broad consensus, pay attention to the consensus, not the outlier whose views you find appealing.
That depends on whether the question is a medical one or an economic, sociological, etc one.
Of course it’s the office holders who have to decide. But some top office holders are listening to advice from scientific experts and some are ignoring advice from scientific experts. (Also, that’s not what ‘second guessing’ means.)
5 Likes
as a family doc, I feel strongly you should not rely on my expertise in regard to anything other than primary care medicine. We can be even more specific. In medicine, we wouldn’t want people of various specialties making crucial decisions about other specialties’ areas of expertise! 
1 Like
But that seems to avoid the issue. In our current situation, we need expertise in many areas contributing: it is medical and economic and sociological and political and, and, and . . . So those who think we should be only listening to the medical experts say that is what is meant by “listening to advice from scientific experts.” And to also consider the economic or psychological issues is “ignoring advice from scientific experts.” It is “life versus money,” but we all need money to eat and pay for medical care and to pay the mortgage. If we have no food or medicine or shelter, we will also die. So it is not “life versus money”; it is life versus life.
Here’s a quote: " Health experts warn that as pandemic-driven hardship puts added strain on the mental health of Americans, tens of thousands of lives may be lost due to outbreak-fueled drug or alcohol abuse and suicide." So it is not just the virus we need to factor in.
In the end, after all the data is assembled, and after all the expert opinions are collected (lots of knowledge), then leaders with wisdom need to sort through all of it and come to a decision. Where does that come from?
And of course, “theology” is no longer a “science”, and VP Pence has been roundly derided for his faith and public prayer, but the Bible tells us: James 1:5, If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you."
2 Likes
Why did Trump’s America let the disease go unchecked for six weeks? What expert advice was being followed?
What experts were consulted so that the death toll is greater than all US external conflict since Korea?
It’s even higher than US gun deaths! Which are at a 20 year high due to the following of which expert advice?
1 Like
I do not think it is necessary to conflate trusting scientific experts in fields of science with trusting scientific experts with comprehensive public policy. Some of the most smartest people I have ever met I would not trust to run a lemonade stand, but they were brilliant at their specialty. Others are gifted as generalists and they are able to synthesize the various discipline inputs into a workable set of policies. Unfortunately, there are others who are really good at nothing but gaining leadership.
2 Likes
Those are good questions.
One key to good leadership would be for the leader to recognize their own ignorance and to surround themselves with wise counselors (experts) in all the needed fields (or who themselves have enough general expertise over their area to enlist for themselves the specialists to keep them informed. Since nobody is good at everything, the good leader will take care that they are surrounded by trustworthy and competent advisors. Trying to cater only to popular opinion [or more realistically - some sub-group’s popular opinion] might help somebody get re-elected, but will often have disastrous results with regard to the healthy future of any nation, much less the world. And that isn’t just a criticism of the current administration here in the U.S., but of any recent administration of our lifetimes, some more so than others, of course.
1 Like
Mervin,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. You have expressed it very well.
I think of the “Johari window.” It describes what we know–and what we know we know and what we know and don’t know we know; and what we don’t know–and what we know we don’t know and what we don’t know that we don’t know. (Okay, you may have to read that over again.) The point of going through this Johari window exercise is not necessarily to eliminate what we don’t know, but to increase self awareness of what we don’t know. This requires humility, and leads us to seek out and respect those who can supply the knowledge and expertise in areas we don’t have–and as you rightly point out, since we cannot be expert in every area, particularly as knowledge is increasing exponentially.
Your next point is also important. Leaders need to surround themselves with trustworthy and competent advisors. They have to have the ability to discern these characteristics. Academic and professional achievement does not ensure trustworthiness or even competence. Our innate human weakness is not overcome solely by education or research, although these can be valuable in the hands of honest and humble and discerning people. Even peer review is worthless without integrity of the participants, although it is one way that we can guard against lack of integrity.
I heard a snippet this morning from Dr. Fauci’s testimony before the Senate which I think illustrates what we are speaking about. He was asked a question about economics, and he said that we needed experts in that area as well, but that was not him. Basically, he was saying that he knew his limitations and was going to stay in his lane. That does not mean that he as a person is not concerned about the economic consequences. It is just not something that he can reasonably weigh in on.
So a good leader needs to be an expert in finding good counselors, assessing and integrating the information s/he receives, and together with those counselors formulating a plan that takes all of that into consideration. And as new information arises, a good leader is also willing to modify or change direction.
I think Ronald Reagan was an example of that kind of leadership. His administration worked well because he surrounded himself with good people (imho)–and because he was a superb communicator. I would love to see our leaders working together toward a common goal rather than working to end up on the top of the political ladder.
Thanks again for your thoughtful response.
2 Likes
Had to look up “Johari Window” after you set my head to spinning there! Very interesting. Was my first acquaintance with that term.
1 Like
Christians should choose, or not, one of the Devil’s Alternatives. Just don’t choose what will overwhelm your state’s health system. Your society will collapse. Protect according to vulnerability and triage health care inversely. And be brutally honest about it all. Don’t pretend there are choices. Don’t pretend there is expertise. Don’t pretend.
Yeah. It’s got nothing whatsoever to do with ‘what we know we know and what we know and don’t know we know; and what we don’t know–and what we know we don’t know and what we don’t know that we don’t know’ which is incoherent, which is a use of the Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham - whence Johari, not like Ferengi - window.