It is often argued that the general consensus of scientists and the peer review process ensure the integrity of all scientific results and conclusions, and guard against faulty reasoning, over-extrapolation, poor methodology, and similar. . . . But . . . the way scientific research is actually undertaken reveals a very different story.
Firstly, consensus should never be used to determine truth since this would be committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad numerum. Moreover, consensus also seems to be applied rather inconsistently. For example, many Christians accept the scientific consensus that the universe is 8-15 billion years old, yet those same Christians are usually vehemently opposed to the consensus that all life came about by naturalistic evolution.
Secondly, history shows that the consensus has often been wrong--indeed, hopelessly wrong.
Thirdly, as Kuhn points out, scientists do not start from scratch rediscovering all the currently known scientific facts and repeating all the experiments that lead to major new discoveries. . . . Rather, as students, they learn and accept the currently held theories on the authority of their teachers and textbooks. This is indoctrination not consensus.
Fourthly, much of the consensus is artificial and enforced. Scientists have to choose which projects to pursue and how to allocate their time. Younger scientists need to choose which research projects will lead to tenure, gain them grants, or lead to controlling a laboratory. These goals will not be achieved by attacking well established and widely accepted scientific tenets and theories. As a visiting fellow at Australian National University recently pointed out, many researchers feel that any new research which challenged or threatens established ideas is unlikely to be funded, and therefore, they do not even bother to put in an application. Older scientists, on the other hand, have reputations to defend. Thus Bauman concludes: "Whether we want to admit it or not, there is a remarkably comprehensive scientific orthodoxy to which scientists must subscribe if they want to get a job, get promotion, get a research grant, get tenured, or get published. If they resist they get forgotten." [Andrew S. Kulikovsky, Creation, Fall, Restoration: A Biblical Theology of Creation (Fearn, Ross-shire: Mentor/Christian Focus Publications Ltd, 2009), p.43f.]
To our mind, there is nothing sinister in this sociology of scientific knowledge. It is the way all knowledge normally progresses. What becomes sinister is when the existing orthodoxy or tacit consensus (to employ Michael Polyani's construct) is over-egged to claim it therefore represents infallible and certain truth--as in, "X must be true because every reputable scientist agrees." The fallacy of circularity is blatantly to the fore in such tautological assertions. Vain, ignorant, and foolish are those who find comfort or take refuge in such inanities.
No comments:
Post a Comment