Caltech lecture by Crichton on “consensus science”
Those objecting to MNT often cite a "consensus" against it. Despite authoring scary sf stories such as Prey, a nanotech/AI horror tale, Michael Crichton understands the core values of science better than some prominent scientists, as he showed in this lecture at Caltech about the dangers of "consensus science":"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics…In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of." Also worth reading is his essay on molecular nanotechnology.
January 7th, 2004 at 3:11 PM
Drexler on consensus
In contrast to Crichton's well-reasoned opinion, we have Drexler on video at http://www.techcentralstation.com/images/TCSTV-200 30506-Nanotech.wmv.
At about 2:39 into the video Drexler opines that in the next couple of years we may have a consensus that we are looking at a true revolution.
So what is Drexler's opinion worth in light of Crichton's low opinion of consensus science? Or is Drexler doing politics instead of science?
January 9th, 2004 at 5:31 PM
Re:Drexler on consensus
Attobuoy writes:
At about 2:39 into the video Drexler opines that in the next couple of years we may have a consensus that we are looking at a true revolution. … So what is Drexler's opinion worth in light of Crichton's low opinion of consensus science? Or is Drexler doing politics instead of science?
Crichton is clearly right when he says that consensus and opinion are irrelevant and even harmful to science, but he doesn't suggest that consensus and opinion should be eradicated from other areas. After all, most human endeavours do not enjoy the equivalent of the scientific method to keep them on the straight and narrow. Opinion gives them some sort of weak M.O., and consensus slightly reinforces the likelihood that a particular opinion is correct, or at least useful.
When Eric or Ralph write opinion pieces or testify to committees, they do not claim to be practicing science, despite being scientists and/or scientifically-based engineers when they work in their labs or at their modelling computers. When talking to non-scientists or simply engaging in debate, they adopt the language and the instruments of the relevant endeavour, and that's not the language nor the instruments of science. Strictly speaking it's a mistake to consider them as scientists when they hold court in such a forum, because science does not operate there. Giving advice is not science, no matter how well informed, and decisions based on such advice are not based on science but on authority — a logical faux pas.
Should they be doing that at all? Well, that's a different question altogether, but surely it is right that they make their own choices there, even if the end result is predictable failure. One thing is pretty certain: their efforts in the realm of Science are hugely more fruitful and vastly more widely appreciated throughout the world. Personally, I'd say to leave the non-science to those in the community who are well informed but not themselves scientists. Our scientific resources are too scarce to be wasted in encounters of the wrong kind.
January 14th, 2004 at 1:15 PM
Re:Drexler on consensus
The difference is between Science policy based on consensus in place of sound research and winning consensus with sound research and facts.
January 15th, 2004 at 2:53 PM
Re:Drexler on consensus
When Crichton speaks about science he sounds more like a philosopher of science than an actual scientist. He endorses the noble platonic ideal of science, and ignores the day to day process of science. The Scientific Method is good for explaining to High School students the idea of science, but wouldn't make a good instruction manual. The step "Form a Hypothesis", for example, reduces to one line a very broad range of tasks and techniques, some of which are quite informal, and are therefore distasteful to a philosopher of science.
As for consensus, it will always be an important factor in science policy. It's impossible, at the present time, for even the most well informed scientist to use formal means to evaluate every claim, even more so for a layperson such as a congressman. And so, when it's impossible to evaluate the evidence on a particular subject, it becomes necessary to consult the experts. And when the experts disagree, what choice do you have but to consider the majority as more likely to be correct?
The problems with consensus that Crichton states are, I think, more about misrepresenting what the consensus actually is about a particular subject. If a scientific poll were conducted among the people working in relevant fields, then that would be acceptable. On the other hand, simply making the claim of consensus carries little weight. And consensus among those whose expertise lies in fields which are not relevant to the issue is even worse, because it has the glamour of authority without the substance. This last is the one seems to happen a lot lately.
Also, when the role of consensus is clearly understood it seems obvious that room must be made (in the public budgets, for example) for 'minority science'. In fact, this might be the exact thing that Crichton is actually worrying about in the referenced speech. Consensus is not science and does not establish fact, it only helps you increase the likelyhood of a correct choice between differing ideas. So if consensus (which can be wrong) is your only criteria then important and revolutionary things will certainly be overlooked.
January 18th, 2004 at 12:04 AM
Don't dis the crown jewels of Science
You write: The step "Form a Hypothesis", for example, reduces to one line a very broad range of tasks and techniques, some of which are quite informal, and are therefore distasteful to a philosopher of science.
Don't dismiss "Form a Hypothesis" from the practice of science anywhere at all, not even on the very real and concrete lab bench. It is an extremely dangerous thing to do, because it leads to creating pseudo-scientists who believe that encapsulated models of behaviour (like say a subatomic particle) are actually real instead of merely useful models of something unknown and unknowable except through its observed responses.
As soon as you believe that something is actual or real or The Truth, you can no longer happily abandon it when some alternative comes along — after all, how can you abandon The Truth?
Only philosophers and other universalists believe in The Truth. Scientists believe in the scientific method, and this requires them to treat all models as tentative and to abandon them the moment that reality's behaviour begs to differ. That's why a scientist is happy to see a particle disappear in a cloud of over-extended modelling and be replaced by an equally unreal travelling wave, whereas the philosopher has been spinning in his grave throughout the whole episode.
The real scientist who understands his principles knows that he can never know the actual structure of reality, but only create mental models, theories and hypotheses that can be tested for approximating ever more closely the observed behaviour of reality. Furthermore, these models can be highly restricted in their applicability as we mentioned above, with inconsistencies between them that could never be a feature of The Truth. The scientist is very much a perpetual heretic as a result of living and breathing a vocation that requires perpetual doubt. He will discard his most cherished theories at a moment's notice without remorse or regret, should reality ever decide to contradict his predictions. It sounds negative at first, until you realize that it is only because of this that mankind has a future of unbounded progress, unrestricted by chains of myopic Truth conjured up during any particular century or millennium.
Rejoince in our models, theories and hypotheses. It's they that will place us among the stars, not because any one is particularly good, but because the method that continually invalidates them also transcends all human limitations.