Limits of Science Noted

Biology used to be simple to classify: plants and animals.  Up to the 1990s, that transmogrified into eukaryotes and prokaryotes.  Then the prokaryotes got split into archaea and bacteria.  But now, according to New Scientist there are debates about opening up a fourth kingdom of life – with the realization that 99% of cell species refuse to be cultured in a lab where they can be studied.  This history calls into question what scientists know about the natural world.  Are taxonomists really carving nature at its joints, or are scientific classification systems mere conveniences of the human mind?  And if observable reality can be so difficult to classify, what about unobservable reality?  Consider the following surprises and reversals:

1. Selfish birds:  Ornithologists used to consider fairy wrens altruistic, because they would nurture the eggs of other birds.  Now, PhysOrg reported a change of view: these birds are selfish little schemers, thinking ahead for their own benefit: “The study showed that the seemingly selfless little helpers are in fact carefully calculating accountants.”  Were either of these fair characterizations, or misleading metaphors projected onto animals lacking self-consciousness? 
2. Apex nadir:  The Apex Chert in Australia has long been considered scientific evidence for the origin of life at least 3.5 billion years ago.  Now, according to PhysOrg, that evidence has been debunked (see 02/27/2011, bullet 7).  The strange shapes in the rock have nothing to do with life.  This reversal of opinion could reverberate through other research programs, like the search for ancient life on Mars or in meteorites.
3. Trilobite orgy:  PhysOrg described mass kills of trilobites as distant as Oklahoma, Morocco, and Poland.  “A smothering death by tons of hurricane-generated storm sediment was so rapid that the trilobites are preserved in life position.”  So did the scientists conclude evidence of a global catastrophe?  Apparently not; rather than reason along those lines, Carlton Brett seemed oblivious to the geological implications and concentrated instead on interpreting the ecology and behavior of the ancient arthropods, describing them as naked and having a sex orgy.  Was he committing science with that metaphor, or projecting base human interests on mindless animals?
4. Now we have it right:  A “new evolutionary history of primates” was announced by PhysOrg, claiming that the “robust new phylogenetic tree resolves many long-standing issues in primate taxonomy.”  Whenever new-and-improved announcements are made, questions rise about what went wrong with the old.  Right away came the surprises: “The genomes of living primates harbor remarkable differences in diversity and provide an intriguing context for interpreting human evolution.”  But does science aspire for contexts for interpretation, or for getting the world right?  And what should become of the faith readers had placed in earlier evolutionary histories announced with similar confidence?
5. Changing climate change:  Climate change (formerly global warming; see 03/08/2011) has been attributed to human industrial pollution, but PhysOrg reported on evidence of ancient hyperthermals that they claim led to warming periods lasting up to 40,000 years.  Such warming periods, if they occurred, could not have been caused by humans.  But instead of calling into question the foundational evidence underlying the politically-charged debate about anthropogenic warming, the article focused on how today’s scientists might use this data to predict the impact of human-caused climate change.  Is that the conclusion that the evidence demanded?
6. Political science:  Speaking of politics, New Scientist published an article about a Yale sociologist who studied effective and ineffective ways to convince climate skeptics.  The researcher, however, appeared focused on changing Republican minds instead of Democratic minds.  Why didn’t he use his research impartially?  Should science be a tool for manipulating one party?
7. Pros and cons:  An article on the BBC News raises questions about who is allowed to do science.  Is it the sole domain of professionals?  While Mark Kinver entertained views that volunteers are vital to science data collection, he entertained critical views that “The argument for prohibiting their use was that the volunteers were incompetent, and their data would be biased.”  While training and ethics are desirable, does the statement imply that all scientists are competent and unbiased?
8. Peace dividend:  Angola, long embroiled in a civil war, just unearthed its first dinosaur, PhysOrg reported.  All can probably agree this is a good step for a war-torn country, but the article focused on the political angle – how Angola seems to be on the verge of a “research renaissance” after years of political strife.  This raises not only questions about what dinosaur bones have to do with politics, but how many other parts of the world are off limits to research due to political isolation and war.  If a great deal, how much of the world can scientists say they understand?  This case resembles the item above about 99% of microbes falling outside scientists’ observations.

A few articles directly questioned the ability of science to get the world right.  Julian Baggini in New Scientist explained “The self: why science is not enough,” arguing that even if neuroscience multiplies its data, understanding of ourselves will be unattainable.  “The main reason is that the very notion of a science of the self depends on us identifying its subject – the self – from the perspective of first-person experience,” he said.  “Science can correct false beliefs about what sustains that experience, and it can explain what makes such experience possible, but it cannot change what it means to be a self without erasing the very data it depends on.”
    Meanwhile, Liz Else at New Scientist discussed what art can do for science and vice versa: “While science is about understanding the complexity of the structure of the material world, art indicates the deeper implications of scientific advancement and helps shape new paradigms.”  Can these fields of experience, both mediated by the human mind, be relegated to separate compartments, or is there a continuum?  Is science a kind of art?  Can art be approached scientifically?  Some scientists are artists, and vice versa; can their personalities be compartmentalized?  If science tries to understand the structure of the world according to an old paradigm, what becomes of its epistemic priority when art helps shape new paradigms?
    The BBC News summed up many of the above problems with its Today feature, “Does science have all the answers?”  Tom Colls asked, “As scientists discover increasing amounts about life, the universe and everything, are we approaching a point where we can rely on science alone to answer all of life’s big questions?”  He invoked a bit of the old warfare thesis (disfavored by historians of science), describing a “cultural struggle taking place between religion and science.”  First volley was given to a champion of that dichotomy, Peter Atkins, who calls religion “fantasy” and is convinced that there is no question in the universe science cannot address.  Then Colls entertained a variety of contrarian views by academics who feel Atkins left the lab behind and has no more moral authority “than a priest, or a nun, or the guy who runs the sweetshop down the road.”  Colls then opened the floor to readers to present their opinions.

This might be a good time to review the Guide to Evolution on the right sidebar, especially Finagle’s Creed, “Science is true.  Do not be misled by facts.”  Scientists are people, aren’t they?  Have you ever met any person who was infallible?  Do the collective efforts of fallible people ensure failings are weeded out?  Even if so, what fallible person could judge that science has arrived at a true conception of the world?  Can there be any science without honesty and morality, and if not, how can evolutionists claim that morality evolved?  If honesty evolved, when did it become honest enough to deserve our trust?  Will it become more honest in the future, or fluctuate between honesty and dishonesty?  If your “self” is following this line of reasoning, and you want honest answers, where did that desire come from?  This entry asks questions.  You have to supply the thinking.