Monday, June 28, 2010
Peer-Review 'r somethin'
So I've got a couple more pieces on Science and the New Religion in the pike, but I stumbled across this today, and it is certainly worth a read, esp. in the context of the previous post about cows and such. Enjoy.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Science, Religion, and Sacred Cows
That science is the new religion is an idea expressed by many. But to what extent hasn't always been fleshed out.
My friend David just referenced this blog post about an experiment conducted giving raw vs. pasteurized milk to calves. It's a fascinating read, and I highly recommend taking the time to check out the literature about raw milk.
The quote that caught my attention was:
and then this:
and finally this:
1 + 1 = 2
While on its surface, Science seems to be the very essence of objectivity. Facts and studies were reasoned through, checked for contradictions, repeated may times, peer reviewed, and sent to the presses for publication and dissemination; It would appear to be a foolproof system.
But of course no system is fool proof. There are always leaks and cracks, and these leaks and cracks beg for exploitation.
But I won't bother too much with that argument today except to say that it is impossible - impossible - to separate pure science from politics, policy, and economics. Someone has to pay for the studies, the equipment, and the lab time. The scientists performing the studies have to be concerned about their careers and their advancement (in choosing which experiments to perform). The journals must buffer the shocks to the system that would upend the financial investment of other scientists. And the politicians/commercial interests must rely on studies to make their policy cases and advertise their products.
Nothing exists in a vacuum. Not even science.
But here we concentrate on cost:
The study above is a very compelling one. It is indicative of something we all (raw foodists) experience every day. And yet at $5,000 a pop, adequate experimentation to produce science-worthy results would costs 100s of thousands of dollars or more. From a reality point of view, this is not possible for a small dairy farmer. Thus, whatever the theoretical possibilities of discovering objective science might be, the practical execution of science by non-(sponsored) scientists is virtually impossible- at least if they want to make any cultural impact with their studies.
How is this any different than the position of the Medieval illiterate laity vis a vis the literate clergy? There was literally no way a peasant could corroborate the word of a pastor in interpreting scripture. Therefore, the truth (and therefore the law) was whatever the priest said it was, based, presumably, on that priest's interpretation of the Bible.
This is hardly the democratic ideal that we believe we are living today. And yet, practically speaking, how different are things for the modern "illiterate" scientist - someone without access to funds, equipment, and research team to explore the truth?
The answer is, of course, not very. For all practical purposes, the medieval men in smocks have been replaced by more men (and some women) in smocks dictating truth to us. The only difference - if there is one at all - is that the medieval peasant didn't necessarily expect that they were getting objective, post-superstitious truth (though the church probably took the same attitude towards pagan religious knowledge that the modern scientists take towards Chirstian knowledge). But that's about it. Other than that, we're mostly in the same boat.
My friend David remarked that the longer he lived the more he realizes that shit doesn't change that much. Yes there is progress of a sort, but the fundamentals are the same. The immortal gods, as we astrologers would say, are always with us, whether we recognize them or not.
For better or for worse, it would appear that mankind requires a priest class of learned authorities to tell him what to do. That has not changed. It used to be priests, and now it is scientists (and doctors). Their function is the same (as is, interestingly, their dress and their sexual inertness).
What happens when humans meddle too much in their nature is that they achieve progress, but the natural forms remain in tact, only hidden from sight. We see that in our modern attitudes towards clergy vs. scientists. Popular thinking is that priest-truth has been outsmarted by science-truth, thus deluding us into believing that we have conquered the primitive religious instinct. We have not. it's just hidden. Right before our very eyes, as it turns out.
Think about this the next time the call for "progress" is heard. In the times to come, we are sure to hear the progressive urge very loudly - and, of course, we ignore it at our peril. But how we integrate our progressive desires with the timeless givens of the natural condition will determine how well the implementation of "progress" works. In *that* choice in particular we are completely free beings. We ma not control the choices we have, but our relationship to them is always ours to pass or fumble as we like. So far our track record is not that great, but we will have unceasing opportunities to get it right. And when we do, we will see the kind of real progress that we have always dreamed of.
D-Blog
[NB- it is for this reason I remain such a champion of the irrational American Right. Not that I wish to se Biblical literalism replace the scientific canon, but because I believe both are only partly true, and neither should ever be without a loyal opposition. Part of religious virtue is its acceptance of the universalities of the human experience (particularly sexuality and its problems) and its frontal - if ineffectual means of dealing with them. That science posits that we are already beyond these impulses - or can be made to be simply by "thinking" is a position unsupported by history and reality. The religious people seem to understand this better than their modern, scientific counterparts. Somewhere in the middle lies truth, and that truth must be flexible, as it sustains the tugging in all different directions from all different parties. A full time job, this truth. ]
My friend David just referenced this blog post about an experiment conducted giving raw vs. pasteurized milk to calves. It's a fascinating read, and I highly recommend taking the time to check out the literature about raw milk.
The quote that caught my attention was:
To understand the results of our raw milk experiment it is important to tolerate the so called scientific demands. That means in order to get accepted and being taken seriously by the scientific establishment you need to have 100 or 200 or 300 or may be even 1000 calves to make a scientific valid point.
and then this:
The experiment was costing us over 5000 dollars just in milk. This is a significant amount for us, since we did not get any support from corporate sponsors.
and finally this:
. . .the simple fact that the so called experts have not yet entered into a joint research project as proposed by me already in 1994 has given me even a greater confidence that the results we have seen with these two calves are credible and significant. They are in fact supporting the findings of Pottenger’s cat study, which as well has been ignored and ridiculed.
1 + 1 = 2
While on its surface, Science seems to be the very essence of objectivity. Facts and studies were reasoned through, checked for contradictions, repeated may times, peer reviewed, and sent to the presses for publication and dissemination; It would appear to be a foolproof system.
But of course no system is fool proof. There are always leaks and cracks, and these leaks and cracks beg for exploitation.
But I won't bother too much with that argument today except to say that it is impossible - impossible - to separate pure science from politics, policy, and economics. Someone has to pay for the studies, the equipment, and the lab time. The scientists performing the studies have to be concerned about their careers and their advancement (in choosing which experiments to perform). The journals must buffer the shocks to the system that would upend the financial investment of other scientists. And the politicians/commercial interests must rely on studies to make their policy cases and advertise their products.
Nothing exists in a vacuum. Not even science.
But here we concentrate on cost:
The study above is a very compelling one. It is indicative of something we all (raw foodists) experience every day. And yet at $5,000 a pop, adequate experimentation to produce science-worthy results would costs 100s of thousands of dollars or more. From a reality point of view, this is not possible for a small dairy farmer. Thus, whatever the theoretical possibilities of discovering objective science might be, the practical execution of science by non-(sponsored) scientists is virtually impossible- at least if they want to make any cultural impact with their studies.
How is this any different than the position of the Medieval illiterate laity vis a vis the literate clergy? There was literally no way a peasant could corroborate the word of a pastor in interpreting scripture. Therefore, the truth (and therefore the law) was whatever the priest said it was, based, presumably, on that priest's interpretation of the Bible.
This is hardly the democratic ideal that we believe we are living today. And yet, practically speaking, how different are things for the modern "illiterate" scientist - someone without access to funds, equipment, and research team to explore the truth?
The answer is, of course, not very. For all practical purposes, the medieval men in smocks have been replaced by more men (and some women) in smocks dictating truth to us. The only difference - if there is one at all - is that the medieval peasant didn't necessarily expect that they were getting objective, post-superstitious truth (though the church probably took the same attitude towards pagan religious knowledge that the modern scientists take towards Chirstian knowledge). But that's about it. Other than that, we're mostly in the same boat.
My friend David remarked that the longer he lived the more he realizes that shit doesn't change that much. Yes there is progress of a sort, but the fundamentals are the same. The immortal gods, as we astrologers would say, are always with us, whether we recognize them or not.
For better or for worse, it would appear that mankind requires a priest class of learned authorities to tell him what to do. That has not changed. It used to be priests, and now it is scientists (and doctors). Their function is the same (as is, interestingly, their dress and their sexual inertness).
What happens when humans meddle too much in their nature is that they achieve progress, but the natural forms remain in tact, only hidden from sight. We see that in our modern attitudes towards clergy vs. scientists. Popular thinking is that priest-truth has been outsmarted by science-truth, thus deluding us into believing that we have conquered the primitive religious instinct. We have not. it's just hidden. Right before our very eyes, as it turns out.
Think about this the next time the call for "progress" is heard. In the times to come, we are sure to hear the progressive urge very loudly - and, of course, we ignore it at our peril. But how we integrate our progressive desires with the timeless givens of the natural condition will determine how well the implementation of "progress" works. In *that* choice in particular we are completely free beings. We ma not control the choices we have, but our relationship to them is always ours to pass or fumble as we like. So far our track record is not that great, but we will have unceasing opportunities to get it right. And when we do, we will see the kind of real progress that we have always dreamed of.
D-Blog
[NB- it is for this reason I remain such a champion of the irrational American Right. Not that I wish to se Biblical literalism replace the scientific canon, but because I believe both are only partly true, and neither should ever be without a loyal opposition. Part of religious virtue is its acceptance of the universalities of the human experience (particularly sexuality and its problems) and its frontal - if ineffectual means of dealing with them. That science posits that we are already beyond these impulses - or can be made to be simply by "thinking" is a position unsupported by history and reality. The religious people seem to understand this better than their modern, scientific counterparts. Somewhere in the middle lies truth, and that truth must be flexible, as it sustains the tugging in all different directions from all different parties. A full time job, this truth. ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
