I have sometimes written here that some in the science and philosophical communities hope to turn science–which properly understood is a method of obtaining and applying information–into a subjective value system/philosophy/quasi-religion–sometimes called scientism. Now, a proponent of this approach has been found to have potentially engaged in misconduct involving research that undercut human exceptionalism by claiming monkeys learn rules. From the story in the Boston Globe:
Harvard University psychologist Marc Hauser — a well-known scientist and author of the book “Moral Minds’’ — is taking a year-long leave after a lengthy internal investigation found evidence of scientific misconduct in his laboratory. The findings have resulted in the retraction of an influential study that he led. “MH accepts responsibility for the error,’’ says the retraction of the study on whether monkeys learn rules, which was published in 2002 in the journal Cognition.
If the research was faked or wrongly interpreted–we don’t know what the exact nature of the problem–it could be because Hauser wanted it to be true because he is an advocate of what I call the Great Human Unexceptionalism Project, in which scientists and other researchers search fervently for every piece of evidence they can construe to prove that we are not unique.
Lest one think I have jumped to a hasty conclusion, the aforementioned allegations are not why I accuse Hauser of being a devotee of scientism. He’s actually pretty open about it. From Michael Cook over at Bioedge:
Harvard professor Marc D. Hauser has persuasively argued that no action is inherently wrong. “We generally do not commit wrong acts because we recognize that they are wrong and because we do not want to pay the emotional price of doing something we perceive as wrong,” he says. As an evolutionary biologist, he is fascinated by the idea of evil and thinks that his research can shed light on its origin and its attraction. “I believe that science, and scientists, have an important role to play in shaping the moral agenda. We have an obligation to use facts and reason to guide what we ought to do,” he contended forcefully in a recent essay on The Edge.
Figuring the moral “oughts” is not a matter of science, but emerges from different aspects of our exceptional and rational natures, e.g., the depths of noetic thinking, philosophy, values, religion, etc, the kind of thinking of which only we are capable. For example, science can tell us that millions were killed during the Holocaust, but it can’t tell us that the genocide was “evil” because that is not a scientific concept. Science can tell us that a chimpanzee may be self aware, but not that such a capacity matters morally.
Scientists should be the most fierce defenders of science against scientism because by conflating the two diametrically opposed concepts, advocates of the latter corrupt the former and diminish its value and public trustworthiness.
August 15th, 2010 | 3:55 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Scientism Suffers a Blow When Research Discredited » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog http://t.co/MWGFGz5 [...]
August 15th, 2010 | 4:23 pm
The key item here, of course, is that a “lengthy internal investigation found evidence of scientific misconduct in his laboratory.” Emphasis on “internal.” The real scientists found out the fake one via their system of peer review.
So, a blow against “scientism,” but in the long run a boost for science.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Indeed, padraig.
August 15th, 2010 | 5:53 pm
If you think that Hauser was determined to show that humans are not unique, then you don’t know his work very well. He even coined a term for human uniqueness, “humaniqueness,” on the assumption that there very likely is such a thing.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
I don’t know his work well in that regard. Thanks John. Does he think that matters morally? But my bigger point was about scientism, which still sticks.
August 15th, 2010 | 7:07 pm
Science, a method of obtaining and applying information vs. “scientism,” a subjective value system/philosophy/quasi-religion.
OK, but what’s the point you’re making? That religion, philosophy and ethics are non-information-based, and therefore subjective? That having faith in the ability of science and reason to solve problems instead of praying to some unseen deity about them, is actually a kind of “religion”? That it’s reasonable to claim that objective data may be obtained through revelation, but that scientific methodology may not be applied to the study of human moral codes and societal behavior patterns without its becoming “subjective” and a “quasi-religion”?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
History Writer: Science can’t solve moral problems. Those who pretend it can, are not doing science, but indeed, undermining it.
August 15th, 2010 | 11:38 pm
You miss the point of Marc’s research completely. He is not trying to find a scientific basis for morality per se — he, along with many excellent researchers like Josh Greene, whose work I recommend highly, has been trying to find a scientific basis for *our intuitions about morality*. Not what should be considered evil by some objective metric, but why it is that humans consider some things and not others evil (or good). I hope you see the difference. The latter research program does not strive to provide a normative solution for what a good system of ethics is — just a descriptive explanation for why we have the systems we do. Of course, knowing why we work the way we do can motivate us to change our moral code, just like knowing that atheists can make perfectly normal moral judgments might make us question if we should really consider it necessary for people to be God-fearing in order to be good. But that is input to our already-existing normative intuitions, not an objective guide to how the intuitions should be structured. Again, I hope the difference is clear.
I don’t actually know any scientist who subscribes to the “scientism” you describe — who really think any form of science can ever provide directly normative answers to any moral issues. I think you might be fighting windmills made of straw men.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 12:29 am
REth: He’s quoted from his own article in Edge. Maybe he misses the point of his own research.
August 16th, 2010 | 3:09 am
Science is the (more or less) well-defined study of the material universe, its laws and processes. It is also almost universally accepted that scientists should only look for material causes for their theories.
Scientism is the belief that science is the best or the only way is gathering knowledge. This implies that any philosophy / religion incompatible with methodological naturalism is wrong, or merely gives subjective knowledge.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 9:57 am
But right and wrong are subjective concepts. Hence, science can’t give those kind of answers.
August 16th, 2010 | 10:33 am
Wesley: The quote from Edge is related to the distinction I was making. Marc believes that science will provide the input to our existing moral-intuition systems, so that we can make better and more informed moral judgments. He does not think that science is going to provide an alternative to our moral-intuition systems. Again, there is a large difference.
August 16th, 2010 | 12:06 pm
Wesley,
I’ve listened to a few Hauser lectures (and read some of his other articles) and I don’t think he’s being fairly represented here. It’s obviously not a deliberate mischaracterization on your part but my feeling is that you came to him with certain expectations and interpreted this quote in that context.
As John points out (and as you have acknowledged), Hauser has been a defender of human uniqueness even while publishing papers which (purportedly) demonstrate the remarkable cognitive capabilities of other primates. His work on morality has largely been descriptive, providing (in REth’s words) “an explanation for why we have the systems we do”.
As to the damning quote about using facts and reason to guide moral action I think a longer excerpt from an earlier article published by Hauser (also from the Edge website) should make its contextual meaning clear:
Science provides a guide as to what we ought to do only in the sense that it makes the fallibility of our moral intuitions clear to us. We are duty bound to examine them with a clear understanding of their biological origins. This is as far as Hauser goes.
Uncovering the biological basis of moral judgements also means that we are capable of affecting peoples sense of “right” and “wrong” by using the tools of science (e.g altering brain chemistry with drugs or magnetic fields – as described in this article). So while this scientific research is unable to tell us what we “ought” to do in a strictly ethical sense it has a great deal to say about how we might get people to behave or think in what we have (for other reasons) come to believe are ethically commendable ways.
And to echo REth once again, I can’t think of a single prominent scientist who may be described as promoting “scientism”. Several science fiction writers, but no scientists. If an assertion is capable of being empirically verified (e.g is the earth warming? are animals capable of using language? does brain chemistry affect ethical behaviour?) then it falls within the domain of the scientific method. If on the other hand it is not susceptible to empirical verification, it falls outside this domain. Stephen Jay Gould spoke of non-overlapping magisteria – the idea that science and religion concern themselves with entirely distinct fields of inquiry and ought not to be in conflict. While this distinction is too neat to accept without criticism (most religions, after all, make empirically falsifiable claims about the real world) there is some truth here. Science is simply incapable of answering some questions. We all acknowledge that.
The problem these days is not too much faith in science but too little. It has become too easy these days to completely dismiss scientific findings which contradict one’s world view or perspective. A claim about the physical world might be supported by hundreds of experiments and endorsed by the vast majority of experts active in the field – all to no avail. People these days are more than likely to privilege their own personal convictions and private shamans. “We believe what we believe. The prophets of scientism are wrong.”
That is what worries me.
[And this whole Hauser debacle further reinforces something I have always sought to emphasize. The scientific consensus is more important than any proclamations made to the press made by a single researcher. If other researchers can't replicate your findings, you're going down in flames. A bad day for Hauser, a good day for science]
August 17th, 2010 | 3:06 am
Wesley: I’d like to clarify that subject a bit.
I believe right and wrong are important subjects which are mainly found by conscience, that little voice in the head that tells you what to do or not to do. People can then create their own versions of how we should react to this nagging voice and what is its origin.
One way is to study how it came about by blind evolution (the naturalistic method). Another way is to study philosophy and try to construe the best kind of moral theory of how human beings should behave. Lastly one can study different religions and world views to understand the basis for good and evil and maybe how conscience relates to human beings.
I put my bet on the last one and believe that there’s an objective moral universe. This means that things that are evil are truly evil, not constrained to a specific culture or time. You can take the Hindu custom of sacrificing babies to goddess Kali, which was abandoned when the British colonized India. Or slavery, which was a profitable business in ancient Rome. Bottom line, in this objective moral universe, things don’t change from good to evil if the surrounding culture changes, precisely because morals are not constructed by the community.
Sure, these things can be hard to understand and find, but that doesn’t prove that they (moral statements) do not exist. I have perfectly good conscience to believe that atoms existed before the 20th century.
August 17th, 2010 | 8:40 pm
[...] Click Here [...]
August 18th, 2010 | 6:39 pm
Wesley: You stated: “But right and wrong are subjective concepts. Hence science can’t give those kind of answers”
Are you saying that morality is determined by the individual, and no one can judge that his moral sysytem is right or wrong?
Or are you merely stating that science, due to its methodology, cannot draw conclusions about the moral sphere?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
The latter.
August 18th, 2010 | 7:03 pm
Thanks.
September 1st, 2010 | 3:00 pm
[...] Chapman, our fearless leader–has brought up a point that I think deserves more attention. In the wake of the Mark Hauser scandal at Harvard–who may have falsified evidence of monkey moral reasoning–Bruce asks two important [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact