What exactly is science? And it sounds like such
a basic question, right? Yeah, something we all
think we know. Exactly. But when you actually
try to pin it down, you find philosophers have
been puzzling over this for, well, ages. And
the traditional definitions, they often seem
to fall a bit short, don't they? They really
do. It's surprisingly slippery. So today, we're
taking a deep dive into a really thought -provoking
perspective on this. We're looking at Lee McIntyre's
book, The Scientific Attitude. Defending science
from denial, fraud, and pseudoscience. Yeah,
and specifically Gary Ackerman's review of it.
Right, which gives us a great lens. Absolutely.
And our mission here, really, is to unpack McIntyre's
approach. It's quite fresh. How so? Well, he
shifts the focus. Instead of just listing you
know, strict methods. Like the scientific method
we learned in school. Kind of, yeah. Instead
of that, he encourages us to think about science
as more of a fundamental mindset. An attitude.
An attitude. Okay. And this change, it seems
subtle, but it actually makes scientific thinking
feel, well, much more accessible. Accessible
how? It reveals why it's so important for navigating,
you know, this world just full of information.
And let's face it, a lot of misinformation, too.
So we'll look at why this scientific attitude
is vital for pretty much everyone, whether you're
deep in research or just, you know, trying to
make better decisions day to day. OK, let's get
into that challenge then. Defining science. Philosophers
often call it the demarcation problem. That's
the one. Yeah. How do you draw that clear line?
This is science. This isn't. And McIntyre's book,
Ackerman points this out, really highlights these
struggles. Things like pinning down one single
scientific method. Right. Because methods vary
so much across different sciences. Physics versus
biology versus social science. Exactly. Or even
debates around ideas like falsification. Popper's
idea, yeah. Yeah. That a claim has to be potentially
provable false. But even that runs into issues
when you try to apply it universally, doesn't
it? It does. It's proven really difficult to
get to the absolute root of of science using
these traditional approaches. So this really
important human thing trying to understand the
world. Yeah, this relentless pursuit. It seems
to defy a simple definition based on method alone.
It really does. It's like trying to define, I
don't know. art just by the type of paint used,
it misses the bigger picture. OK. And that difficulty
really sets the stage perfectly for McIntyre's
solution, his shift in focus. Right, the shift
to attitudes away from just methods. Exactly.
Now I can imagine some people hearing attitude
and thinking, hmm, isn't that a bit vague, less
rigorous than a checklist of methods? Yeah, a
bit ineffable, perhaps. Yeah, precisely. How
does he counter that? because attitude can feel
subjective. That's a really fair point, and it's
where his argument gets interesting for those
of us who, you know, really value science and
evidence. Which is crucial now more than ever.
Absolutely. Especially when we're tackling these
huge complex problems, scientific, technological,
social, political. For us, this shift is actually
an improvement because framing science around
an attitude makes it, well, much more approachable.
How so? It makes it less intimidating. Exactly.
It takes it out of just the lab coat stereotype.
It becomes a way of thinking, a way of engaging
with reality that anyone can actually cultivate.
I see. So it's about democratizing that way of
thinking. In a sense, yes. And that accessibility
is what we desperately need right now. It helps
demystify science, invites more people into that
process of critical thinking. OK. So if it is
an attitude, what does it actually look like?
That's the core of it. Does McIntyre spell it
out? Oh, he does, very clearly. There's a quote
from the book that really nails it. Let's hear
it. He says, to do science, we must be willing
to embrace a mindset that our prior beliefs,
ideologies, and wishes do not matter in deciding
what can pass the test for comparison to evidence.
Wow. Okay, do not matter. That's strong. It is
strong. Setting aside prior beliefs, ideologies,
even wishes. That sounds incredibly hard in practice.
We're all biased, aren't we? We are, deeply,
and that's why it's such a powerful concept.
So what does that really mean, day -to -day?
How does that manifest? Well, what McIntyre is
getting at is this idea of intellectual humility.
Radical honesty, almost. Okay. It's the willingness,
the act of willingness, mind you, to change your
mind, to change your conclusions, and even your
actions, when the evidence demands it. Regardless
of where you started. Regardless of where you
started, what you believed before, what you wanted
to be true, it's about letting the evidence lead.
Period. That's your ego, not your comfort zone.
Precisely. Prioritizing truth over ego. Which,
yeah, is a huge challenge for all of us. Scientists
included. OK, so this framework, this scientific
attitude, how does it actually play out in the
real world with all its messiness? Can we see
examples? Yes, definitely. And McIntyre uses
this framework to analyze real cases, which makes
it really concrete. OK, give us an example of
success. Right. On the positive side, think about
the modernization of medicine. OK. For centuries,
medical practice was often based on, well, tradition.
Anecdote. Sometimes pure superstition. Leashes
and things. Things like that, yeah. Doctors used
treatments based on what they thought worked,
or what Galen said centuries ago, without really
testing systematically. But then practitioners
started adopting the scientific attitude. They
started grounding decisions in empirical evidence.
Doing trials. Comparing results. Exactly. And
crucially, being willing to say, huh. This old
way doesn't actually work as well as this new
way the evidence points to. So letting go of
dogma. Letting go of dogma, embracing the data.
That shift dramatically improved health care.
It was driven by that attitude. That makes sense.
So what about the flip side? Where does it go
wrong when that attitude is missing? Well, that's
where you get the cautionary tales, the real
disasters, frankly. Like what? McIntyre talks
about the cold fusion fiasco in the late 80s.
Oh, I remember that. Big headlines. Huge headlines.
Scientists claimed nuclear fusion at room temperature.
But they seemed to abandon the rigorous demands
of evidence, couldn't replicate reliably, didn't
hold up to scrutiny. And the result? Ruined careers.
Damaged credibility. A lot of wasted effort.
They let the wish, perhaps, override the evidence.
OK. What else? Then there's the Andrew Wakefield
case. the retracted vaccine articles. A really
damaging one. Extremely damaging. I mean, that's
a situation where evidence seems to have been
not just ignored, but actively distorted. Maybe
even some argue fabricated. To fit a conclusion
he already had. It certainly looks that way.
And the result was, and still is, devastating
public health consequences. Vaccine hesitancy
fueled by that. It's still fighting that battle
today. We are. And in both these cases, cold
fusion, Wakefield -McIntyre's framework helps
explain why things went wrong. It was the absence
of that core scientific attitude, that willingness
to bow to evidence. When that's missing. Things
go off the rails. Predictably so, according to
this view. It's chilling, actually, how well
the framework fits these failures. Yeah. But
OK, back to that potential criticism. If it's
just an attitude, isn't it still subjective?
How do we stop anyone from just saying, oh, I
have the scientific attitude while pushing? You
know, nonsense. Right, the pseudo -scientist
claiming openness. That's a key question. And
McIntyre addresses it. It's not just a personal
attitude floating free. OK. He emphasizes two
other critical parts. First, the community of
scientists. We review that kind of thing. Exactly.
The practices, the scrutiny, the replication
attempts, the arguments within the community,
that whole social structure acts as a vital check
and balance. It's not just one person's subjective
feeling. Got it. And the second part. He talks
about warrant. The idea that evidence, or even
a new idea, has to deserve serious consideration.
Meaning, it can't just be anything. It needs
some basic level of credibility, some logical
coherence, some preliminary evidence, maybe,
to even warrant the scientific community spending
time on it. Ah, so it filters out the really
outlandish claims that lack any grounding. Precisely.
It helps differentiate real scientific inquiry
from, say, denialism or conspiracy theories that
might mimic the language of openness, but lack
that fundamental warrant. Their ideas often just
don't hold up to basic scrutiny. That makes sense.
It's attitude plus community plus warrant. It's
sort of a three -legged stool, yeah. Now, the
review by Ackerman also mentioned something else
that's often overlooked, the role of theory.
Why is theory so important here? Ah, yes. Theories
are fundamental. They're not just guesses. They're
the frameworks we use to explain why the world
works the way it does. They shape what we look
for. Exactly. They guide the questions we ask,
the observations we make. Without a theory, data
is often just... Noise, you wouldn't know how
to interpret it. So theories provide the why.
They have to provide explanations, yes. That's
a key part of what makes a theory scientific.
But here's the connection to the attitude. The
scientific attitude demands that even our most
cherished theories are still held provisionally.
They must be open to revision or even rejection
if enough contrary evidence piles up. So no theory
is sacred. In science, no theory should be sacred.
The danger isn't having theories. We need them.
The danger is becoming so attached to a theory
that you start ignoring or explaining away evidence
that doesn't fit. Building that fortress, as
you said. Exactly. Instead of following the evidence,
it's that constant back and forth between theory
and evidence, driven by the willingness to change
the attitude that pushes science forward. OK,
this is all fascinating for understanding science
itself. Yeah. But what does it mean for, you
know, the rest of us? outside the lab. How does
this apply? Well, that's maybe the most powerful
part of McIntyre's idea. It has huge relevance
beyond formal science. How so? The review uses
education as a great example. Think about it.
Data and evidence -based practice are huge buzzwords
in education now, right? Everywhere. But, as
Ackerman points out, many educators come from
intellectual backgrounds that aren't traditionally
scientific. Humanity is arts. Right. So they
might struggle with how evidence should genuinely
change what they do in the classroom. It's not
always clear how to weigh it or how much to let
it override, say, intuition or tradition. They
might hear about a new method, it sounds good,
maybe it's popular. Right. Or it feels right.
But maybe they don't rigorously test if it actually
works better than what they were doing before.
Or they aren't truly willing to ditch it if the
data says it's not effective for their students.
So the attitude isn't always there, even if the
language of evidence is. That's the idea. It's
not necessarily a lack of value for evidence,
but maybe a lack of clarity on how to let it
genuinely guide decisions, especially when it
clashes with prior beliefs or established ways.
I see. And McIntyre's focus on the attitude provides,
as the review says, a much more approachable
entry for people in fields like education or
really any field to think about how they use
evidence. It makes it less about complex statistics
and more about a mindset of inquiry and flexibility.
Precisely. It helps us all understand and maybe
even emulate that core scientific way of thinking,
whether we're designing a lesson plan, evaluating
a news report, or making a personal health choice.
That really broadens the scope. It's not just
for scientists. It's a way of thinking for everyone
dealing with information. That's the core message,
I think. So to recap briefly, McIntyre's scientific
attitude shifts the focus from just methods to
a fundamental mindset. A mindset that prioritizes
evidence over what we believe, wish, or assume.
That core willingness to change our minds based
on what the world actually tells us through evidence.
Powerful stuff. Indeed. And maybe that leads
to a final thought for you listening out there.
Go for it. If this scientific attitude really
demands that we're ready to change our conclusions
when evidence points that way, think about it.
What cherished belief, what widely accepted idea,
maybe in your field or just in your own life,
what might you need to reexamine if new, compelling
evidence came along? How could actually embracing
this mindset, this willingness to be wrong, essentially,
how could that change how you approach information,
how you make decisions day to day? A challenging
question to end on. Something to mull over.