Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this week’s SDA distinguished lecture, documentary & interview symposium. This week, for your delectation, here from the Science Futures series by the San Diego Science and Technology Council’s Center for Ethics in Science and Technology, and UCSD-TV, is Baroness Onora O’Neill, Principal of Newnham College at the University of Cambridge, presenting her Why Doesn’t the Public Trust Scientists? ¤ lecture, in 2005 (58:32).
I should like to note that while “Scientists” are the exemplary referent matter in today’s lecture, Baroness O’Neill’s considerations (for example, that one can’t replace trust with trustworthiness [quis custodiet ipsos custodes?], statutory regulation, post hoc accountability, &c) apply more broadly to the matter of the public trust of any and every public profession and institution, including politics and the law.
” Why doesn’t the Public trust Scientists”
Perhaps the “Red light” is the first cue.
Good Science only exists between the peer Group.. The Public actually trusts the results of science, delivered technology…It’s the whore who goes outside the peer group with a political agendas selling BAD/JUNK Science..
How many Scientists have a closed mind?
Yes, fine, Phillip, yet the point of the video, as you will no doubt know, having watched it, is the question of how we go about solving the problem of the lack of trust in public professions and institutions, not so much the question of why the problem exists per se; the title of the lecture being a rhetorical device via which the topic may be appropriately introduced. And your advice would be?
But Vit I thought the purpose of ‘science’ was to engender a lack of trust. After all if all was settled wouldn’t we all be worried about falling off the edge of the earth? Whenever I hear ‘the science is settled’ I start to look for alternative sources of information. Let’s be honest here; science is but human observation attached to human logic both of which are extremely limited in scope. As the reformed Saul of Tarsus said, “We see through a glass darkly” and thus we know only in part.
In other words when ‘science’ admits that it is in large part supposition and speculation I will begin to trust it more. At least then it will true to its own understanding.
I don’t think, Joe, that the purpose of science is to engender a lack of trust, I think that the purpose of science is to pursue the empirical aspect of epistemology. Yet, look, if I say to you that I performed some experiment and observed some result, and that is not true, then I have lied to you, and you cannot trust me. The question that I think that Onora is trying to get our heads around is: how do we, as a matter of public policy, address questions where the matter of trust (in particular in experts, and not just in those scientific) is significantly important?
When I worked there were researchers you could trust. There were not an awful lot of those. Peer review is hit or miss as it does the methodology and not the results. There were institutions that you could attach no credibility to. They were degree mills or self serving government establishments. Replication of data is the only way to establish trust. Once data hits the management levels it is suspect. Global warming being a prime example. During a literature search on one project I noticed the name of our Dept. Head. I asked him about it and he stated the researcher was ‘a piece of work.’ I replied that it had his name on it. Even Suzuki no longer refers to himself as a scientist. He accurately calls himself a journalist.
Where I worked the work had to meet a validation criteria that was internationally rigourous. Any organization that followed the protocol was to get the same results with the same degree of confidence.
But what about if they lied about following the protocol, Speedy? I mean, I don’t want to put too fine a point on it, but I didn’t wade though dozens of silly academic lectures to fish out this non-silly one and then not have the point be taken. You can trust, I can trust, he can trust, she can trust; the question remains: how can we trust? Or can we? And if we can’t, what does that mean?
An excellent lecture, Vitruvius. Her insights on “producer capture” and transparency are spot on. I fear, however, that intelligent forms of accountability are now societally unobtainable, in part due to cultural fragmentation, but more particularly because of societal degeneration.
Isn’t the societal degeneration argument a bit of a cop-out, though, Tenebris? If we are to continue to work towards the only things we have ever worked for that have ever been of any value, that is to say: making our lives better and trying to fix the left-over effects from the mistakes we made the last time we worked on trying to make our lives better, then doesn’t it remain incumbent upon us to relentlessly pursue the optimistic tack on the future? Because if not, then what have we got left? Desperation? Depression? Seems a poor pudding to me. Might as well keep on trying, I say. What has one got to lose?
Trust versus trustworthiness. The first comes from me, the second comes from you..so to speak. How do we get the two, me and you, together? And should we do so?
I’d say it’s a basic Godel’s framework, with Trust as the Formal Universal, and Trustworthiness as the particular expression of this Universal Form. Therefore – heh- the two should always have a certain gap..not too large and not too small…between them.
With regard to science, I have to trust prior knowledge. As Aristotle said, ‘all knowledge proceeds by pre-existent knowledge’; we can’t invent fire every morning.
With regard to that knowledge, I also have to trust that the scientist, who operates both empirically and hypothetically, has the methodology to carry out the first and the reasoning capacity to create the second. And, I have to trust that others will use several modes of accountability on this same scientific endeavour – from client-centred, to professional to regulatory etc. That means that when I get into my car, I am reasonably secure that it will behave as a car..and not a ..whatever.
With regard to the political world, there it gets interesting. Obama, for example,insists that you trust him; that’s why he’s devalued Congress to irrelevance and sneers at The People. Is he trustworthy? No…and why not? Because he insists that he, a particular man, represents The Universal Man/God…and such hubris tells me that he isn’t acknowledging his particular reality, and so, he is untrustworthy.
With regard to the security of a nation against politicians who merge trust and trustworthiness, I think that a referential document which defines the specific nature of the Trust (Form) of, eg, the nature of the United States as a nation, is required. That is – the Constitution. Then, you need an apolitical group (not professional, not regulatory), the Supreme Court, to constantly measure the particular laws against this Constitution to see if they are ‘trustworthy’.
But above all, trust and trustworthiness are two different realities…and we have to keep them separate yet entangled.
Sure, ET, yet the point remains, you can say I and I can say I; still at the end of this exercise a we will come out of it, independent of your tangled realities argument. Godel doesn’t enter into it, because it is not a formalism. And so the question remains, as a matter of public policy, as Baroness O’Neill went to some trouble to attempt to explain, how do we decide matters of public trust, net net; and never mind President Obama, he’s just another politician, the likes of which you very well know come and go in the history of philosophy.
I wonder, though, why no one has commented yet on Onora’s actual recommendations to the matter at hand? Certainly I could have, yet that would have been a bit of giving away the plot, don’t you think? Ah well, perhaps people just aren’t interested in her input, preferring instead their own thoughts.
I’ll stand by my Godel’s simile, vitruvius. At least for me, it made the argument intelligible – that conflict between the unreachability of Pure Trust (Formal) and the actuality of trustworthiness.
And that’s why I consider that even her suggestions of ‘intelligent accountability’, with its ‘informed judgment’ (i.e., the Supreme Court), acting apart from the Professional Review(Congress) and yet including the ‘layman’ of the independents (the people)…along with ‘intelligible communication’.. won’t bring the two realms together. That is, in politics, there should always remain, a ‘healthy scepticism’ and my trust shouldn’t merge with your trustworthiness.
With regard to science, certainly, moving its developments out of the realm of the professionals (self-defined, for example, the IPCC gang of AGW crooks); and out of the realm of the consumerism of money-to-be-made in cap and trade; and out of the realm even of regulatory accountability which throttles genuine science because it disables deviation….well, I agree with her suggestions.
We all know of new scientific theories (ahem, mine?) that are throttled by the hardcore fiefdoms of established ‘science’..which has grown complacent and unexploratory in its certainties. We know how difficult it can be to get funding because of the regulatory straightjackets that emerge around the Dogma..which may protect it as Dogma but disable it as Science.
But, I, being cynical, don’t think that any ‘new system’ – even if you call it ‘intelligent accountability’ can override the psychological nature of man. This nature is the root cause of such defensive, turf-saving strategies as ‘professional accountability’ and ‘regulatory accountability’…and certainly, consumer accountability. There’s no way to remove these realms, which are really psychological rather than intellectual…from human behaviour.
At least..that’s what I think. Even if it is Sunday. I lack faith, alas.
I won’t have an opportunity to watch the video for a few hours yet, but did the Baroness suggest, as a solution, the open sharing of all data, and all methodology, of experiments and studues to the general public?
The reluctance of a particular group of scientists studying a certain phenomena to do just that certainly strains my trust…
RL- in many cases, the open sharing of all methodology and data means that the product can’t be moved into the consumer’s realm. How many of us really know the secret ingredients in KFC’s chicken? If we all knew it, could it compete on the market?
Or what about that particular drug that took ten years and millions to develop? Is any rational lab going to release the whole thing, so that any backroom Chinese (my deep apologies to the politically correct) factory can market it for 1/100th of the price of the original?
Which group’s product, by the way, do I trust?
How about bomb manufacturing secrets?
Does knowing the agenda of the scientific company serve to instill trust? I am going to presume that if the company has any concept of self-sustainability, then, it will want, and will have to, market the product. The Left calls such an endeavour ‘greed’ which shows their ignorance of the relationship between Input (work, money, mind) and Output (that drug, medical cure and sports car). So, their trustworthiness might come from the viablity of the product on the market. That is, they’ll base the validity of their efforts on Natural Selection (of the market place).
I still don’t think that there is any direct relation between Trust (which comes from me) and Trustworthiness (in that marvellous new product that will produce miracles). And there is no consistent way to link the two.
RL – O’Neil commented specifically on the “open sharing” approach, noting that transparency trivializes one’s view of communication. Furthermore, transparency is regulatory, and imposes its own cost on the enterprise, and may not be of net benefit.
I certainly agree that societal degeneration is no reason for shirking personal effort, Vitruvius. Much the contrary. It does, however, determine one’s strategic approach. That being said, such is so easy to misapprehend, being the perennial failing of the nominal conservative – fighting the rearguard action, rather than attacking on the flank.
Extrapolating from my perspective:
In order for me to trust an expert, I must know that there are sufficiently undesirable consequences for the expert should he/she NOT be trustworthy. IF they lie or speak beyond their knowledge/expertise, then I must be convinced that there is a good chance they WILL be caught AND reprimanded.
This suggests the need for independent monitoring of experts…not every utterance of experts, but a sufficient percentage of the utterances so as to convince me that someone is holding them to account.
The question that arises from THAT, of course, is how can I trust the monitors? I would say by my seeing the results of their monitoring…with sufficient percentage of their reports being negative toward certain utterances.
With Doctors and Engineers, they are self-monitoring. The Engineering journal lists the results of investigations into questionable actions on the part of Engineers…and a sufficient percentage of the reporting is negative and the consequences are sufficient bad. Seeing this, I have trust that SOMEONE is minding the henhouse and it isn’t a fox. HOWEVER, I know that the investigations are only launched AFTER there is a complaint…they are reactive, not proactive. So my trust is not complete.
Doctors self-regulate, but I know from personal experience that they “cover for one another” or, to put it another way, that there ARE foxes guarding the henhouse. I do NOT trust Doctors.
Public servants are held to account by politicians and politicians are held to account by the media, but since I KNOW that the media is biased and I know that politicians have lied without consequence and I know how the public service actually works (I was a public servant once), then I know that I cannot trust the government OR the media.
There must be rules, there must be oversight / adjudication and there must be consequences.
David Thompson’s blog has a nice discussion and analysis of ‘faith’, including both religious and scientific faith. I think this ties in nicely with ‘trust’.
August 17, 2009, ‘The Testing of Assertions’.
Testing of Assertions
If you don’t trust government or the media, Eeyore, and you know that professionals cover for themselves and their institutions, then in cases where a degree of competent knowledge is required for understanding, and one is interested in more than ET’s faith-based approach, who is going to provide the oversight and adjudication you require, and how? Baroness O’Neill proposes a potential solution to this problem; do you think her approach is a good one, or do you think, perhaps, that the problem is fundamentally intractable?
You see, folks, the question here isn’t about your trust or my trust, the question is the matter of public trust: what structures, systems, and methodologies can we use to facilitate same, as a matter of public policy in our society, and how do we operate and maintain them in practice? And what do we do when the entire mechanism fails, what happens when ET’s court of last resort is corrupt? Pitchforks and torches? Prayer? Because if that’s all we’ve got, upon fundamental principle, then perhaps we aren’t giving sufficient credence to just how well our existing efforts are actually doing ~ our pessimism overriding our appreciation, as it were ~ our unearned political fears overriding our earned quality of life.
vitruvius – I think the problem is, using your words, ‘intractable’.
The pope, as you know, argued for two strategies in dealing with knowledge/information: faith and reason. Both have their strengths and frailties, and there is no certain ‘third’ tactic that we fallible humans have, of overcoming these frailties.
Other than ‘humility’ and acceptance that we are fallible, and thus, must keep an open mind and insist, always, on the use of both evidence and reason.
I mean, you are asking, if I understand you, whether there is any method by which we can be absolutely certain of the ultimate Truth of any idea/hypothesis/situation..etc. I don’t think that such a state of Purity exists. Or even should exist. All we can do is constantly acknowledge that ‘we might be right AND we might be wrong’..and we’ve got to test our assumptions.
At the same time, we are in a conundrum; we can’t test our life-basics every day; we must have some stability, even if it’s a false stability. So, we are flawed because of this need..and can only acknowledge it, and, as the First Amendment states, insist on free speech..and free thought and analysis.
If the problem is fundamentally intractable, ET, then aren’t we, Canada, as a society, doing quite a good job of approximating a reasonable solution in practice (we do use some of Onora’s recommended techniques), and if so, then why are so many people, male and female, young and old, black and white, left and right, constantly harping on and on about how bad a job we are doing? Or are they? Maybe it’s just a media/blog thing that isn’t particularly connected to reality; maybe the effusive complainers are just the small subset who are too rich, bored, and noisy.
What we are discussing here is not science but rather Scientism the religion of science. Those who invest heavily in Scientism wish for some mechanism where they can speak ex cathedra. Science by its very definition says that there can never be an ex cathedra because we can never fully know.
The question is neither science nor scientism, the question is the matter of the theory of trust in the public policy sense. So, Joe, given that we can never fully know: we remain forever saddled (in practice) with the question of what we do in the interim (that is, assuming one has been born and has not yet died). Perhaps the answer is that what we are doing now is about as good as it gets, and should be celebrated as such, pace those who would exclaim otherwise.
Well Vit I am convinced the discussion here hinges on whose ox is being gored. If I as a Christian were to proclaim ‘evident truth’ before which all society must conform you would be the first to yelp. So it is with science. No society should conform to Scientism simply because some scientist proclaims it thus. We all ‘know in part’ and as time moves on so does our understandings.
As I said in my first posting on this subject; science by fiat would have left us believing that the world was flat and the entire universe revolved around it. Science itself moved on as new discoveries were made.
However as in any human endeavour we must be wary lest we be deceived by the lying lips of those whose sole ambition is the betterment of mankind.
I agree, Joe, that neither science-ism nor god-ism should be trusted from a public policy perspective. It took science to teach the church that the sun does not orbit the earth, and as ET mentioned supra, Benedict XVI has noted that:
Still the question remains: what can we do, if anything, to improve our current public policies on the matter of public trust, to the degree necessary, and other than just endlessly complaining about personal, not public, perspectives? Mill’s justified placement of limitations on Bentham’s approach does not obviate the importance of addressing those aspects of utility that remain societally worthwhile. So though we may agree with the notion of trust but verify, from a procedural public- policy perspective the question remains: how?
That’s why Baroness O’Neill’s lecture is so notable: because
she addresses the how in a calm, reasonable, rational fashion.