9. Science and Superstition

 


Take the egoism claim that selfishness is natural in animals, particularly humans. Is this claim falsifiable, or rather, can this claim be falsified with evidence? Yes! While its almost like the basic assumption about human nature is false, atleast abought nature.

According to JEREMY ADAM SMITH, ALEX DIXON “When we see animals like elephant seals fighting with each other—as we do in lots of nature documentaries—we’re really seeing only a very small sliver of time. Much more of the time they’re accommodating each other and respecting where the boundaries are—and that’s cooperation. There is a tremendous amount of cooperation in nature.”

As concerns humans they said “Most human beings don’t share food that directly—at least not any more—but we do cooperate in plenty of ways, from writing Wikipedia articles to forming lines for the bathroom. Indeed, some research suggests our first instinct is to cooperate, not compete. Still, as is clear to anyone who’s ever been stuck in rush-hour traffic or tried to do some last minute Christmas shopping, human cooperation can break down, sometimes suddenly. To foster cooperative success in human organizations, some scientist-philosophers believe that we should look to nature for inspiration. “Nature nurtures life through communities,” says physicist and best-selling author Fritjof Capra. “This is a process that started with the first single-celled organisms. Life, from its beginning more than three billion years ago, took over the planet by networking, not combat.” To Capra, this calls for cooperative social organization that nurtures networks of communication, encourages sharing and experimentation, and fosters a climate of mutual support. This doesn’t mean that cooperation eliminates conflict. “Cooperation never means the absence of conflict of interest,” notes oceanographer Danny Grunbaum. “It means a set of rules for negotiating conflicts of interest in a way that resolves them.” In the 21st century, argue both Grunbaum and Capra, learning to cooperate is more critical than ever before in human history. “That’s in part because our society is becoming so much more integrated and communication is happening much more quickly all over the world,” says Grunbaum. Grunbaum suggests looking to science as an example of a human community in which cooperation works. “Cooperation in general is a very good strategy in science,” he says. “It’s exceedingly rare for someone to take advantage of you if you chose to share your work in an unguarded way. I’d say that human beings are extraordinarily cooperative, and we’re getting more cooperative all the time.””

This is the result of research that has gone through many layers of verification - The use of empirical data, observation, test, or experiment to confirm the truth or rational justification of a hypothesis. Scientific beliefs must be evaluated and supported by empirical data.

Another example of this claim proven false with evidence is an ever present myth that pervades our thinking despite the fact that it has little to no supporting evidence. It is the myth that cash assistance, or even welfare, to the poor makes them lazy and not willing to work.

This theory seems to have originated in classical economic theory. This theory

“predicts that when governments provide benefits, individuals may decide that they can afford to work less (economists refer to this as the “income effect”). Similarly, if recipients worry about losing eligibility for benefits if they earn more, they may abstain from work. It is this moral hazard that supposedly leads people to remain poor and rely on welfare indefinitely.”

While holding this view was enough to pass Econ 101 “the evidence does not always support this theory.”

In one study of government cash-transfer programs ranging from the Philippines to Morocco to Mexico,

“in most cases, men who received benefits tended to be working already and… there was no evidence that systematic income support reduced work.”

In the Banerjee et al study the researchers found

“no observable effect of the transfers on work outside the household (if anything, while statistically insignificant, the estimated treatment effect is positive). In short, despite much of the rhetoric that cash transfer programs lead to a massive

exodus from the labor market, we do not find overwhelming evidence to support these claims.”

It may be the case that some social programs may reduce work. But isn’t it time to let go of this fantasy of that giving people basic support through direct cash transfers, subsidies, welfare, etc., only makes people lazy? I know it might FEEL like this myth is true, but FACTS DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS!

Anyway the beliefs that people are naturally selfish and the beliefs that giving people money will make them less likely to work of are non-falsifiable beliefs. These beliefs are blatantly unscientific.

Indeed the one of the main features of scientific methodology is verification and falsifiability. An appeal to ignorance is made when we infer from a lack of evidence that something is or is not the case. Although there are times when a lack of evidence should result in a judgment that the original claim is unsupported (as in a criminal court), this is not so in scientific practices.

The following requirements are necessary for a fair test of a causal hypothesis:

1. The prediction should be verifiable

2. The prediction should not be trivial.

3. The prediction should have a logical connection to the hypothesis.

It is important to remember that the application of the scientific method attempts to confirm or refute a hypothesis; however, this process should always be considered partial and tentative. The weight we give to a confirmation or refutation is never all or nothing. We must accumulate evidence over a long time. If we make mistakes, they will be revealed by the results of repeated experiments.

This is why the evidence of racial bias in policing and civilians generally is so compelling. Although police are better trained than civilians, this is a very low bar, basically police are less likely to shoot an unarmed black person than a white college student is likely to shoot an unarmed black person.

(I got this study from the chapter on police bias, by Alex Dixon, in the book Are We Born Racist.)

The findings were stronger for those who reported having had more contact with black people. Black participants had similar responses. Seems like almost anybody will kill black people unprovoked, but police are likely to do it less.

This also sounds like an argument for gun control. This is a good reason why regular, relatively untrained, people don’t need to have such relatively easy access to guns.

As note the existence of implicit racism bias in black people doesn’t mean the systemic racism doesn’t exist, it confirms it. Because while fair arguments can be made as to the mind set of study participants and the empirical data opposing the concept. This study is just one piece of the overwhelming evidence supporting the existence of systemic racism.

For Karl Popper a theory can be said to be empirical, or falsifiable, and thus scientific if it divides the class of all possible basic statements into two categories, or subclasses: first statements inconsistent with theory, or, which the theory rules out and statements which the theory permits, statements that do not contradict the theory. Essentially a theory is falsifiable if the class of potential falsifiers is not empty. The nature of black and white supremacists cannot allow for the existence of potential falsifiers, thus almost everything they say can be deemed unscientific.

As another note black people have had anti-black biases since slavery when white supremacists tried and failed to implant concepts of inferiority in them. While that system largely failed, years of being one of America’s subalterns has left a mark of mistrust among black people.

 

If something is UNFASIFIABLE then it is, mostly likely, unscientific.

Just because something is not scientific doesn’t mean that it is not useful. Religious and Spiritual beliefs are non-falsifiable but an argument can be made that, depending on the belief, that some non-falsifiable beliefs are fine, so long as they are not harmful. Believing that people are selfish and giving poor people money for good is bad, or believing that you god wants you to murder people are all horrible things to believe.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts