Things I don't understand >

Science • Webcomics > Zombie Science

Zombie Science

Science, Webcomics May 2nd, 2009

No, this isn’t the “science of zombies”.

The following is taken from a wonderful essay [PDF] by Bruce Charlton on the real problems of publically funded science, and how scientific consensuses can kill real progress in any number of scientific disciplines.

The summary kicks off with this:

Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice.

In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status.

The classic account has it that bogus theories should readily be demolished by sceptical (or jealous) competitor scientists. However, in practice even the most conclusive ‘hatchet jobs’ may fail to kill, or even weaken, phoney hypotheses when they are backed-up with sufficient economic muscle in the form of lavish and sustained funding. And when a branch of science based on phoney theories serves a useful but non-scientific purpose, it may be kept-going indefinitely by continuous transfusions of cash from those whose interests it serves. If this happens, real science expires and a ‘zombie science’ evolves.

Now this is from an editor primarily focussed on medical science, but as far as I can see, there are no branches of the scientific enterprise where these phenomena do not happen.

How do bogus theories survive?

While it is simply human nature to respond to
immediate incentives, this phenomenon does imply
that theories may become popular or even dominant
purely because of their association with
immediate incentives – and despite their scientific
weaknesses.

In terms of the classical theory of science; bogus
theories should be readily demolished by sceptical
(or jealous) competitor scientists, who will denounce
the weaknesses of merely-fashionable theories
in conferences and in print. However, in
practice it seems that even the most conclusive
‘hatchet jobs’ done on phoney theories will fail
to kill, or even weaken, them when the phoney
theories are backed-up with sufficient economic
muscle in the form of funding. Scientists will – at
the margin – gravitate to where the money is;
and the paraphernalia of specialist conferences
(to present results at) journals (to publish in) and
academic jobs (to work in) will follow as day follows
night; so long as the funding stream is sufficiently
deep and sustained.

Classical theory has it that a bogus hypothesis
will be rejected when it fails to predict ‘reality’
as determined by controlled observations and
experiments. But such a catastrophe can be deferred
almost indefinitely by the elaboration of
secondary hypotheses to explain why not fitting
the facts is not – after all – fatal to the theory;
but instead merely implies the need for a more
complex theory – which then requires further testing
(and generates more work for the bogus
believers).

Furthermore, since the new version of the bogus
theory, with its many auxiliary secondary hypotheses,
is so complex – this complexity makes it that
much harder to test: further putting-off the time
when the bogus theory needs to be abandoned.

(Meanwhile, a much simpler rival theory – i.e.
that the first theory is phoney, and always was phoney,
and this is why it so singularly fails to predict
reality – is regarded as simplistic, crass, merely a
sign of lack of sophistication . . .)

And anyway, there are massive ‘sunk costs’ associated
with the phoney theory including the reputations
of numerous scientists who are now
successful and powerful on the back of the phoney
theory, and who by-now control the peer review
process (including allocation of grants, publications
and jobs) so there is a powerful disincentive
against upsetting the apple cart.

Apparently the fun and games now being experienced in climate science are part of a much wider malaise. Scientists are clearly incentivized by economic signals such as grants to support hypotheses that should, in the normal run of events, die for want of experimental confirmation.

So, zombie science is not useable by applied science.
What, then, is its function? In a nutshell,
zombie science is supported because it is useful
propaganda. Zombie science is deployed in arenas
such as political rhetoric, public administration,
management, public relations, marketing and the
mass media generally. It persuades, it constructs
taboos, it buttresses some kind of rhetorical attempt
to shape mass opinion.

Indeed, zombie science often comes across in
the mass media as being more plausible than real
science; and it is precisely the superficial faceplausibility
which in actuality is the sole and sufficient
purpose of zombie science.

So it looks and feels just like science, and more popular than real science because it gets favoured by the mainstream media, and hence gets more attention by funding agencies.

Zombie science can be seen as the ultimate consequence
of the practice of scientists evaluating theories
in terms of their propensity to enhance
scientific careers in the short- to medium-term –
when this propensity is unconstrained by the
imperative to use science in applied technology.
Immediate personal careerist benefits seem easily
able to overwhelm the more theoretical and abstract
scientific benefits of trying to establish and
adhere to the ‘real world’ truth.

There’s much more to chew on in the paper, but I’ve whetted your appetite so bon appetit

Tags: zombiescience, charlton