A note on consensus and authority

My blog’s resident atheistic and scientistic ideologue will undoubtedly denounce me for my alleged hostility to science because I’ve posted links to the following two articles.  Each article questions scientific authority and dissents from powerful consensuses.  However, I doubt that I’m any more hostile to science than either of the articles’ authors is:

“First stars spell trouble for dark matter”

“Seeking the Truth When the Consensus Is against You: You should always listen to the experts—except when you shouldn’t”

***

A little item from my notes:

Evolution can come to resemble a faith as much as a scientific theory based on empirical data.  The editorial board of one science journal rejected a submission from biochemist Michael Behe (Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania) of Lehigh University, explaining its rejection as follows:

As you no doubt know, our journal has supported and demonstrated a strong evolutionary position from the very beginning, and believes that evolutionary explanations of all structures and phenomena of life are possible and inevitable.[1]

[1] Cited by John G. West and Jonathan Witt, “Institute: When anti-ID vitriol prevails, scientific debate loses,” Science and Theology News 5/4 (December 2004): 31.

I have no objection at all to belief in evolution.  Despite the insistence of some, even very recently, that I’m a young-earth creationist no matter how consistently and how often I deny it, I don’t, in fact, believe that our planet was created roughly six thousand years ago, and I don’t believe that cavemen once co-existed with dinosaurs.

What strikes me about the rejection cited above, however, is its unashamed avowal of faith in explanations that are yet to be found.  Such faith surely clashes with oft-heard claims that one is restricting oneself purely to objective evidence and proven facts.  (“Just the facts, ma’am.”)  A precommittment like this seems to me notably similar to trust in a “God of the gaps.”  For some, the attitude seems to approach a “naturalism of the gaps.”

If Dr. Behe’s article was found scientifically wanting, fine.  But if it merely failed an ideological litmus test, I’m much less impressed.

We non-scientists are pretty much compelled to rely on authorities for what we know about the various scientific disciplines and the current states of various issues.  But, in fact, many issues are still under vigorous debate — as they should be.  And many issues are not yet settled.  And that fact should be recognized.

Moreover, reliance on authority is, in many important regards, antithetical to science and to scientific progress.  Even among scientists, though, authority is important.  The typical plant physiologist needs to depend upon quantum physicists for what she knows about that subject.  Oceanographers simply don’t have the time or the energy or the money to rediscover all of the basic principles of ichthyology for themselves.  In fact, specialists on oceanic vulcanology lack the time, energy, and money even to reinvent the findings of other closely related sub-disciplines.  They typically take them on trust, and reasonably so.

We all depend upon authority in most areas of our lives.  In history and other disciplines, and in reading instruction manuals, no less than in science  Inevitably.  Inescapably.  But we should recognize that fact and we should acknowledge its risks.

Posted from Park City, Utah