Habits
Susan Haack makes a very interesting point in ‘Irreconcilable Differences? The Troubled Marriage of Science and Law. She makes many such points, but one in particular grabbed my attention.
Because of its adversarial character, the legal system tends to draw in as
witnesses scientists who are in a sense marginal – more willing than most of their
colleagues to give an opinion on the basis of less-than-overwhelming evidence;
moreover, the more often he serves as an expert witness, the more unbudgeably
confident a scientist may become in his opinion. An attorney obligated to make
the best possible case for his client will have an incentive to call on those
scientists who are ready to accept an answer to some scientific question as
warranted when others in the field still remain agnostic; and sometimes on
scientists whose involvement in litigation has hardened their initially morecautious
attitudes into unwarranted certainty.
That indicates that good working scientists must form habits of not forming beliefs in general when the evidence is inadequate. Most of us probably don’t form such habits. We’re more used to thinking we’re supposed to choose one way or another. Forming the habit of remaining agnositc when there isn’t enough evidence to decide is quite a good thing. Of course there are some forced choices – but there are also plenty of optional ones.
Yes, but place that attitude in an adversary environment, and you look like a mealy-mouthed shilly-shallier who doesn’t actually know anything, so why should your word carry weight? And look where claiming to know nothing got Socrates…
And look where claiming to know nothing got Socrates…
Dave wins the internet for bringing in the athenian Gadfly.
You are most kind, but I’ve seen the internet, and I don’t want it. Can I take a cash alternative?
How about a two-week holiday in Kidderminster? Will that do?
If you’ll watch my kids I’ll take a 2-week holiday [almost] anywhere…
I beg to differ.
Yes for the sake of knowledge and quality of the debate, scientists should always feel that they don’t *have to*, or even shouldn’t, take positions when the ground is not compelling.
However, it is ultimately scientists’ goal to answer questions, albeit with very tentative answers to very narrow questions. So the fact that scientists should be careful not to venture into uncertain grounds should be no excuse to dismiss that goal.
The way to address this issue is not, I think, with scientists–although a good dose of scepticism is always welcome–but to address their role in courts. They can be summoned in courts to provide a better-informed *opinion*. Taking their words as truth is what is bad. And that’s precisely why, it is often possible for another expert to be called by the other party, in order to prove that the diagnosis/question-at-hand might not be that obvious.
The article as a whole of course does address their role in courts, and the adversarial nature of trials, and so on. I just isolated that one point for the sake of making…that one point.