Reply to comment

I joined this conversation several months ago after discussing with Paul our mutual interests in the role (or lack thereof) of stochasticity in ultimate understandings of natural systems. Recent discussions with this group have lead me to some better understandings of what it is that I know, don't know, and can't know. For instance, could we distinguish a random process as truly random? Well, probably we can't. If the process is nonrandom and we identify some model that approximates that nonrandomness, then we can discard randomness. If we set up randomness as our hypothesis, given modern experimental approaches, we are testing for randomness against the null, which is by definition random. Maybe this is where Godel comes in...there can be true statements in our system, e.g., 'this process is random', which cannot be shown to be true in that system. So there's a potential limitation on science given a formal system, I think. Is there any way around this? Maybe not, and I'm fine with that. This limitation certainly does not mean that this randomness can not be a useful property through which models or theories can be constructed, nor does it mean that science as one means of inquiry is a broken or failed system. I'm optimistic on this point.

Now it seems that the discussion has moved from the above sorts of questions to ones of values. Again, as I stated, ideally science operates without values (consistency, I would argue is a property of scientific inquiry, not a value). Science is a process that makes statements regarding the consistency of observations in the natural world based on evidence. Other disciplines can attach values as to whatever that means, or what implications that might have. And yes, as practitioners, our personal values affect our practice of science. For instance, a value goal for my research is to ask questions of ecological systems without causing the death or increasing the suffering of the organisms involved. Does this value system limit my science? Yes, there would be more efficient means to answer questions if I did not value life and devalue suffering. That said, science doesn't care one way or the other and my research will proceed despite my values complicating (and slowing) the matter. Ethicists, on the other hand, should and do care, and they (along with elected and apponted officials in both government and private sectors) limit just what it is that science can investigate given our evolved social system as Western humans. I'm appreciative and fine with that as well.

So where is the conversation moving? I think that discussing the differences of science with other disciplines is a good and interesting discussion to have as long as it remains constructive. Science offers answers to particular sets of questions and is agnostic to other questions. The same can be said for other fields of inquiry with respect to science. Communication amongst disciplines would certainly go a long way toward understanding what types of approaches are relevent or efficient for addressing particular types of questions, or where cooperation amongst disciplines would be fruitful. As a part of my training in the liberal arts, I have benefitted from looking across disciplinary boundaries and engaging others for the general sake of learning. I realize, though, from recent discussions that my optimism (that specialization and conflict across disciplinary boundaries are good things) is not necessarily shared by all. In fact, there seems to be suspicion amongst disciplines for primacy in some perceived (if not in many respects real) power structure. I don't think this structure is an inherent property of science though, nor any other discipline, but a consequence of what it means to be a human individual vying for position within an evolving social system. Hopefully, the conversation can move beyond this awkward aspect of human nature, and maybe acknowledge where demarcation can be a good thing and something that we can all take advantage of to become better learners and teachers.