Instapundit linked to a fascinating article in Wired Magazine on success, mistakes, and how we pursue the answers to questions that vex us. The author, Jonah Lehrer, did a very good job of telling a couple entertaining stories, beginning with the tale of the two men who won the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics and leading through a series of lengthy research projects conducted by Kevin Dunbar.
Dunbar started by observing four groups of scientists at Stanford University and, when he was done, he had overturned decades of thought about the scientific process and how we sort out what we see in the world. The gist of his experiment came down two small but essential parts of the brain: the part that says “Oh, wow!” when we see something unusual and the part that erases from our memory an “Oh, wow” moment that does not conform to our own worldview. Normally, that’s a good thing. A filter that screens anomalies from our conscious thought helps us to pay attention. Not all that long ago, in fact, most of humanity needed that filter several times a day just to stay alive. However, when those two parts of the brain activate at the same time, we can, quite literally, not see something that just happened right in front of us.
Scientists are as prone to this as anyone. Perhaps they’re more prone to it because, as Dunbar found, they often cling to a specific answer to a question which then casts other answers as anomalies which get filtered out as a mistakes when they may well not be. They are then cloistered among a group of compatriots who tend to think as they think and have the same base of knowledge they have.
This, says Dunbar, is the heart of the problem. The solution is diversity of thought — having someone capable of looking at the problem “from the outside” who is able to see the anomalies that those on the “inside” have deemed mistakes because they have filtered them out.
And isn’t that odd? Those of us who aren’t scientists figured this out a while ago. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve handed a project to someone and asked to look it over because I needed a pair of “fresh eyes” on it. As it happens, the eyes weren’t important but the fresh brain with the differently-calibrated filter. It turns out that though scientists are trained, and very keen, observers, their judgment is as vulnerable to the echo chamber effect as the rest of us. What they often lack is the humility to subject their work to what they may deem to be lesser minds.
Hmmm…I’m suddenly reminded of the CRU Crew over at East Anglia University. Perhaps someone will send them this article (and cc: Al Gore and the Secretary-General of the United Nations).
Go block out a bit of time and read the whole article. I found it incredibly interesting (and useful) and I think you will, too.
Tags: Science
Fascinating phrasing you use; one might come away from your commentary with the impression that there are instances where scientists actually have poorer reasoning process than non-scientists.
Just like anyone else. Which does not make them more prone to error, as you asserted, but only equally prone. The second part of the assertion, that they then speak mainly with people likely to share the same training and biases, is true in any specialized field, whether it’s science, football, or political commentary. A problem worth addressing, in any such case.
That’s another false generalization; some people (whether scientists or not) seek out the benefit of an alternate viewpoint, others don’t. I realize your point is to zing the CRU scientists, in the end, but the implication that common sense would serve them better than scientific education is just misleading. (And condescending.) They’re not victims of their own education, they’re doing science badly. (Starting with the decision that their research didn’t need to be verified independently.)
I don’t disagree with Dunbar, though–in fact, you’ll note that I’m providing an outside viewpoint on this very post, to point out the assumptions and biases that you may not have noticed.
I say “more prone” because a scientist is more likely than the average person to find themselves in an echo chamber. Certainly there are other groups of people as prone to it as scientists — politicians, journalists, and bloggers — but I don’t think it’s unfair to say that scientists are in a higher risk group than the generic “anyone”.
I don’t think I implied that common sense should triumph over scientific education. If I did, I certainly did not mean to. I believe that common sense has to accompany education and when it doesn’t, as in the case of the CRU scientists, it’s because they’ve at least partially bought into the notion that they, by dint of their education, are superior to those with less education. I’m not taking an anti-intellectual position but an anti-elitist one. I should have made that more clear.