joi, iulie 9, 2020

A concept of fake science and methodological criteria

Although the objective knowledge is always used for something else, the value of the objectivity is not relative to the peculiar interests of people. The long term authority of science is related to the extent science sticks to reality, to the continuous effort of scientists to describe the reality. The value of objectivity reflects the general interest of society for stability, resilience and adaptive capacity to a changing reality of the natural, economic, social and cultural environment. It is of huge interest to clearly delineate what is objective science, and what is not. To do this is part of the mission of academic organisations, where the objective knowledge is produced and reproduced. Defending objectivity does not mean despising the interests of the people and of the groups. On the contrary, it means honestly serving these interests as a scientist, or as philosopher, by delivering a good quality product, objective knowledge. In this text we will introduce a concept of fake science and will show its relevance for problems on the public agenda.

We define fake science based on the criteria of methodology of production and ideological influence on the production of the scientific cultural objects as follows:

  • fake science is a cultural product presented as science which is at the same time methodologically problematic and ideologically driven (table 1, up-right square).

The evaluation of science is done at the level of a single cultural product (primary article, secondary article – review or tertiary source book or chapter). The overall evaluation of a project, program, school of thought, field of knowledge, whole discipline is the results of aggregation from individual cultural products. Thus, in our view there is no way to describe for instance gender studies as fake science without an analytical investigation of all publications in this field.

Table 1 Matrix for the identification of fake science, with several potential examples (reasonable hypothesis about fake science cases).

A Methodologically sound science

yes No
B Ideologically driven science yes

Research agenda driven by ideological motivations or by public policies

  • Sustainability theory with reductionism to physics. Models should be useful for public goals.
  • Descriptive study of the cultural gender processes (sound gender science)
Fake science

Fake models of man:

  • God and soul as explanatory variables in physiology (Nicolae Paulescu)
  • Lysenkoism, darwinism without genetics, “matter” and “internal contradictions” as explanatory variables / processes in biology and ecology.
  • Post-normal (transformative) versions of sustainability theory
  • Normative gender studies (fake gender science).
No Pure” science,

Research agenda driven by sake of knowledge

Models constrained only by internal (normative) epistemic constraints, elegance, etc

Pseudo-science

naïve pseudo-scientific models of man

Methodology (A in table 1) is evaluated based on the following criteria:

  • Regional ontology criteria. The variables and processes in need for explanation or used for explanation are those characteristic to that field of knowledge. Characteristic means generally accepted as legitimate by scientists working in the field. For instance physics cannot use as explanatory variable intentions, biology cannot deal with economical process, and so on.
  • Regional data production criteria. The variables and processes in need for explanation or used for explanation are either measurable and empirically describable using measurements and observations which can be replicated, or they have an heuristic value for the development of research directions which are based on standard measurements, data processing, and hypothesis testing accepted in that scientific community. For instance hidden variables are acceptable only when hypothesis about them can be indirectly tested, abstract mathematical models about complex processes are acceptable only when they can reasonably be used for the interpretation of empirical data, theological and common sense variables like soul, God, angels, are not acceptable inside scientific cultural products because their observation cannot be replicated by any scientist.
  • Internal validation of regional knowledge criteria. The data and knowledge produced is validated by the system accepted in the scientific community (some kind of peer review independent of any conflict of interest).
  • Contextualization of regional knowledge criteria. The regional knowledge is presented explicitly at the appropriate scale, for the specific class of variables and processes. There is an explicit delineation from knowledge produced in other fields which might confound the reader by homonymy of terms.

The criteria can be applied not only to nature sciences, life and earth sciences or social sciences, or psychology, but also to part of the humanities when these scientists work on existing cultural products (analysis of structure of existing theories, or of previous philosophical arguments in specific texts – in philosophy, of literature books, tradition in philology etc). The time scale for the methodological analysis is the duration of the production process, from project formulation to publication of the scientific piece of knowledge.

A scientific product can be fake when it is flawed from ontological point of view, or is data production and interpretation flowed, or flowed from the point of view of its internal validation .

The influence of ideology (B in table 1) on science is evaluated based on the following criteria:

  • Goal formulation criteria. The goals and values motivating the formulation of public policies or policies of religious organizations and the associated civic sector asking for the production of scientific cultural products are ideological when they are not accepted by all political organizations relevant for that political system, or by all religious organizations of any kind, and the associated civic sector. By relevant we mean that the organizations are validated by citizens in the existing political procedures. By accepted we mean that they are prioritized high and funded whoever is in power from the political organizations. The time scale of analyses for this criteria is at least one-two decades.
  • Funding criteria. The extent to which funding for the production of science is provided not by competition of projects selected based criteria related to the scientific content and management of the project, but by the political or religious profile of the applicant or its relatives and friends.
  • Knowledge use criteria. The extent to which the scientific products are used by their authors for the production of different non-scientific cultural products which are ideological in terms of the previous two criteria.
  • Accuracy of knowledge transfer criteria. The extent to which all methodological criteria are presented in summary together with the scientific findings when the transfer of the scientific knowledge is delivered as scientific truths to the end-users.

Comments

This framework can be used for the conceptual delineation of discourses which are legitimate in academic institutions and those which are legitimate only outside academic institutions (excepting for the case when they are an object of research for real science in academic institutions).

We assume that fake science is useful outside academic institutions, because it responds to needs of people (to have cheap and apparently coherent visions of the world), needs of political organizations (to have efficient ideologies), and of the state (to have cheap unifying political discourses). Fake science is a simplistic presentation of real science content for some purposes and make use of the authority of real science to reach those purposes. A vision of the world is defined here as the hierarchical system of signs (from single signs to complex texts) considered by an individual human to have real referents. Visions of the world in this sense emerge by processes from individual to groups of different dimensions, and can be characterized in their structure and dynamics at in individual and group level in a scientific way.

A particular case is fake science with respect to man. People, parties and the state need a more or less uniform model of man in a society, a model perceived locally as “general”. Such a model should be easy to understand and cheap to educate. There is in principle the possibility to produce a general, realistic, and universal model of man, but this would be a complex enterprise and expensive to teach. A potentially general model of man is, however, considered here as desirable and ontologically stable. The state could invest in its production in order to minimize conflicts between the adepts of fake scientific models of man, and in this way increase its stability and resilience. Discourses suggesting the change of the essence of man because of technology, or of cultural evolution, or by other causes are considered here as cultural products without scientific and philosophical relevance for how man can be conceptualized, and probably having a disruptive function in the state.

Conclusions

We have proposed a concept of fake science, methodological criteria to map such cultural products, and have shown the relevance of this framework for the model of man functional in a society. Existing discussions in the public space could gain in clarity after the systematic application of such ideas, in this form or in an improved ones, in the long term benefit of the state, of the society, and of the people.

Note

This document develops ideas presented last year at a conference organized by the institute of advance studies of the University of Bucharest:

  • Iordache V., 2019, Anthropological frameworks and their impact on socio-biological paradigms and research traditions. The case of the model of man in Romanian biology, presentation at the International Conference Social impact and the social sciences: theory and practice in the era of propaganda, fake news and media manipulation, ICUB-Social Sciences, University of Bucharest, presentation available here.

I am indebted to Prof. Dragoș-Paul Aligică for the invitation to this conference.

Distribuie acest articol

4 COMENTARII

  1. Domnule Iordache, ati putea va rog, sa explicati ce intelegeti prin „realitate”?

    La sfarsit de secol 19 – inceput de secol 20, in matematica, prin contributia lui David Hilbert, F. Riesz si altii, se introduce notiunea de operator autoadjunct in spatii complete inzestrate cu produs scalar(ulterior denumite spatii Hilbert). Notiunea nu avea nicio aplicatie concreta, pur si simplu extindea la nivel general anume tipuri de operatori diferentiali sau integrali. Cateva decenii mai tarziu, operatorii autoadjuncti devin instrument de baza in studiul mecanicii cuantice.

    Cum incadrati notiunea? Ca fiind „fake science” cateva decenii, devenind apoi „science” in acceptul definitiei date de dumneavoastra?

    De fapt, vreau sa spun ca, prin ideile emise in acest articol, restrictionati ceea ce inseamna STIINTA doar la produse ce tin de aspecte materialiste.

    • Poziție mea este a unui realist modest în sensul lui Newton-Smith. Referentul termenilor teoretici din științele veritabile poate fi și nematerial în sens de nefizic (de exemplu arenă de acțiune la Ostrom), important e să există o legătură metodologică limpede între referent și conținutul conceptului respectiv, de obicei prin măsurători și observații empirice.

      Noțiunea de materie a vagă, prin redefiniri la marxiști acoperea cam tot. Fizica nu se ocupă cu materia, se ocupă cu substanța și energia, nu știu o unitate de măsură pentru materie. Nu e nevoie de un concept unificator științific, prefer conceptul unificator filosofic de realitate. Mai interesante sunt obiectele și procesele efective.

      cele bune,
      V.I.

  2. Incerc sa fiu putin mai explicit.

    Realitatea este o chestiune de perceptie. Realitatea perceputa la momentul t nu coincide cu realitatea perceputa la momentul s>t(putem considera astfel, ca realitatea este o functie dependenta de variabila Timp), diferentele fiind cu atat mai mari, cu cat distanta s-t este mai mare. Evident, ma refer la realitatea definita ca o suma a cunoasterii pentru fiintele inteligente de pe planeta Terra(ar trebui sa definim si ce inseamna fiinta inteligenta de pe planeta Terra !!! – e o gluma).

    Gratie relativitatii, putem intelege relativ usor ca s-ar putea defini realitatea in cu totul alt sens, ca fiind „realitatea in punctul P din Univers”. In acest context, realitatea de pe Terra la momentul t nu coincide cu realitatea din interiorul gaurii negre masive din centrul galaxiei Andromeda, la acelasi moment(greu de spus ce inseamna acelasi moment !).

    Avand in vedere cele de mai sus, ce inseamna „adaptat realitatii”?

    Daca idei stiintifice ce ar putea fi catalogate azi ca fiind „fake science” ar putea fi in viitor baza unor cercetari avansate privind fenomene pe care azi nici nu le cunoastem?

    Cred ca ati auzit de Evariste Galois, matematician, fondator al teoriei grupurilor, decedat intr-un duel la varsta de 21 de ani. Memoriul sau de 6 pagini, inaintat Academiei, a fost ignorat de catre Cauchy multi ani. Cand l-a redescoperit, Galois era deja mort. Teoria grupurilor finite ciclice este azi instrument important pentru studiile de chimie fizica(structura atomilor).

    Acum cateva decenii erai considerat nebun daca spuneai ca se poate supravietui in conditii extreme. Intre timp s-au descoperit ecosisteme cu conditii extreme IN CARE TRAIESC MICROORGANISME ACVATICE la temperaturi ale apei in jur de 80 de grade Celsius.

    In concluzie, ar trebui sa fim foarte atenti in a cataloga anume idei, articole ca fiind „fake science”.

    Nu pledez sub nicio forma pentru mediocritate sau pseudostiinta. Dar cred ca reviewer-i atenti si competenti pot decide, aproape fara greseala, ce este „fake science” si ce nu. Deci e mai bine sa nu dam definitii relativ stricte!

    • Nu stiu cat intelege autorul articolului din exemplele matematice pe care le-ati dat.
      As adauga un alt exemplu mult mai cunoscut si care poate fi inteles (relevanta stiintifica) ceva mai usor.
      Este vorba de lucrarea de doctorat al lui John Nash ( de care toata a auzit dupa aparitia
      filmului ” A beautiful mind”). Rezultatele matematice din aceasta lucrare de 28 de pagini intitulata „Non-cooperative games ” au fost premiate 44 de ani mai tarziu cu un Nobel in…..economie.

      Revenind la subiectul articolului, bineinteles ca trebuie foarte multa atentie la pseudo-stiinta si diverse articole extrem de discutabile, dar cum spuneati si dvs, daca reviewer-i sunt atenti si competenti, atunci asemenea articole nu sunt pubicate.

LĂSAȚI UN MESAJ

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Autor

Virgil Iordache
Virgil Iordache
Virgil Iordache cercetează și predă la Facultatea de Biologie a Universităţii din Bucureşti. Domenii principale de preocupări: ecologie şi filosofia biologiei. Cărţi şi articole în domeniile ecologiei și filosofiei, eseuri filosofice în reviste de cultură. Comentariile si opiniile publicate aici sunt ale mele si nu reprezinta o opinie a Univesităţii din Bucureşti.

Carte recomandata

Esential HotNews

E randul tau

Observ cu uimire că invocați, ca reper intelectual creștin, cartea lui Noica, „Rugaţi-vă pentru fratele Alexandru”. Și cumva indirect îi reproșați lui Gabriel Liiceanu un soi de trădare a acestui crez ( „am neplăcuta senzaţie că mă aflu ȋn faţa unui tată care şi-a abandonat, simbolic, copiii”). Mă tem că tocmai această carte a lui Noica este o trădare a suferinței victimelor de: Cristina Cioaba la Dincolo de Isus. Gabriel Liiceanu şi portretul României religioase

Carti recomandate de Contributors.ro

 

 

Antifragil

de

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

recomandată de contributors.ro

 

Top articole

Dincolo de Isus. Gabriel Liiceanu şi portretul României religioase

Recunosc din start faptul că îmi este destul de greu să scriu despre volumul Isus al Meu, editura Humanitas, 2020. În primul rând, din cauza intimidantului autor, un monument al culturii românești contemporane, adulat şi contestat ȋn (aproape) egală măsură.

Refuzat la export. Schimb de scrisori cu un prieten maghiar

Dragă Miklós, îți amintești de expresia „refuzat la export” din comunismul nostru românesc; subliniez „nostru”....

Când șahul devine rasist…

Credeați că numai statuile sau hărțile (1) pot fi rasiste? Aflați că, pe fondul actualei revoluții BLM (Black Lives Matter), în curs de desfășurare în...

Frauda în educaţie e viol la adresa copilului

Cu câteva zile în urmă, o studentă mi-a trimis – ca răspuns la examenul de “Etică şi integritate academică” – un text...

contributors.ro

Contributors.ro este intr-o permanenta cautare de autori care pot da valoare adaugata dezbaterii publice. Semnaturile noi sunt binevenite cata vreme respecta regulile de baza ale site-ului. Incurajam dezbaterea relaxata, bazata pe forta argumentelor.
Contact: editor[at]contributors.ro

MIHAI MACI – Cel de-al doilea volum din Colectia Contributors.ro

„Atunci când abdică de la menirea ei, școala nu e o simplă instituție inerțială, ci una deformatoare. Și nu deformează doar spatele copiilor, ci, în primul rând, sufletele lor. Elevul care învață că poate obține note mari cu referate de pe internet e adultul de mâine care va plagia fără remușcări, cel care-și copiază temele în pauză va alege întotdeauna scurtătura, iar cel care promovează cu intervenții va ști că la baza reușitei stă nu cunoașterea, ci cunoștințele. Luate indi­vidual, lucrurile acestea pot părea mărunte, însă cumulate, ele dau măsura deformării lumii în care trăim și aruncă o umbră grea asupra viitorului pe care ni-l dorim altfel.” – Mihai Maci Comanda cartea cu autograful autorului. Editie limitata.

(An essay by Vladimir Tismaneanu and Marius Stan)