But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves—of having utter scientific integrity—is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.
Richard Feynman - Cargo Cult Science speech to the 1974 class of Cal Tech.
They use the words explicitly and osmosis. They don't say Richard or Feynman.
In my opinion people who pick up this book will cling to their biases as they read the book. They will be seeking evidence that they are correct and those who think differently are incorrect. Who wants to verify that they are wrong? Yet that is what Feynman tells us is part of the scientific method. We must explicitly attack our thinking and try to prove it wrong.
The first red flag is simply the reliance on the authority of science. The authors are telling you that they know of the way and you need only follow them down the path. At the end of the path is certainty. Yet the Scottish Berkeley professor tells you that we have to let go of certainty. I would agree with that statement. What they don't mention, at least in this video, is that the certainty of scientists is no more accurate than the certainty of anyone else. Quite possibly scientists get it wrong more than bankers, judges, janitors and bakers. John Ioannidis published a paper claiming that 90% of published scientific medical research contains false information. What is the accuracy of truth in the National Inquirer? It is probably better than Cell/Nature/Science.
Can you imagine a professional scientist claiming that The National Inquirer reports more accurate information than Cell/Nature/Science? It would be blasphemy! That is the religion of science. The scientific method would simply take the claim into consideration, define the terms and proceed too find the truth.
Dr. Ionnidis was also embroiled in the scientific debates over the pandemic. The certainty of science was demonstrated very clearly during Covid. Scientists do not agree on what the rest of the world calls "science". They simply employ the concepts put forth and attempt to explain things that are useful to know. However, when the truth is not useful to those in power, the scientist must cave to the edicts of a Fauci-like leader or hold their tongue. To speak out with a scientific methodology will land you in the dog house with a damaged reputation. The profession of science is not a shining example of how to employ the scientific method.
The second red flag is the timing of a book that claims now is the time for such a book. The scientific method has always been important. All times in our world have needed the scientific mind. The scientific mind will always be at odds with the rest of the world population. Would this book however delve into the Covid response? Did our professional scientists who went against the establishment receive proper attention or were they cancelled by other scientists? In other words, did our scientific establishment employ the scientific method during Covid?
Most people will read the book to validate that Trump is evil or that Covid was fake news. Whatever your political leanings, religious beliefs, rural vs urban viewpoint... this book may very well support your beliefs. People are going to believe what they prefer to believe. No book can fix that.
Feynman's identifies the problem facing science when he spoke of the charge on an electron:
One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It’s a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It’s interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan’s, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Scientists get it wrong. That is part of the process. There is no authority who knows the proper way. Those who make the claim are gurus, shaman, preachers and snake oil salesmen. The scientific method is something that must be taken on by leadership. People will get it right and they will get it wrong. Who will be taken seriously is the issue.
With that skeptical viewpoint I will read this book. It might be very good. The publicity however makes me wonder. Are the authors aware that the worst offenders against the scientific method are scientists themselves? Are they willing to point the finger at science?
