Is science still moving us forward? Now that examples of flawed research have piled up in recent years, that question seems to be becoming more and more penetrating. A group of philosophers are now researching it.
Our faith in science is tested by studies that repeatedly fail to produce the same results. It is also known as the replication crisis. Effects that we previously saw as unequivocally proven, appear on closer inspection to lack a solid scientific foundation. In addition, several cases of scientific fraud have come to light in recent years.
It raises big questions about the status of science. What are the criteria for good science and are they the same for all sciences? Over the next three years, a group of philosophers and integrity researchers from the Free University of Amsterdam will be focusing on this difficult issue in a large-scale study of scientific progress. Associate professor of epistemology Jeroen de Ridder leads the project together with his colleagues René van Woudenberg and Rik Peels. NEMO Kennislink spoke to De Ridder.
Two thirds of the conclusions from psychological studies do not hold up repeatedly. Is that because many scientists commit fraud?
“No, that seems too strong to me. A lot of research has already been done on it. If you ask scientists to fill in an anonymous questionnaire, two percent say they have deliberately falsified the data. That percentage is undoubtedly higher in reality, but what happens much more often is that people consciously or unconsciously use sloppy or bad methodology.”
“In many sciences, there is a high pressure to publish. To get a job at a university you have to publish as much as possible in the best magazines. That does not always lead to the most reliable scientific practice. Scientists then draw conclusions too early when they have not yet collected enough data to make such firm claims.”
“It also happens that researchers massage the data a bit. If a few points in their data set deviate significantly from the rest, it is tempting to see that data as measurement errors and remove them. It is quite possible that they are indeed measurement errors, but they could also be good data points.”
How is it possible that the replication crisis mainly affects psychology and biomedical sciences and less, or so it seems, in the natural sciences?
“One possible explanation is that both psychologists and biomedical scientists are studying humans. Psychologists study human behavior and that is extremely complicated. People react very differently and their reaction is often time and place specific. Hard laws in our behavior are difficult to establish. It can therefore be explained that a study repeatedly produces different results.”
Because repeatability is an important requirement for all sciences?
“That is a question that we will also be dealing with in the coming years. This repeatability is a matter of course in the exact sciences. We wonder whether this should also be such a hard requirement in the humanities and humanities.”
“When people use the word 'science', they often think of the English word 'science ’. In addition, you have the humanities, what we call the humanities. The Dutch word 'science' therefore has a broader meaning, which also includes the humanities. If he or she will assess with the criteria that apply to science, then you run into limits.”
“The humanities cover a wide area:linguistics, history, anthropology, archaeology, philosophy, theology and literature. Data collection works very differently there. You usually don't use surveys or experiments. Studying a novel is quite different from examining cells in your body. You cannot assess those sciences in the same way.”
“Yet I think that repeatability is also a meaningful requirement in the humanities. Take the interpretation of historical texts or a novel. Of course there are subjective elements in it, but it is not just an individual fantasy. There are certain frameworks within which such an interpretation must operate.”
In many countries, the humanities faculties are under pressure due to structural cutbacks. How is it possible that the humanities are often seen as less valuable than the sciences?
“The humanities provide less hard data. That makes it easy to be a little skeptical about it. Hard facts are tangible, while research into meaning and purpose can more easily be dismissed as subjective and therefore questionable. That has not always been the case, however. In the Middle Ages, theology and philosophy were the highest forms of science.”
Some people think that science gradually has the means to replace philosophy.
This view is known as scientism. That is the idea that (natural) science is our only source of knowledge and can ultimately answer all the big questions. I don't believe in that. There are all kinds of great philosophical questions about free will and morality that empirical science cannot solve.”
Brain scientists like Dick Swaab would think otherwise. According to him, we now know that free will does not exist.
“The problem is that those neuroscientists have incorrect definitions of what free will would be. You would only have free will if you can make a choice that is unaffected by any factor. As if you were making a decision in a vacuum, as it were. If that's your definition of free will, then indeed we don't have free will."
“Of course we are influenced by our biology, our friends, our parents. The question that ultimately matters is:given all these influences, do we have the possibility to choose between two alternatives? I doubt whether this is an empirical question. Then you can do as many experiments as you want, but you will never answer that question with brain science.”
Featured by the editors
MedicineWhat are the microplastics doing in my sunscreen?!
AstronomySun, sea and science
BiologyExpedition to melting land
Your research is about progress in science. What exactly is progress?
“There are different forms of progress. First, you have an increase in knowledge. You have different kinds of knowledge, and therefore different kinds of progress. For example, knowing that Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands is a different form of knowledge (propositional knowledge) than knowing how to cycle (practical knowledge).”
“But progress is about more than increasing knowledge. Eliminating mistakes and incorrect ideas is also called progress. Seeing a new coherence is also a form of progress. Then it is not about finding new knowledge, but about integrating existing knowledge into a larger whole.”
Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn challenged the idea of scientific progress. According to him, we change worldviews every once in a while. The new worldview is so different that we cannot possibly compare it with the old.
“I think it's different. People can often explain why we used to think that the earth was at the center of the world, while we now know that the earth revolves around the sun. Kuhn calls this a paradigm shift, a total change in the world view. They are fundamental changes, that's true, but at the same time you can certainly explain from the new paradigm why the old paradigm seemed so convincing at the time."
Progress exists?
“Yes, I'm quite optimistic about that. If you look at the history of science, I think you have to conclude that we know a lot more now than we used to.”
What does this progress in the humanities look like?
“In history and archaeology this is clear:you get a richer picture of a historical period by collecting more source material. It is more complicated in literature, theology and philosophy. But you have progress there too.”
“The progress is in clarifying concepts and assessing arguments. In that respect, philosophy plays an important role in every field of science. But at least as important is that philosophy outlines new possibilities for imagination. New visions and vistas arise in philosophy. You create new ways of looking at reality. That too is progress in science.”