Pragmatism, Authority and Hypothesis Testing (post 32)

Pragmatism is, to a significant extent, about data.

But data, to a significant extent, is about authority.

Take the straight forward datum of the number of planets in our solar system.  Many people think they know the answer is nine.  And it was.  But now it's eight.

And if it was nine and now it's eight, then should we be surprised to learn that it is seven or six or negative 3.5?

I can't see the planets (not all).  I can't count them myself.  In order to know how many there are, I must trust an authority.  And if that authority changes its mind, my trust is damaged.  This is as it should be.

Which types of fat lead to heart disease?

According to the American Heart Association, "Eating foods that contain saturated fats raises the level of cholesterol in your blood. High levels of LDL cholesterol in your blood increase your risk of heart disease and stroke."

In the 1930s, saturated fats were being replaced with artificial "trans" fats - solid fats made from hydrogenated vegetable oil.  Hence Crisco largely replaced lard; margarine largely replaced butter.  Saturated fats were seen as unhealthy and trans fats were seen as healthier.

In the mid 1990's, health authorities such as the FDA began linking trans fats to heart disease.  Last Wednesday, the FDA officially banned trans fats for many commercial purposes.

And just a few months ago, an important meta-analysis of 72 different studies of saturated fat found no link to heart disease.

Then weeks later, that paper was publicly criticized for containing major errors.

This situation is confusing: Wikipedia has a page dedicated to the controversy.

So while saturated fats were once bad and trans fats were once good, the reverse may now be true (or maybe not).  Hence the "pragmatic" response, from many, is to simply stop listening to anything that "nutrition authorities" claim.

Yet is that really a pragmatic response - to ignore scientific authority because it occasionally changes and even reverses factual claims?

I don't think so.

I think the key is to realize that pragmatism is about data, yes, but it is more importantly about balance and about finding optimal paths between extremes.

If one extreme is to ignore science, and the other is to blindly believe its every claim, where is the optimal path?

To answer that question we need to understand that science is most fundamentally the process of hypothesis testing.

Science is not and should not be about defining or presenting "truth".  It is and should be about generating and testing more and more hypotheses.

This process of hypothesis testing is not suppose to give us truth, it is suppose to get us closer to it.
And in doing so, sometimes, it has to backtrack.

Pragmatism is not about blindly following authorities or rejecting them - it is about coming up with our own criteria for evaluations - based on track records, prior successes, honesty, integrity.  These evaluations are themselves hypotheses which must be tested again and again over time.

We should not hope to find a single authority to trust blindly for all our lives.  Instead we should listen to a diversity of voices and adjust our confidence in each as they variously conform and diverge with each other and with our own experiences, reason and conscience.

The Pope is a Pragmatist? (post 31)

In October of 2014, Pope Francis declared that the theories of the big bang and evolution were consistent with the Catholic interpretation of God's creation of the world.

Today the Pope demanded that world leaders act swiftly to combat climate change.

In doing so I think he has come to a powerful conclusion: the only way to move forward, with a positive mindset, in this world full of pain, hatred, injustice and bitter disagreement, is to do so within a spirit of pragmatism.

Pragmatism says that it's OK to have disagreements - in fact, it's healthy.  However, when it becomes imperative that certain disagreements be resolved and unified action is required - then disputes should be settled in light of the best scientific data, theories and models we have available.

This is not to say science can't be wrong. Science can be wrong. And scientists can change their minds as new evidence comes to light or new theories make sense of old data.

There is overwhelming consensus among world scientists for accepting the big bang, evolution and climate change as realities we must accept if we want to understand where we come from and how to move forward.  These theories have proven their utility and predictive power time and time again. It is possible that new evidence could lead to a paradigm shift, but such a paradigm shift would have to preserve most of the mechanics and predictive power of the current theories - much as Relativity preserved most of the mechanics and predictive power of Newtonian Physics.

Pragmatism in Action (post 30)

You can be a pragmatist and a Christian.
You can be a pragmatist and a Muslim.
You can be a pragmatist and a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jew, Pagan, Atheist, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc.

The beauty of pragmatism is that it is something that can be agreed upon even by people who hold very different moral, religious or political beliefs.

And when groups of people with different beliefs find themselves fighting over public policy, pragmatism can provide a peaceful means for a solution.

For example, imagine a town where groups of Christians and atheists are fighting over a sex education program in public schools.

A pragmatist would say, OK - is there a comprehensive body of peer-reviewed research on sex education programs and their results?

If not, the pragmatist would advocate for a democratic solution where the larger group would have a greater say -  while ensuring some compromises and allowances for the minority group.

If there is a body of rigorous research, then what does it say about the consequences of the different programs? If it reveals that there are certain kinds of programs that have reliably led to lower rates of teen pregnancy and STDs (which everyone agrees is positive), then both the Christians and atheists should seriously consider modifying their proposals to be more in line with the ones that have worked.  If such programs contain lessons that some people find truly morally reprehensible, then a pragmatic compromise would be to allow some individuals to have their children opt out.

Pragmatism isn't complicated.
It is our best means for preventing societies from splintering apart.