Rethinking Scientific Inquiry

What does it mean to ‘know’ something, and what does it mean specifically when stated by a scientist? What is the role of debate in driving scientific progress, and how does progress get built on the bones of science that we later find to be incorrect?

James C. Zimring is a professor of pathology and immunology at the School of Medicine at the University of Virginia and also an author. His latest books are What Science Is and How It Really Works and Partial Truths: How Fractions Distort Our Thinking.

Greg and James discuss the complex nature of scientific thinking and the philosophical underpinnings of scientific practices. James emphasizes the discrepancies between the idealized version of science and its messy reality. They explore the critical distinction between phenomena and theoretical claims, the social constructs within scientific methodology, and the importance of understanding what it means when scientists claim to 'know' something.

*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*

Episode Quotes:

What science is and isn’t

03:18: My goal here was really to try and provide non-scientists with, as you pointed out, a more realistic assessment of what science is and what it means when a scientist says they know something. Because the hyperbole around scientific claims, although exciting, right, has also destroyed a lot of scientific credibility. The best way to lose credibility is to make a claim that you cannot possibly live up to. And at the same time, science is epistemically distinct. When a scientist says they know something, it means something different than other knowledge claims in other areas of thought. I am not a scientific imperialist. It does not mean something better, but it really means something different. And the failure, I think, to make that distinction is very damaging to how we navigate the world.

Science is not about being right

14:14: Science is not about being right. Science is about getting closer and closer to rightness. But scientists, we try to kill theories. That is what we do.

Science is messy and sloppy

1:00:45: Science is messy and sloppy, and this is what it means when a scientist says they know something, and it is very different from when anyone else says they know something. But it is quite different from what, historically, we say it means.

Why is common sense thinking toxic to scientific progress?

23:48: Common sense thinking is toxic to scientific progress because things that are common sense are often wrong. I mean, they are really helpful if you are wandering around the savanna trying to survive as a nomadic human. But when you are in the laboratory studying science, those things that work so well on the savanna are categorically incorrect. Unlearning millions of years of evolution of cognitive psychology is part of what it is to be a scientist, as you point, learning that we do not observe causality, learning that there are these confounders, learning that common sense things that are obvious may not be, is a large part of the scientific enterprise. And that is where it differs from what you are talking about—normal everyday thinking, especially statistics and other things.

Show Links:

Recommended Resources:

• Thomas Kuhn
• Richard Feynman
• Karl Popper
• A. J. Ayer
• Willard Van Orman Quine
• National Institutes of Health
• Berengar of Tours
• Transubstantiation
• Charles Sanders Peirce
• Confounding
• Paul Feyerabend
• Michel Foucault
• Peter Meijer

Guest Profile:

• Faculty Profile at the University of Virginia School of Medicine
• LinkedIn Profile

Guest Work:

• Amazon Author Page
• What Science Is and How It Really Works
• Partial Truths: How Fractions Distort Our Thinking
• Transfusion Medicine and Hemostasis
• Google Scholar Page
• ResearchGate Page