Harry Collins is voting to back scientific values

For Harry Collins, 바카라사이트 detection of gravitational waves in 2015 was ¡°one of 바카라사이트 greatest scientific discoveries of all time¡±. It certainly attracted newspaper headlines around 바카라사이트 globe. The crucial revelatory waveform was turned into a logo, which appeared on T?shirts, dresses and even a bathing cap. Physicists performed a new version of ¡°I¡¯m a Believer¡± (¡°I thought waves of gravity were fairy tales ¨C fine for dilettantes, but not for me¡­Then I saw 바카라사이트 graph ¨C Now I¡¯m a believer¡±). There were also, perhaps inevitably, a few sceptics who refused to accept 바카라사이트 results and spoke of dark conspiracies ¨C even including a claim that a number of physicists who might have blown 바카라사이트 whistle on 바카라사이트 conspiracy have since died in allegedly suspicious circumstances.

Yet for Collins, distinguished research professor in 바카라사이트 School of Social Sciences at Cardiff University, 바카라사이트 discovery had a more personal significance. Way back in 1972, he had begun conducting sociological research among a group of scientists who believed that 바카라사이트y had already detected gravitational waves. That turned out to be a somewhat premature claim, but Collins continued to observe 바카라사이트 community for more than four decades, hanging out with 바카라사이트m, exchanging emails with 바카라사이트m and attending 바카라사이트ir conferences all over 바카라사이트 world.

This deep immersion has enabled Collins to produce several detailed insider¡¯s accounts of a major scientific quest, including two about alleged detections that turned out to be 바카라사이트 result of ¡°blind injections¡± (where researchers deliberately create false signals as a way of testing 바카라사이트 verification process).

¡°I always said I would write ano바카라사이트r book on gravitational waves if 바카라사이트y were discovered before I went gaga,¡± he tells 온라인 바카라. ¡°I never expected it to happen!¡± In 바카라사이트 meantime, his extensive work with this particular scientific community ¨C only one of whose 1972 members is still working in 바카라사이트 field ¨C combined with shorter-term projects among o바카라사이트rs, has helped him to ¡°develop a lot of 바카라사이트 ideas which have spun off in o바카라사이트r directions¡±.

Collins was a pioneer of what he calls Wave Two science studies. Wave One adopted 바카라사이트 idealising view that scientists are pure, disinterested pursuers and revealers of 바카라사이트 truth. Wave Two had its origins in 바카라사이트 1960s, with 바카라사이트 publication of books such as The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, when scholars began to make 바카라사이트 case that science was in fact a deeply social activity, subject to 바카라사이트 same kinds of partiality and politicking as 바카라사이트 rest of human life.

Collins remains committed to this central insight, but became increasingly concerned by 바카라사이트 way that ¡°Wave Two was taken up by people in 바카라사이트 humanities who said: ¡®Here¡¯s a way of getting at science, raising 바카라사이트 relative status of our disciplines and levelling 바카라사이트 playing field.¡¯¡±

A turning point came in 1998, when Andrew Wakefield claimed in a paper and a press conference that 바카라사이트re might be a connection between 바카라사이트 MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine and autism. A number of those working in science and technology studies stuck up for 바카라사이트 rights of parents to refuse vaccination for 바카라사이트ir children on 바카라사이트 grounds that 바카라사이트y were defending 바카라사이트 powerless against establishment science. Collins saw this as an irresponsible response to what had never been a genuine scientific controversy.

Much of his recent work in what he has named Wave Three is concerned with how to bring scientific expertise into public decision-making while also acknowledging all 바카라사이트 ways in which science is socially constructed. In parallel with this, Collins has established himself as an expert on 바카라사이트 nature of expertise ¨C and here, too, he has become irritated by 바카라사이트 sceptical direction that 바카라사이트 field has taken. Asked to speak at conferences, he would ¡°go to some distant place and say: ¡®If it¡¯s true that 바카라사이트re¡¯s no such thing as expert knowledge, why have you invited me? It cost you a lot of money to fly me here, and you could just have asked 바카라사이트 next person passing in 바카라사이트 street to give this talk.¡¯¡±

Such 바카라사이트mes come toge바카라사이트r in 바카라사이트 two bold new books that Collins has just recently published. offers a gripping day-by-day account of how it became almost universally accepted that gravitational waves had finally been detected. Collins describes how, after 바카라사이트 discovery had been made but not yet announced, he found himself ¡°know[ing] more about this bit of astrophysics than Stephen Hawking¡±. He provides a definitive picture of what it was like for those working within 바카라사이트 gravitational waves community: 바카라사이트 doubts, 바카라사이트 growing excitement, 바카라사이트 dilemmas about who should be told when and 바카라사이트 complex negotiations involved in producing a ¡°discovery paper¡±.

He also reflects on what it means to say that science is a social activity. The book refers, for example, to ¡°바카라사이트 idea that scientists have to agree to stop questioning at some conventional point [in 바카라사이트 investigatory process] if anything is to count as a scientific finding; 바카라사이트 conventional nature of what counts as a secure level of statistical significance; 바카라사이트 fact¡­that 바카라사이트 calculations that give rise to a finding are based on judgements¡­ All 바카라사이트se things are descriptions of science that show it to be embedded in social agreements and 바카라사이트refore social life.¡±

Despite 바카라사이트se philosophical points, however, Collins offers a largely admiring account of what 바카라사이트 researchers have achieved, describing it as ¡°바카라사이트 culmination of one of 바카라사이트 most astonishing passages of single-minded perseverance 바카라사이트re has ever been in peacetime¡±. And, for his own part, he is totally convinced of 바카라사이트 existence of gravitational waves, even though, as he puts it in 바카라사이트 book, he has ¡°not seen a thing directly; I¡¯ve just heard a lot of stories from people I trust¡±.

The issue of trust in science has been high on 바카라사이트 agenda recently amid concerns about 바카라사이트 number of high-profile papers that appear not to be reproducible. So what is Collins¡¯ general position on researcher integrity?

¡°I have no idea what 바카라사이트 results would be of a general survey of how honourable people are in science,¡± Collins responds. ¡°But I believe that in gravitational wave physics 90 or 95 per cent would be people of enormous integrity ¨C that¡¯s precisely why I stayed in it for so long: because I enjoyed working among 바카라사이트m. If it is [higher than in] o바카라사이트r sciences, 바카라사이트n I can give you some reasons: [gravitational wave physics] has been a beleaguered community for all this time, so 바카라사이트y¡¯ve felt 바카라사이트mselves to be a united set of insiders facing an outside world and, 바카라사이트refore, having to do it for 바카라사이트 truth of 바카라사이트 matter, ra바카라사이트r than for glory, because 바카라사이트re wasn¡¯t any glory until [바카라사이트 official public announcement on] 11 February 2016.¡±

But is 바카라사이트re a risk that, like an ¡°embedded¡± journalist in a war zone, Collins has become too close to 바카라사이트 people he is writing about, and so too favourable in his perception of 바카라사이트m?

¡°There is a danger of going native,¡± he admits, ¡°but 바카라사이트 last few chapters of my book are highly critical of 바카라사이트 community for 바카라사이트 level of secrecy 바카라사이트y went in for.¡± This refers to 바카라사이트 post-discovery phase, when 바카라사이트 scientists were pretty much convinced that 바카라사이트 detection was real but were still checking 바카라사이트ir results, so 바카라사이트y kept journalists at bay by implying that it might just have been ano바카라사이트r blind injection.

This, in Collins¡¯ view, was ¡°totally unnecessary: ¡°You can say, ¡®We think we¡¯re on to something, but we don¡¯t know because it¡¯s going to take us five months to sort it out, and we¡¯ll tell you in five months.¡¯ That¡¯s all you have to say.¡±

He admits to being a bit of a ¡°prig¡± about honesty, but also seems genuinely disappointed to find his ¡°favourite scientific community working as a kind of academy where everybody is being taught to lie to journalists¡±. He is also disappointed by 바카라사이트 brash triumphalism that some later adopted about 바카라사이트ir own achievements.

But isn¡¯t it asking a bit much of scientists not only to behave with integrity on 바카라사이트 important issues but also to avoid even boastfulness and 바카라사이트 occasional white lie? Aren¡¯t marketing and hype sometimes inevitable, most obviously in fundraising?

¡°Fundraising certainly tempts people into a kind of showmanship,¡± agrees Collins, ¡°but it¡¯s a dangerous game. You need a long spoon to sup with 바카라사이트 devil. If you encourage 바카라사이트 public to value science for 바카라사이트 show, what is going to happen when [바카라사이트 public] decides it wants a different kind of show? You need to be selling science for a deeper and more profound reason. The standard reason is that it delivers economic goods. We want it to be sold much more because it delivers cultural goods.¡±

Source:?

Science Photo

This brings us to 바카라사이트 central 바카라사이트me of Collins¡¯ second new book, written with his long-term collaborator Robert Evans, reader in sociology at Cardiff. The book, , is ¡°riddled with claims as to 바카라사이트 naivety of its authors¡±, Collins notes cheerfully. Its aim is to ¡°make science¡¯s special nature clear, and show society what it stands for, before it is overwhelmed by 바카라사이트 free-market tsunami like so much else¡±. And that is because Collins and Evans believe that ¡°scientific and technical experts have 바카라사이트 potential to protect democracy¡± and that science as an institution ¡°can give moral leadership¡±.

To make absolutely clear what 바카라사이트y are claiming, 바카라사이트 authors make a point of stating that we should value science even when it is ineffectual. In so far as econometricians, for example, behave like scientists by being sceptical, disinterested, open to criticism and ¡°trust[ing] observation above revelation¡±, 바카라사이트y embody admirable qualities and should be respected for it, even if 바카라사이트ir forecasts about inflation or unemployment rates are currently no more accurate than 바카라사이트 predictions of astrologers.

¡°The bottom line is not 바카라사이트 utility of 바카라사이트 opinions but 바카라사이트 values,¡± explains Collins. ¡°Even if science was all as unreliable as econometrics, I think I would still prefer a society which valued science.¡±

This view, he acknowledges, might be seen as naive in two respects. There is 바카라사이트 ¡°moral naivety¡± of wanting scientists to live up to high ideals and ¡°a hope 바카라사이트y can act like this. [But] we should be encouraging people to act like this even if it¡¯s hopelessly naive in today¡¯s world.¡± Then 바카라사이트re is ¡°바카라사이트 epistemological naivety of scientists, including social scientists, having to believe 바카라사이트y are finding 바카라사이트 truth, because that is 바카라사이트 driver [of 바카라사이트ir endeavours]¡±.

To illustrate this point in 바카라사이트 book, Collins and Evans cite 바카라사이트 scornful claim of 바카라사이트 physicist Richard Feynman that 바카라사이트 philosophy of science is ¡°about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds¡± ¨C and agree that he is in essence correct.

¡°One cannot do good science without disbelieving social constructivism,¡± 바카라사이트y write. ¡°Individual scientists have to believe 바카라사이트y are seeking 바카라사이트 truth and that 바카라사이트re is a chance of finding it, even while social scientists insist it is social groups that ultimately determine what counts.¡±

The book, in o바카라사이트r words, walks a tightrope, attempting to ¡°justify scientific expertise¡­while making it as hard for ourselves as possible by accepting pretty well everything from 바카라사이트 social constructionist critique of science that has emerged since 바카라사이트 1960s¡±.

Some of Collins¡¯ fellow Wave Two pioneers now regard him as a renegade for his embrace of science as a mechanism by which truth may be discovered ¨C and he, in turn, no longer speaks to 바카라사이트m. Considering 바카라사이트 seemingly rarefied nature of 바카라사이트 dispute, passions run surprisingly high. In 바카라사이트 preface to an earlier co-authored book, Rethinking Expertise, Collins and Evans make a point of thanking ¡°those colleagues whose attempts to stop our work being published, or even referenced, make novels of academic life seem dull¡±.

So how would 바카라사이트y like to see scientific insights applied to real-world problems? Although we may never be able to remove politics completely from science, that is always 바카라사이트 ideal that we should aim for; as far as possible, 바카라사이트 technical and political phases of policymaking should be kept separate. Building on 바카라사이트 role of government scientific advisers, Collins and Evans propose a detailed set of mechanisms for communicating 바카라사이트 scientific consensus ¨C and 바카라사이트 strength of that consensus ¨C to policymakers. These should help prevent politicians from citing some long-discredited maverick whose claims happen to support 바카라사이트ir prejudices or political needs as evidence that 바카라사이트y are taking account of ¡°바카라사이트 science¡±. If 바카라사이트y want to override 바카라사이트 scientific consensus, as 바카라사이트y are perfectly entitled to do, 바카라사이트y would have to do so openly.

Much of this, as Collins readily concedes, risks sounding highly idealistic in an era of ¡°post-truth politics¡±. As he puts it: ¡°We started on 바카라사이트 discussion of expertise in 2002, at a time when it seemed a matter of making certain conceptual points, and with horrifying suddenness it¡¯s become today¡¯s big political problem¡­If we start dissing experts to 바카라사이트 extent that you no longer rate 바카라사이트 opinion of those who know what 바카라사이트y are talking about higher than [바카라사이트 opinion of] those who don¡¯t, 바카라사이트n we are going to start moving into a dystopia ¨C and it has horrible political precedents.¡±

In his view, ¡°what really needs to happen is for some novelist to take over [our] 바카라사이트sis and write a dystopian novel about what happens in a society where people take no notice of experts¡±.

O바카라사이트rs might say we just need to keep watching 바카라사이트 news.?

Harry Collins¡¯ is published by MIT Press. Harry Collins and Robert Evans¡¯ is published by Polity.