What is NOT “science”? Why we have a right to “data” as “evidence”…
Most of us accept a priori the institutionalized distinction between the sciences and the humanities. If asked, we can tick off the names of “disciplines” that are “scientific” and those that constitute “the humanities”… (The “social sciences” are somehow less centrally – more vaguely? -- “scientific” -- but what do we mean essentially by these distinctions?) [It's worth noting that novelist CP Snow famously posited this distinction in his Cambridge lecture and subsequent book "The Two Cultures" -- ca. 1959.] We might say that science is “empirical” meaning that it is based upon real, physical evidence? Or perhaps that it’s “inductive” – its theories or “laws” flowing from observations of facts… Or perhaps that it is “quantitative” or "technical" – its conclusions determined by the use of sometimes very complex mathematical logic or by complex apparatus. We might also say that it employs a rigorous methodology that includes exact logical provisions for “falsifiability” [SEE: Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Investigation – and elsewhere], for open peer review – including test by replication – and for validation by demonstration of predictive power… Science also is systematically accretive and depends on careful citation and documentation, building upon itself like a coral reef… But, it strikes me that any humanist should feel uncomfortable at the assumption that the humanities do not – or are incapable of – meeting these standards at least most of them in most cases? (I'll leave it to the reader to assess what is most essentially “humanist” – but I often have the uncomfortable sense that the humanities may too often depend for their esoteric authority upon the incoherence of their evidentiary base or upon the imprecision of language or between languages…?) I attribute "beauty" as a primary motive/value to “the arts”… (The American poet Randall Jarrell once said: “Criticism is the poetry of the prosaic.”) And I heard, anecdotally, a few years ago that the performance artist, Laurie Anderson, was invited to a discussion about “the arts” and “the sciences” and before too long was asking “What are we doing here?” I understood this to be an intuitive recognition that the arts and the sciences are on very similar tracks… I believe that artists are able to operate more spontaneously, intuitively and imaginatively -- perhaps more "aesthetically"? but less "systematically" ? Scientists often operate on that same frontier but with the requirement that they test their intuitions using the scientific method and then publicly disclose their “tests”. "Belief" is ultimately the subjective preserve of the individual -- and the institutional preserve of religion. Maintaining the distinction between "belief" and reason (or logic) is a fundamental value of the Enlightenment -- particularly in public discourse. OK so what am I getting at here? And why? Ultimately all policy -- whether "scientific" or not -- and all human decisions should be based on logical analysis and on evidence. Both evidence and analysis are susceptible to testing, to evaluation and thus to reasoned discussion. Our civil discourse will always be improved by clear specification of analytical logic and by free, open and effective disclosure of empirical evidence or DATA. Respecting data there are a series of fundamental criteria that must be satisfied to validate it’s “authenticity” and its probative value (its effectiveness as evidence). As citizens, we have the right to demand that public policy and public decisions be based on well-formed logic and on valid evidence… Discussion that occurs in our public fora should always distinguish between matters of logic and fact and matters of belief. We’ll pursue these notions – in the context of free, open effective access to data and in the context of science literacy – in future posts… Continue reading
The ethical case for free, open and effective access…
In the sciences, the general case for sharing of all scientific knowledge (and knowledge resources) has long been clearly articulated. Robert K. Merton, sociologist of science at Columbia made the case in 1942 -- where he said: “The substantive findings of science are a product of social collaboration and are assigned to the community. They constitute a common heritage in which the equity of the individual producer is severely limited…” [SEE: Robert K. Merton, “A Note on Science and Democracy,” Journal of Law and Political Sociology 1 (1942): 121.] at about the same time (1941) a "Declaration of Scientific Principles" appeared in Nature -- “7. The pursuit of scientific inquiry demands complete intellectual freedom. And unrestricted international exchange of knowledge…“ [SEE:“The Commonwealth of Science, ” Nature No.3753 October 4, 1941] These scientific values have been affirmed and re-affirmed many times. In fact, the predecessor to UNESCO was the League of Nations Committee on International Intellectual Cooperation... [SEE related: "The union of International Associations" and "The Mundaneum" http://www.uia.be/node/85 ] The principle that access to knowledge is an essential human right (and fundamental to effective citizenship) has also been widely affirmed. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 declares: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." [SEE: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml ] In fact, the authors of the US Constitution realized that access to knowledge was essential to the public welfare -- the notion of limited monopoly on "intellectual property" -- as defined in the provisions for patent and copyright make this clear and by the recognition of the public domain. (Thomas Jefferson, corresponding with his Secretary of War in 1807, wrote: "The field of knowledge is the common property of all mankind.") In 1954, when Edward R. Murrow asked him about patenting the polio vaccine, Jonas Salk famously commented" "That would be like patenting the sun..." 35 years later Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederberg was warning of the deterioration of the ethic of sharing [SEE: “Data Sharing: A Declining Ethic? -- Commercial pressures and heightened competition are testing the notion that scientific data and materials should be widely shared.” Science v. 248 p952- 957, 25 May 1990]. It seems more than a little ironic that now -- 50 years later -- "20% of human gene DNA sequences are patented" [Science Magazine Policy Forum: K.Jensen and F. Murray, "Intellectual Property: Landscape of the Human Genome," Science 14 October 2005: Vol. 310. no. 5746, pp. 239 - 240]. Thus sadly, despite clear and longstanding articulation of the principles of free and open access to knowledge, there has been a strong countervailing trend toward restriction of knowledge ["commoditization" -- SEE: J. Birkinshaw and T. Sheehan, “Managing the Knowledge Life Cycle,” MIT Sloan Management Review, 44 (2) Fall, 2002:77]. So, assuming (as in my previous post) that librarians are both stewards and advocates -- how do we make our case...? 1) We marshal all available historical and philosophical evidence for support of open access [in effect, I've cited just a few of the diverse sources for such a case...] 2) we organize and broadly disseminate by publishing, presenting, discussing, teaching 3) we insist upon evidence-based public policy with full transparency -- not only of data but of the logic that directs the definition of data as evidence 4) we insist upon transparent processes by which data can be transparently and effectively scrutinized -- this means specifying all forms of transformation to which data are subject and presenting the "chain of custody" / provenance of data thus certifying both logical validity and technical integrity 5) from a policy perspective, we begin with the "lowest hanging fruit", which politically means we start with bio-medicine (humans are naturally enough -- anthropocentric) -- thus NIH, CDC and UN/WHO and their evolving policies -- but we also push in other domains like conservation, agriculture and agrarian science, education... 6) we analyze carefully and advocate for the broad implementation of "qualified peer review mechanisms" (NSF provides an excellent model) 7) we aggressively advocate for K-gray science literacy... More about all and each of these points will follow... Continue reading
A premise — the stewardship and sharing of knowledge…?
Thanks to James for the invitation to blog… I should start out by making clear what I believe to be the ethical foundation for what we do as librarians… Librarianship is founded in two inter-related principles. 1) the stewardship of knowledge and 2) the free, open and effective sharing of knowledge for the common good. Everything we do as professionals flows from – or, at least, should(!) flow from --these two principles. (We can talk later about aberrations…) Stewardship implies thinking comprehensively and synthetically about knowledge and about how knowledge is historically organized but even more importantly, about how knowledge might be organized as it continues to evolve… I hope it is very clear that I am saying explicitly: librarianship is not defined by a physical format (board and rags) or by intellectual domain or by economic or cultural jurisdiction. By implication, stewardship implies a careful consideration of how knowledge is created, of epistemology. I think all good librarians practice epistemology intuitively . A senior scientist for whom I once worked said that he had the uncomfortable feeling that I was “observing” him – and of course, he was right – for many years I have considered ethnography to be an essential part of the librarians role. Though, unlike me, a really skilled librarian-ethnographer is not obvious… What should follow from practical observations is insight and innovation for the benefit of all who seek to use knowledge. As for sharing, the American public library is one of our most fundamental democratic institutions. It embodies the meritocratic notion that every member of our civil society has the right to access to knowledge and should have the freedom to develop knowledge creatively and productively (or even idly and unproductively! – Bertrand Russell, among others, has noted the importance of “idleness” to the creative process – and apparently, Charles Darwin – as he was gestating The Origin of Species -- shot pool with his butler most days… The pool table was next door to his study). The American public library tradition has evolved in parallel with the evolution of science. Both traditions are strongly dependent upon full disclosure, upon full access and upon effective use. In a very fundamental sense, without submission of one’s scientific analysis and data to public scrutiny, one is not practicing science. Similarly in the public sphere, there has been a strong and increasing demand that public policy and decisions taken for the public good, be “evidence-based” . (One might consider Colin Powell's performance before the the UN, just prior to the Iraq War, -- to be a pro forma honoring of this expectation?) In a complexly representative system of government, it is only by provision of the evidentiary basis for policy and decisions that citizens can engage with and evaluate policy and decisions. The importance to access to data as evidence has become critically clear as the discussion of global climate change has progressed… Ultimately not only should the available data as evidence be fully available for examination, but the scientific logic that supports the selection of those data as evidence should also be transparently and usefully available... More, to follow... Continue reading
Latest Comments