Listening To You - Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy in North West London
  • Welcome
  • Listening
  • Psychoanalysis
  • The Therapist
  • Beginning therapy
  • Code Of Practice
  • Contact Details
  • Links
  • A Psychoanalyst's Blog

Reality checks

27/7/2011

 
Last week I wrote about a scientific paper that claimed that “most published research findings are false”. I identified the three slightly different conceptions of truth that the abstract of that paper was alluding to, and suggested, as a work hypothesis, that we differentiate between “real truth” and “scientific truth”.

I ended that post rather abruptly and at a somewhat provocative point. I claimed that science does not have anything to do with reality.

I acknowledged, however, that this would need to be clarified.

This is what I shall attempt to do today: to clarify.

So science “does not have anything to do with reality”.

How did we get to this conclusion? What does it mean?
The point of departure is that scientific statements are meaningless unless taken within a framework of understanding in which they can have a meaning. All scientific theories, conjectures, statements, proofs of statements, research hypotheses and so on, presuppose such a framework of rational reasoning which we call scientific. Scientists strive for consistency within this framework. Real truth, as such, is irrelevant.

Which brings us back to our main issue: What is truth? How do we establish it?

As we saw, it is rather easy to establish the truth value of a statement such as “the cat is on the mat”. All we’d have to do is to check and see whether there is a cat on the mat. That would do.

In contrast: How do we establish the truth of a scientific statement? Say, for example, that someone, a particle physicist, publishes a paper: “Higgs boson exists”. What do we need to do to check if this is true? Is it enough to just have a look? What is a Higgs boson, anyway? What does it look like?

The thing is, we do not know -or rather, we don't really know.

Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. The two keywords here are “hypothetical” and “predicted”. Higgs boson is a research hypothesis. In order to establish the truth of this hypothesis, we need to check it against our evidence. But the evidence for or against the existence of Higgs boson is not of the same kind as the evidence for the existence of that cat on the mat; the truth that we are trying to establish is not similar either.

First of all, nobody would really be able to “see” Higgs boson. One can only infer its existence indirectly by studying the products of collisions between elementary particles accelerated at immense speeds. This is why we need instruments, such as the Large Hadron Collider. Their job is to accelerate particles at very high speeds, and let them collide in a controlled (and monitored) setting.

But we cannot “see” the products of the collisions either. We can only infer their existence indirectly by observing the interactions between these products and some specially constructed detecting instruments. These interactions, too, can only be inferred by indirect evidence. And so on and so forth.

In short: the evidence that we need in order to establish the existence of Higgs boson makes sense only within the highly sophisticated network of interdependent theories and hermeneutical models of particle physics. It does not make any sense outside of it.

In fact, this evidence –if ever collected– would only confirm the internal consistency of our theories, not the “reality” of Higgs boson. Our theories, both the ones that predict Higgs boson as well as the others that explain all the intermediate steps that we have taken in order to interpret our evidence, might be proven wrong or incomplete or inadequate, and might be abandoned or replaced.

Of course that’s not a problem. As we said, this is what scientists do: Questions of reality are irrelevant to them. They are only concerned with consistency –i.e. with scientific, not real, truth.

The point that I think is important, crucial really, is that sometimes people forget this distinction, and allow this “forgetfulness” to blur their understanding of truth.

This is a fallacy, and, as such, has major repercussions.

Last week I commented in passing upon how questions of a “subjective” nature (such as how beautiful a house or a painting is) are usually brushed aside, precisely because “they are subjective”. We usually accept this as a fact of life. We accept that “subjective things” are out of the reach of science. We accept that science can only study “objective” things, and we are fine with this.

Why shouldn’t we be fine, really? Objective things are measurable and verifiable –what is better than science to deal with them?

Higgs boson, for example, is such an objective thing. It is measurable, albeit indirectly, and verifiable. Yet, we do not know if it is real. Even if we collect evidence about its existence, we will still not know if it is real. But, as I tried to show above, this would not matter; what matters is that our theories remain consistent.

The fallacy that bothers me, is when we take qualities such as consistent or objective (in the sense of measurable or verifiable) to be identical with real; this fallacy leads to a further, more serious, fallacy that only objective things are real –with the corollary that subjective things are not real, i.e. non measurable or verifiable, and therefore unsuitable for serious study.

Do you see where this leads us?

It leads us to a place where I can study Higgs boson, even though it is hypothetical, but I cannot study something very real but subjective such as one’s sorrow for the loss of a loved one.

And instead of recognizing that as a limitation of our tools and our scientific worldview, we try to tame (one would say, bully) subjectivity into becoming objective, i.e. measurable.

We usually do this with the help of questionnaires. But whichever the way, the approach itself is highly problematic. This I will try to elaborate in another post.

For the time being, though, let’s summarize the argument.

  1. Science deals with objective, i.e. measurable and verifiable, entities.
  2. Scientific thought is only concerned with consistency, not with “truth” or “reality”.
  3. People, however, tend to confuse scientific truth with real truth.
  4. Subjective reality is taken, then, to be less “real” than objective reality –where in fact it only is less measurable.
  5. Subjective reality is brushed aside, or forcibly converted to objective, e.g. with the help of questionnaires.

I shall return to this.

In the meantime, please feel free to leave your comments, using the form below.

David Smart link
28/7/2011 03:08:32 am

I was once a jury member in the trial of a young man accused of carrying a knife. The prosecution contended that he had scars on his forearms. In response, his counsel brought him over to the jury box and invited us to see that he didn't have any such scars. It was true - he didn't. "Wait a minute" the prosecuting counsel said, bringing him over again, "There's one here, and here, and here." And it was true - there they were for us to see.
Even the statement that a cat is on the mat may be questionable. Since our cat died recently, I've occasionally heard him jumping down from the table. Perhaps I've been hallucinated the little grunt he gave as his paws hit the floor (jarring his arthritic joints) or perhaps what I used to interpret as this was actually a noise the table was making.
Scientists too have hallucinations - observations that become accepted truths. A scientist once told me that a particular primitive life-form was 'known' to have a sexual form of reproduction although it had never been observed (or maybe it was an asexual form); and the distinctive functions of the left and right brain hemispheres is still widely talked about, although the notion doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Similarly, more realistic hypotheses can be based on twisting the evidence, as with the proof that the earth orbits the sun rather than vice versa.

george
28/7/2011 11:43:49 am

An intriguing issue and a series of thoughts. Nicely set. Are they subjective enough or being solely objective reflect their inner consistency as almost a kind of truth?


Comments are closed.

    About

    This is the blog of
    Christos Tombras
    a psychoanalyst practising
    in North West London.

    For more information,
    please click here.

    For a list of all posts,
    please click here.

    Archives

    January 2020
    May 2019
    March 2016
    October 2014
    April 2014
    May 2013
    October 2012
    February 2012
    July 2011
    June 2011
    February 2011
    September 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009


    RSS Feed


    Categories

    All
    Body Mind Dichotomy
    Books
    Brain Initiative
    Cfar
    Descartes
    Discourse Ontology
    Dsm
    Event
    Evidence
    Falsification Criterion
    Films
    Free Will
    Hard Sciences
    Health Professions Council
    History
    Immanuel Kant
    Jacques Lacan
    Jouissance
    Lanzmann
    Lecture
    Martin Heidegger
    Measuring Effectiveness
    Medical Model
    Mental Illness
    Nimh
    Oedipus Complex
    Phantasy
    Psychoanalysis
    Psychosis
    Randomized Control Trials
    Reality
    Regulation Of Psychotherapy
    Resistance
    Reviews
    Scientific Research
    Sexuality
    Shoah
    Sigmund Freud
    Signifier
    Stigma
    Symptoms
    Teaching
    Therapy
    The Unconscious
    Truth
    Ukcp


Listening To You • An Invitation to Talk • Lacanian Psychoanalysis • London     © 2009 - 2021