The rule in the knowledge machine

Michael Strevens, The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science, Liveright, New York, 2020, 350 pp. hard-back, 30$

The Knowledge machine is a book about the Iron rule of explanation (IRE). According to Michael Strevens, science has worked because scientific communities have strictly played by this rule ever since Newton. In the author’s own words, this is:

The rule demanding that all scientific arguments be settled by empirical testing, along with the elaborations that give the demand its distinctive content: a definition of empirical testing in terms of shallow causal explanation, a definition of official scientific argument as opposed to informal or private reasoning, and the exclusion of all subjective considerations and nonempirical considerations (philosophical, religious, aesthetic) from official scientific argument. [293]

With the IRE Strevens wants to settle the Great Method debate, initiated by methodists like Popper and Kuhn and then dominated by radical subjectivism (now prevalent among historians and sociologists of science). According to Strevens, the former focused on the wrong rule, be it falsificationism or the organization of scientific paradigms. The latter deny that there is any correct rule,  scientific outcomes are just like any social agreement, a matter of taste, interests, power etc. Strevens accepts the role of all these factors in the dynamics of science, but condensed into plausibility rankings, “a scientist’s level of confidence that a hypothesis or other assumption is true” [293]. But subjectivity is then constrained by the IRE: the game of science is about scientists organizing empirical tournaments in which a winner emerges, independently of the conflicting interests or values of the participants. According to Strevens, the accumulation of evidence, in the long run, brings about consensus on the true theory, the one that explains all relevant observations.

The gist of the iron rule is to minimize scientific debate about things scientists may not easily agree on and motivate scientists to “squeeze every last drop of predictive power” from a scientific paradigm. For Strevens, playing by the IRE and only the IRE is irrational: the IRE “imposes a wholesale prohibition on all forms of nonempirical thinking, no matter their track record, no matter how well they synergize with empirical observations” [237]. A chapter on the fruitfulness of beauty as a guiding principle of science exemplifies this point. But the alternative (using some other guiding principles in addition to the IRE) is worse: scientists may never reach an agreement.

Strevens discusses the Thirty Years’ War to illustrate how making religion a private matter is the best strategy to avoid civil unrest, and modern science would have its foundation in this separation. The recipe is still valid today: Keep empirical tests separate from any other consideration and let these tests proceed until a consensus is reached, keepscience working like a well-oiled automaton (a knowledge machine), do not meddle with the IRE.

Although Strevens is famous for his dense prose and subtle conceptual analyses, The Knowledge Machine was conceived as a popular philosophy book, an a quite successful one at that –already with reviews in major international newspapers and magazines such The New Yorker. A reason for this lies in the long collection of snapshots in the History of science that illustrate the concepts presented above and make for a fun reading. Radical –and a few moderate- subjectivists will probably challenge the details of these abridged case studies, but this is a scholarly debate, for which Strevens will probably be ready –although the footnotes and references are rather sketchy so that it is often difficult to determine the depth of his knowledge of each particular case.

What was less clear to me though was the message this book is sending to the public. As Strevens acknowledges in the first half of the book, his predecessors in the Great Method Debate were all conveying an image of scientists that became hugely influential among the educated Westerners: the Popperian dissenter, the Kuhnian Cold warrior, the Latourian black-boxer. These images made plain sense against the background of the political dilemmas of their time, partly reconstructed by Strevens for his readers. However, about our own dilemmas, Strevens remains mostly silent and his final advice sounds almost like an oracle: “Do not tamper with the workings of the knowledge machine. Set its agenda, and then step back: let it run its course” [285]. Strevens does not explicitly says  who is meddling with the IRE and who would oppose it after grasping Streven’s consequentialist argument. Perhaps a few ongoing agendas in philosophy of science (and on Science and Technology Studies) could be seen as targeting the IRE. Feminist standpoint theories, for instance, defend a reassessment of what counts as evidence to illuminate potential sexist biases. Similarly, advocates for the embedment of philosophers in scientific laboratories claim that conceptual analyses can have a real impact on the advancement of science. Would any of these approaches count as threats to the IRE?

Perhaps  more serious meddlers  are the many forms of populism proliferating around the world. After all, the IRE has a technocratic taste: once their goals are set by democratic parliaments, science, like hospitals, courts, or central banks, work better as independent institutions where experts make relevant decisions according to their own rules. Challenging the autonomy of science in the name of “subjective or nonempirical considerations” would be a typical populist move. For instance, I would count as populist the call to accommodate  patients’ preferences in the design of clinical trial at the expenses of traditional debiasing methods (such as blinding). But I cannot tell whether this is the sort of challenge with which  Strevens is concerned because almost of all of the examples discussed in the book are success stories from the natural sciences before 1950.

It is always nice to be reminded of how well some scientific disciplines have worked in the past and, at least to me, the IRE seems a plausible account for this success. But I am not sure about the effectiveness of such a reminder in persuading contemporary audiences about the benefits of the autonomy of science. My first concern is that such reminders have been tried before with not much success. Reading The Knowledge Machine, I could not but think of Max Weber’s arguments about the scientific vocation. Like Strevens, Weber was inspired by how the Protestant reformation and brought about a world in which the private faith of individual agents had unintended beneficial consequences for everyone (i.e., economic growth), provided that the Church and the State were kept apart. Like Strevens, Weber praised scientific specialization and called for leaving aside all value judgments so as to prioritize consequentialist considerations. And yet the Great Method debate started because, after World War II, only Merton was persuaded that a general code of conduct was enough to account for the success of science. WillStrevens’ arguments be more persuasive today?

I agree that having clearly articulated (iron) rules will  increase the public trust in any institution. Nonetheless, my second concern is that the problem we are now facing is the increasing mistrust regarding the enforcement of any such rule. Think again of randomized clinical trials in medicine: despite the conflicting interests at stake, the systematic implementation of the IRE allows the truth about whether medical treatments work to emerge with the accumulation of evidence (thanks, e.g., to the Cochrane collaboration). And yet more and more patients are persuaded that the whole testing system is bankrupt because some particular trials are rigged by their corporate sponsors. A Weberian reminder that scientists have successfully played by the IRE in the past to everyone’s satisfaction and that we should keep their effort going will do little, in my view, to appease an audience sceptical about whether the IRE is being enforced today

But maybe I am overinterpreting Strevens’ argument. After all, defending science from the meddlers is just the topic of 7 pages out of 300. Perhaps this is just a public reminder that science works for a very simple reason that the examples in the book easily convey. It is an entertaining read and it will help to comfort any Weberian soul struggling to keep alive her faith in science in our increasingly challenging world. At least, it has helped me. 

{August, 2021}

{Metascience}

 

 .