The Scientific Method and the myths of Science, Intelligence and the Great Thinkers.

The following is the second part of Chapter IV-1 of "A Scientific Model Of The Brain: From Instinct to Reason, How Does The Mind. The first half of this chapter can be found following this link.

 If a theory does not make testable predictions, it is simply not scientific, full stop, end of story.

It is often said that before we ask how intelligence works, we should ask what is intelligence. Yet, considering that intelligence is not really any kind of 'thing' that we can interact with, does it make much sense to ask how intelligence works, in the first place? Would it not be more productive to investigate how intelligent behavior comes about, or - better yet - how to bring about intelligent behavior?

The fitness of a scientific theory is determined by its simplicity and predictive power.

1. If a scientific theory's prediction fails, the theory can conclusively be deemed proven wrong.

Considering these shortcomings, the crucial contribution of the scientific method is that it represents a principled, objective procedure, whereby a theory can either gain credibility aside of any subjective biases or be proven definitely false. Indeed, since the focus is set on explaining how things work, the predictions on the system's behavior raised by the theory's model can be objectively verified by further experimental data: if the behavior predicted by the model is not in accordance with the new observations, the theory will have to be corrected. In some cases it may be possible to solve the problem with some adjustments (in fact, as the previous discussion on the brain's non-logical probabilistic "reasoning" hinted, this is the clever general strategy followed by the brain); but more often than not, the theory will have to be reformulated entirely. Importantly, since the cold data will never admit any negotiations for a change of the veredict, the scheme does not allow any room for prominent figures or arbitrary opinions.

2. The myth of Science and "scientifically proven" facts: Since it is impossible to prove that something will always be correct, it is not possible to prove the absolute correctness of a scientific theory, nor is there anything such as a "scientifically proven" fact. 

Yes, it is of utmost importance to expose the obscene dishonesty behind the myth of Science and the so-called "scientifically-proven" fact. Of even greater relevance than a principled, objective method to conclusively prove a theory wrong, it is to understand, that the scientific method does by no means provide any mechanism to prove any theory right. There is indeed the very widespread and deeply rooted misconception (even among intellectuals and scholars in the humanities and social sciences), according to which there is something such as Science, representing humanity's accumulated well of wisdom, and there are certain facts, which have been "scientifically proven". Yet, nothing could be more misguided. Absolutely, the basic principle of the scientific method is that any theory can be deemed - but not be proven - valid, until it is proven false. Evidently, since the objective is to figure out how things work, if the theory's model's predictions fail, we will all have to accept that the theory is just wrong, no matter how intelligent its author is supposed to be. In other words, Science is not any kind of well of accumulated wisdom and there is anything such as scientifically proven fact, since how do we know, that some widely accepted theory today, will not be all of a sudden proven wrong tomorrow? For instance, we all thought Newton's (second) law was correct, until Einstein found it does not apply in all conditions. Now, in this particular case, since Newton's (second) law's predictions are basically accurate under regular circumstances, it is still widely used; but we would normally otherwise toss the entire theory altogether. This is therefore a good example where we can see the advantages of our instinct's non-logical probabilistic approach, as compared to our conscious thought's 'black-or-white- "logical reasoning". Clearly, if a model yields accurate predictions for a wide range of cases, it is not really smart to get rid of it entirely, just because we run into one counterexample. In sharp contrast, as we shall see in the next chapter, our (language-coded) conscious knowledge does not admit any shade of grey: obsessed as we all are to show how intelligent we are, it is either that I am right or that you are wrong. Consequently, you should stop trusting your instinct's irrational superstitions, and instead start doing as I say... 

The rigidity of our (language-coded) conscious knowledge will then have very severe implications. Given scientific research is deemed by most of us as the most reliable source of advanced information, the assertion that one's ideas have been scientifically proven is certainly powerful enough to justify any effort to give credibility to such a bogus claim. And, let there be no doubt about it, such an effort is and will be most absolutely made over and over again. As scientific knowledge has grown more and more detailed and complex, the actual, precise scientific evidence and data relevant to a specific question is not readily accessible, let alone comprehensible to the immense majority of the people. As a result, only a very reduced number of researchers is actually able to make himself or herself a well-educated, precise idea of the correctness of the rivaling scientific theories on any such specific question. Indeed, unless you are a climate scientist, who has read many scientific papers on climate change, how on Earth are you going to know if human beings are a major factor in climate change? Obviously, for the immense majority of us, the only realistic option is to listen to what the most eminent scientists on the subject has to say. But, how are we going to know who are said eminent scientists? At the end of the day, we just have to rely on what mass-Media says is the dominant scientific view on the subject. Yet, even if we are to daringly assume mass-Media's account does not follow any agenda and faithfully reflects the opinion of the most eminent scientists in the given question; there is no guarantee whatsoever, the dominant scientific view on any such question will be the correct one. Just because a majority of the scientific community shares an opinion, it does not necessarily mean such view must be at all well-taken. As a matter of fact, if we have to accept that the overwhelming majority of the theories are eventually proven wrong; then it follows that in the overwhelming majority of the cases the dominant scientific view is likewise eventually proven wrong. You see, it used to be that the most reknown scientists thought yogurt is the key to a long life; but later realized the reality is actually a little bit more complicated. It was not that long ago we were told Science warned about the dramatic effects the growing ozone hole in the atmosphere would have on life on Earth, and then we found the apocalyptic predictions turned out to be incorrect. Fact of the matter is that, as much as we may love to think our fake-democratic system is the best thing since peanut butter, democratically polling opinions (let alone fake-democratically polling opinions) is simply not a reliable mechanism to assess the correctness of a scientific theory. In fact, contrary to what is generally said, it is not really the big professors who have the most detailed and profound knowledge on specific problems. To the extent that they are put to work day and night towards their Ph.D. thesis, it is actually the Ph.D. students, who really rack their brains, scrutinize the data to the tiniest detail and, consequently, come up with the brightest ideas and have the most profound knowledge on the specific topic of their Ph.D. research. In contrast, the big professors are busy writing proposals and presenting their students' results, in order to obtain further funding for their lab's research projects. Then, given that human beings generally follow those ideas, which keep them better fed, it is easy to see how scientific research is often tainted by economic interests. Long story short, in this materialistic modern world of ours, in science, not unlike in any other facet of the society , the ideas that will come out on top are not those closest to the truth, but those that should make most money.

3. The simpler a theory, the stronger it will be: namely, a very complex theory, which defines a specific case to explain every new observation, - as accurate as it is - will not have any predictive power and will therefore be of no use.

It is certainly reasonable to ask, if there is no mechanism to prove a theory right, how can we tell one theory is stronger than another? Indeed, if all theories can be  deemed valid until proven false, it should be reasonable to say that all theories are equally good, so long nobody has found any counterexample. Yes, I guess there are times, where we just cannot get what we want. Yet, while there is no objective mechanism to accurately measure and establish the fitness of a theory, the good news are it is still possible to make a fairly objective assessment of a theory's strength in comparison to another; namely, the theory's model should be as simple as possible. The key consideration is that we should not just build a model to replicate what we have already observed; but to generalize and predict what we will see in the future. Remember, we want to know how the thing works; don't we? In statistical learning terms, the objective is to replicate the data-generation model and so our model has to capture the structure of the data; rather than simply memorizing each and every data point (observation). If all what the model does is to take note of what should be the response to each of the examples it was trained with, the model is of little use. Indeed, if we "overfit the data" in such a way, the model will not generalize and, therefore, will not be able to make any prediction. For instance, there is little point in memorizing a multiplication table; if we do not extrapolate (generalize), replicate the data-generation model and are therefore able to multiply any two numbers.

As a matter of fact, if we are allowed to have a model as complex as needed, it is actually rather easy to come up with a theory, which very accurately replicates our observations: we just need to define a new case for each and every example we observe. I am sure you have also noticed how well economist are always able to explain what happend yesterday in the stock exchange markets (or, for that matter, anything that has been observed on any date in the past). It is just for some really unfortunate reason, that they are never able to reliably predict what is going to happen tomorrow; which is really what we want, isn't it?

In this sense it is useful to consider the theory of Intelligent Design, which is falsely alleged to be a scientific version of Creationism. According to Intelligent Design, life or the Universe could not have arisen by chance; but must have been designed and created by some intelligent entity. As it can be seen from its very definition, the theory is conceived in counterposition to some other ideas or set of theories. It is certainly a very widespread and deeply rooted misconception to believe, that trashing someone else's theory will boost one's own theory's credibility. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth: fact of the matter is that, even if Darwin's Theory of Evolution were to be proven false, it would not add the tiniest bit to the validity of Intelligent Design or, for that sake, any other theory.. Yes, I could not care less if the other guys' theories fail to predict the markets' behavior; if you expect me to buy your theory, I exclusively want to know how accurate are your own forecasts. Absolutely, every theory has to be assess in its own terms. Of course, nobody is ever going to be able to prove that some intelligent creator does not exiss. In general terms, it is strictly impossible to disprove the existence of something, whatever we may fancy this to be: . For instance, just because nobody has yet found any flying, pink elephant, it does not mean that one day one will appear. Yet, at the end of the day, the scientific value of a theory is determined by its ability to make accurate predictions. Thus, who cares if nobody has ever found the tiniest flaw in any of your explanations of the stock exchange markets' past performance?:; if your theory does not make any projection into the future, there is simply no use to your theory. Indeed, Intelligent Design limits itself to explaining how did everything come into being; but does otherwise not give the slightest indication, as of what may happen in the future. Now, on the other hand, my friend, if your model is consistently able to predict the markets' behaviors, I would definitely be more than interested to buy your ideas. 

4. a theory that explains everything through the assumption of the existence of a intelligent agent inside our brain, not only has no scientific value, but is nothing but magical thinking.

To make a long story short, the simpler a theory's model is, the greater its scientific value. It should therefore be easy to see, why we should try to explain the emergence of consciousness, without the huge assumption of the existence of a intelligent agent. If there is some voice or inner feeling unremittingly chewing over stuff in our head, it is certainly intuitive to think, that there must be some animated thing somewhere in there pondering our choices and driving our decisions. However, it is important to keep in mind, that just because it feels as if there is a pilot, it does not necessarily mean there is actually a pilot. Perhaps, it is just an autonomous vehicle. Just because a nation keeps a relationship of friendship with another, it does not necessarily mean there is any kind of animated body within the nation feeling any sort of friendship for the other polity. It will certainly be impossible to prove the inexistence of a intelligent agent; but it will basically be as futil to go in search of it, as well.

Even in the very unlikely scenario, where someone may be able to find such a intelligent agent,  - as much as the theory's proponents will celebrate to be proven right - the discovery would be of very little help, as it would add close to nothing to our practical knowledge. As a matter of fact, the reliance on the existence of a intelligent agent to explain our ability to reason, amounts to little more than sweeping the question under the rug.. Indeed, the theory provides an easy explanation to the eternal, burning conundrum of the emergence of consciousness; however, when we then ask next what led our intelligent agent to wake up and have such an aha moment, most likely the only answer we will ever be able to find is, that it simply chose so. This is when our best thinkers set out to define and elaborate on all the different types of human beings: the French, the English, the Hispanic, the Russian, the Chinese, the Christian, the Muslim, the Jew, men, women, the homosexual, the heterosexual, whites, blacks, the conservative, the progressive, the rich, the poor, etc.. Needless to say, each of these stereotypes have their very own peculiarities and tendencies to make certain choices and act in a given way. Still, at the end of the day, - considering that the emergence of ideas and intelligent conducts relies on the freaking intelligent, decision-making agent's light bulb going off - since we do not have a blooming clue how the intelligent agent's light bulb works (let alone the nuts and bolts of the damn agent thing), we are totally left in the dark on, how we may be able to elicit intelligent behavior. Yes, let us be honest, would it not be cool to find the switch that turns on the freaking light bulb? Indeed, for thousands and thousands of years we have been wishing and praying to God to send us a king with a vibrant, happy-go-lucky light bulb, when we might as well have focused on what policies and recipes have shown to lead to the nation's prosperity. Not everything is lost, though; at least we have a pretty good idea of all the different types of "intelligence; namely, spatial intelligence, logical and mathematical intelligence, musical intelligence, linguistic intelligence, emotional intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence and so much more.  

To make a long story short, if Human Agency is a theory's only answer to why something happened, it denies the whole concept of Science. In other words, as bluntly and severely as it may sound, a theory that explains everything through the assumption of the existence of a intelligent agent, does not have any scientific value; rather it is nothing but magical thinking reinvented and revisited.

5. Given we can observe everywhere in Nature, how stable patterns of miraculously spectacular complexity and beauty form from very basic dynamics, we need not to resort on any magical intelligent decision-making agent to explain the rise of a sense of self-awareness and the expression of rational thinking and intelligent behaviors.  

If we enjoy so much to portray ourselves as intelligent and rational animals, we realy need to back our tedious full-of-ourselves boasting doing something more than just resorting on the assumption of a intelligent agent. to explain the origin of our "intelligence" and reasoning powers. If we allege Science to be the ultimate proof of our superior intellect, then it represents in itself nothing but a sheer oxymoron to approach this capital and essential question turning yet again to magical thinking, instead of scientific reasoning. At a minimum, we need to explore if, perhaps, we can do without any physical manifestation of our agency; but it is possible to explain the emergence of something like an animated voice from the cooperation and competition between populations of neurons. Perhaps it is possible to get the vehicle started up and to autonomously drive around, without the intervention of any pilot.

This article is part of Chapter IV-1 of "A Scientific Model Of The Brain: From Instinct to Reason, How Does The Mind Work". 

If it makes sense to you, please share it with your network of friends. It will mean a lot.