
Scholars who believe nurture trumps nature tend to doubt the scientific method - user982
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/08/01/scholars-who-believe-nurture-trumps-nature-also-tend-to-doubt-the-scientific-method/
======
romwell
Quotes from exactly two people (a religious scholar and a literary studies
scholar) provide the basis for the title.

There are no statistics quoted (if they are present in the original survey).

Furthermore, the quotes specifically _do not_ doubt the scientific method --
but rather the applicability of scientific methods to the study of the human
condition.

We all love science, but the scientific method is not applicable to everything
- not even to all parts of what people see as science. For one, that's not how
many rich areas of mathematics were discovered and developed (e.g. non-
Euclidian geometry makes for a nice example).

Insofar, there are great obstacles to applying the scientific method to social
sciences. Try building a predictive model for sin. Even if your model is
perfect, it will only be perfect _to you_.

EDIT: the quoted paper, of course, doesn't support the title, and the quotes
were taken somewhat out of context. See my comment below.

~~~
user982
The original paper, rife with statistics and quotes, is here:
[http://journals.academicstudiespress.com/index.php/ESIC/arti...](http://journals.academicstudiespress.com/index.php/ESIC/article/view/96/101)

~~~
romwell
Thanks; the relevant page in the paper is 25, and very clearly, __the people
in the group do not doubt the scientific method __.

Specifically, the negatively-correlated Scientific Explanation factor is
defined on page 6:

"The second factor, accounting for 12.6% of the total variance, was defined by
the four items stating that science can explain nature, human behavior,
imaginative artifacts, and subjective human experience. We labeled this factor
Scientific Explanation."

That is, "Scientific Explanation" is a combination of the following factors on
page 8 (it's the 2nd eigenvector in the PCA of the survey results):

\-- Nature forms a unified structure that can be objectively known by science.

\-- Human behavior can be objectively explained by science.

\-- Subjective human experience can be explained scientifically.

\-- Imaginative artifacts like music, painting, and literature can be
objectively understood using scientific knowledge

I don't doubt the scientific method in the slightest, and yet even with the
most optimistic hopes for science, my answers would be:

\-- NO, as science (and the scientific method) aren't about that (e.g. the
"shut up and calculate" approach to quantum mechanics). We can study the
structures and their effects, but understanding them is more philosophy than
science, and any knowledge or understanding is always going to be incomplete
as the boundary of our knowledge becomes more vast.

\-- MAYBE, leaning towards LIKELY NOT, because I think this is equivalent to
building a strong AI

\-- NO, by definition of subjectivity this falls outside of the domain of
science

\-- NO, for the same reason.

Nuances like this are absent from the article.

This is some very shoddy journalism.

------
StanislavPetrov
Anyone who suggests we know enough to state confidently whether "nature" or
"nurture" is the predominant force in human development is either ignorant,
deluded, or both. The simple truth is that we have only begun to scratch the
surface in this area. Its one thing to speculate, and entirely another thing
to claim enough knowledge to make a confident assessment (let alone know for
sure).

~~~
toasterlovin
FWIW, there is actually a pretty great technique for sussing out the degree to
which environment and heredity impact various traits: twin studies.

Twin studies have repeatedly shown that genetics contribute from 30%-80% of
the variance in most psychological traits. Interestingly, they have also shown
that the shared environment (family, parents, socioeconomic status, etc.) has
zero contribution to variation in psychological traits. All of the
environmental variation is due to what is called the non-shared environment.

I highly recommend a book by Judith Rich Harris called The Nurture Assumption
if this kind of stuff is interesting to you.

