Why Scientific Knowledge Is the Same as Faith

Contents:

• We know much less than we think. And this can be verified
• Our "knowledge" depends on society. What is epistemic dependence
• Belief in other people's knowledge is the foundation of modern science
• We know everything that humanity knows if we trust the experts. What is transactive knowledge?
• How to choose an expert you can trust?
• What is knowledge in the modern world and how to work with it?

• Modern people think they know almost everything. But this belief is easily shattered by experiment.
• What is epistemic dependence and how attacks on it gave rise to COVID dissidence and the fight against 5G towers.
• Scientists also don't know everything in the world - the realization of this idea helped create a cutting-edge scientific project.
• What is collective knowledge and why you shouldn't be skeptical of it.
• How to choose an expert you can trust.
• Three tips - what to do to gain more knowledge, and what to do with it.

Matthew Hutson is an American science journalist and the author of "The 7 Laws of Magical Thinking," which examines unscientific assumptions associated with superstition and religion. In the fall of 2020, Hutson began researching the relationship between individual knowledge and societal knowledge. To do this, he turned to modern psychologists and philosophers, and also conducted conversations with researchers from the LIGO laboratory, one of the most significant scientific projects of our time, which in 2016 confirmed the existence of gravitational waves, thereby supporting Einstein's theory. In his research, he seeks to understand how individual and collective knowledge influences the perception of scientific facts and shapes public beliefs.

Hutson realized that the average person knows much less about the world than they think. However, the journalist came to a more encouraging conclusion: by relying on experts, we can gain access to the vast knowledge of humanity. In this article, we summarize Hutson's ideas, published in MIT Technology Review.

We know much less than we think. And this can be tested

Knowledge is usually defined as "justified true belief." However, in reality, much of our knowledge is difficult to justify, and we often simply rely on information received from others. This raises important questions about the nature of knowledge and its sources. It is important to approach information critically, verify facts, and recognize that many beliefs are formed under the influence of others' opinions, which can affect our understanding of the world.

We understand that plants perform photosynthesis, and gasoline-powered cars require gasoline, not diesel. However, most people are unable to explain in detail the mechanisms of photosynthesis or the internal combustion engine. Understanding basic principles is important, but deep assimilation requires specialized knowledge and training.

People often overestimate their ability to explain phenomena in the world around them. In one experiment, participants were asked whether they understood the nature of thunderstorms and rainbows. All subjects confidently answered affirmatively. However, when asked to explain the origin of these phenomena, most realized their insufficient knowledge. This study highlights that confidence in understanding may not correspond to the actual level of knowledge about natural phenomena.

Hutson argues that anyone can conduct a similar experiment. Try drawing a bicycle from memory, and then compare your image with the original. This will help you realize how much our perception and memory can differ from reality.

Our "knowledge" depends on society. What is epistemic dependence

In 1985, the American philosopher John Hardwig came to an important conclusion about the nature of knowledge and information. He identified two main approaches to understanding the ownership of information: the first argues that knowledge belongs only to the collective, and not to individuals, the second, to which the philosopher himself was inclined, suggests that many people can "know" information without realizing its essence. Hardwig denoted this phenomenon with the term "epistemic dependence". This concept emphasizes the complexity of cognition and the interaction between individual and collective knowledge, which is a current topic in the field of philosophy and epistemology.

Epistemic dependency may seem like an abstract philosophical problem, but it has practical implications. The question of who owns knowledge is important not only for philosophers. Cognitive scientist Steven Sloman emphasizes that this dependency gives rise to two key questions: "How can we claim to know anything for sure?" and "Who can we trust?" These questions are relevant in an information-rich environment, where critical thinking and the ability to evaluate sources of information become essential skills. Understanding epistemic dependency helps develop a more mindful approach to knowledge and its sources.

Covid denialism, vaccine conspiracy theories, opposition to 5G towers, and global warming denial are examples of attacks on epistemic dependency. This means that people often rely on the opinions of others without delving into the substance of the matter. In today's information-rich environment, it is important to critically consider information sources and develop one's own understanding of scientific facts. Recognizing one's dependence on the knowledge of others can help avoid manipulation and misinformation, which is actively spreading in society. By relying on trusted sources and scientific research, you can form more informed opinions on important issues such as health and the environment.

Trust in Others' Knowledge Is the Foundation of Modern Science

In the 18th century, a European could learn about the major scientific achievements of mankind by reading a single, voluminous book, as the leading scientists of the time were encyclopedists—specialists in various fields of knowledge. Since then, science has advanced significantly. Modern scientists possess only a small amount of knowledge in a narrow field and are forced to actively exchange information with colleagues to succeed in their research. This underscores the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and continuous learning in a rapidly changing scientific landscape.

Epistemic dependence is observed not only among the layman, but also among scientists. This phenomenon manifests itself in the fact that even experts in their field can rely on external sources of information, which influences their research and conclusions. Understanding this dependence is important for assessing the reliability of scientific knowledge and developing critical thinking. Scientists must be aware of how their views and decisions can be influenced by authorities and public opinion, which emphasizes the need for independent analysis of information.

When a researcher works alone, they often cite the publications of other authors, sometimes without delving into the original work, but limiting themselves to brief summaries of extensive research. Large scientific projects require the involvement of specialists from various fields, which forces them to trust the professional competence of their colleagues. This phenomenon emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in science, but also calls into question the quality and reliability of the sources used.

Hutson interviewed scientists who developed the LIGO project to understand the mechanism of epistemic dependence in scientific research.

LIGO, or the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, was founded in 2002 and is located in two campuses: one in Louisiana and the other in Washington state. The project's primary goal is to confirm Albert Einstein's hypothesis that gravity is a wave-like distortion of spacetime caused by the motion of massive objects. LIGO observatories are capable of detecting tiny fluctuations in gravitational waves emanating from deep space, opening new horizons for studying the universe and confirming the theoretical foundations of general relativity.

In 2015, LIGO made a groundbreaking discovery confirming the existence of gravitational waves. The following year, the project team published a scientific paper presenting compelling evidence of this phenomenon. This work includes more than 1,000 authors. LIGO researchers were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, with the three project founders receiving $1 million each in prize money, and the remaining $2 million was divided among the thousands of scientists who participated in the study. This discovery was a major step in understanding the cosmos and confirmed Albert Einstein's predictions about gravitational waves, opening new horizons for astronomy and physics.

Hutson asked the researchers whether any of the thousands of authors of the 2016 paper understood every aspect of the material presented. LIGO Director, physicist David Reitze, noted that many scientists master significant parts of the study, but overall, the work is based on trust in each other's professional skills. He also admitted that he could not explain some sections of the paper.

The head of the LIGO project laboratory in Louisiana, Joseph Jaimi, noted in an interview that approximately 50% of the team members had never visited the project sites, since their duties did not require a physical presence. This highlights the importance of remote work and the diversity of roles in scientific projects like LIGO that study gravitational waves.

Jamie asks an important question: "Is there anyone who knows absolutely everything?" This rhetorical statement highlights the complexity of knowledge in the modern world. For example, our ray tube developed a leak caused by corrosion triggered by microorganisms. This incident clearly demonstrates how biology can influence technical processes. With the constant growth of information and the complexity of systems, it is virtually impossible for one person to encompass all aspects of science and technology.

The epistemic dependence in the LIGO project was confirmed by an interesting event. Until 2010, the project was not producing results and was stopped for modernization. In 2015, LIGO restarted and on its second day of operation, it recorded a perfect signal. Its quality aroused suspicion among scientists, who suspected possible data falsification. However, after a thorough investigation, the project's leadership concluded that the signal was indeed genuine. Data falsification could only have been accomplished with the participation of a large group of disgruntled geniuses, which was completely impossible within the framework of this project. Thus, this case confirms the significance and reliability of the LIGO research results, and also emphasizes the importance of teamwork in scientific projects.

We know everything that humanity knows if we trust the experts. What is transactive knowledge

The knowledge of even the most advanced scientists is largely based on faith. But is this a negative aspect? Faith in scientific theories and models allows us to develop new ideas and discover unexplored horizons. Scientific progress is often built on assumptions that are then tested and refined through research. Thus, faith in scientific concepts can be a driving force for discovering new possibilities and achieving a deeper understanding of the world around us.

In 1987, psychologist Daniel Wegner introduced the concept of collective knowledge, which includes not only our own understanding of information, but also an awareness of who has knowledge in other areas. Wegner called this phenomenon transactive memory. Transactive memory is an important aspect of group dynamics and interaction, allowing people to effectively share and utilize knowledge within a team. Understanding this concept can therefore significantly improve collaboration and learning across a variety of domains. Experiments have demonstrated the usefulness of collaborative training. Researchers conducted an experiment in which several groups of three people reassembled a disassembled radio. Participants in some teams trained individually, while others trained together. The results showed that the groups that trained together worked more cohesively and made half as many errors. This underscores the importance of teamwork and collaborative training in improving task performance. People are much more effective when they work in a team and trust its members. This trust enables people to achieve outstanding results in both work and scientific research. Collaboration facilitates the exchange of ideas, improves communication, and increases motivation. As a result, collective efforts lead to greater achievement and innovation.

How to Choose a Trusted Expert

In the context of transactional knowledge, determining which authorities can be trusted and which cannot is a crucial task. Hutson emphasizes that when choosing an expert we want to trust, we usually pay attention to the speed with which they provide answers in public debates and the ability to refute opponents' arguments. However, this approach is not always optimal, since self-confidence and categoricalness are not preferred qualities for a scientist. In 2001, philosopher Alvin Goldman identified four signs that indicate that an expert can be trusted. Hutson considers these signs to be relevant and useful for assessing the reliability of experts.

Endorsement and support from experts play a key role in any field. The presence of positive reviews and recommendations from professionals increases trust in a product or service. When specialists express their support, it not only confirms quality but also helps attract new clients. It's important to actively work to establish relationships with experts and gain their approval, as this can significantly enhance your reputation and competitiveness in the marketplace.

Professional qualifications and reputation play a key role in the success of any business. A specialist's qualifications determine their abilities and level of knowledge in a given field, which directly impacts the quality of their work and client satisfaction. Reputation, in turn, is formed based on previous experience, reviews, and recommendations, which also significantly influences the trust of potential clients. Therefore, it is important not only to continually improve your qualifications but also to take care of creating and maintaining a positive reputation in the professional community.

Absence of bias and lack of interest in a particular interpretation is a key aspect of professional expertise. An expert should not derive personal benefit from expressing a particular point of view. This ensures the objectivity and reliability of the information presented, which is especially important in analytical and scientific research. The purity and independence of an expert's opinion contribute to increased trust in their recommendations and conclusions.

A professional record includes regalia, academic degrees, previous scientific achievements, and successes in their professional field. This is an important element that highlights the specialist's qualifications and experience. Reference to academic degrees and regalia helps create the impression of a high level of expertise. Previous scientific achievements and professional success demonstrate not only knowledge but also the ability to innovate and apply scientific research in practice. Such a list is key to building authority and trust in a specialist in their field.

What is knowledge in the modern world and how to work with it

Hutson came to three main conclusions that will help effectively use knowledge in the modern world. These conclusions emphasize the importance of adaptation to rapidly changing conditions, the need for constant updating of information, and the significance of collaborative learning. Applying these principles will optimize the process of working with knowledge and increase its value in various fields of activity.

We often exaggerate our knowledge. In fact, our understanding of various phenomena and things is significantly limited. To develop a more objective perception, it is important to ask ourselves and others as many questions as possible, even if they seem naive. This approach will help deepen our understanding and open up new horizons of knowledge.

In the past, many scientists and philosophers believed that rational thinking is an exclusively individual process, and trust in other people is a distraction from rigorous science. However, in today's reality, such a view may not only be outdated but also harmful. Interaction and collaboration with others are becoming important aspects of thinking, enabling us to enrich our knowledge and expand our horizons of understanding. The development of collective intelligence and the exchange of ideas contribute to scientific advances and innovation. Therefore, given the modern context, it is important to rethink our approach to rational thinking by incorporating elements of trust and collaboration. Even the most intelligent person cannot fully understand the world without the help of experts. In certain areas, they will inevitably have gaps in their knowledge, which can lead to simplistic or even erroneous conclusions. A rational approach requires a combination of personal reflection and trust in competent and impartial experts. This is relevant both in the professional sphere and in everyday life. For example, if you are experiencing problems with your car, it is better to seek advice from an experienced mechanic rather than attempt to solve the problem yourself. Leveraging expert knowledge helps avoid costly mistakes and improve decision-making.

In the early stages of gravitational wave research, physicists limited themselves to sharing their observational results, which slowed down the process. The breakthrough in proving the existence of gravitational waves occurred thanks to strengthened scientific collaboration between various research groups. Participants began actively exchanging significant amounts of data, accelerating progress in this field. Collaboration and joint efforts among scientists have become key factors in achieving success in studying gravitational waves.

Hutson emphasizes that a deeper philosophical lesson emerges from this story. Knowledge cannot be shared between people. Even if you can't explain photosynthesis, you are still an important part of the epistemic ecosystem, capable of both defining and exploring this knowledge at a detailed level, using it for the benefit of society. Ultimately, your knowledge is part of the general knowledge available to everyone.