Heterodoxy

---

This is a follow-on, in a sense, to the JP sequence.  “JP” is a friend of mine who has some issues with the climate change science and – perhaps more so – the reporting of it.  It’s not just the reporting though, since he has repeatedly expressed his admiration of “heterodoxy” – which he seems to define as having the intellectual bravery to position oneself outside the straitjacket of conventional, “consensus” thinking.

 

Now, I am well aware that many people are heterodox when it comes to one issue or another.  For example, the standard view of cosmological evolution includes a period of inflation.  I have a model which does not include that (see posts about the FUGE model).  Some very famous scientists have been heterodox on one issue or another, and were subsequently proven right.

 

Look at that last sentence and consider what, for a scientist and their subsequent fame, was the major contributing factor.  It was not being heterodox per se, it was being proven right.  That’s rare enough to make the scientist famous.

 

The problem with heterodoxy is that it is almost always the wrong approach, particularly in a scientific context – despite it being very much the right approach in the rare situation when everyone else is wrong.  I may well be wrong about the FUGE model, quite likely entirely, but certainly in some key detail.

 

I’ve written before about my world view, and how I prefer that things that I hold true to be true.  I’m not necessarily bothered with whether the things that I hold true are also held to be true by other people.  I am, however, aware that if many people hold a thing to be true, for a suite of good reasons, then it’s more likely that they are true.  The more things that a person holds to be true that I also hold to be true, so long as they don’t also hold a number of incompatible things to be true, then the more likely it is that I might be able to rely on their judgement on something.  And if everyone does something like this, we can all – as a group – develop a “consensus”.

 

I don’t want to suggest that a having consensus means total agreement on all things.  It’s entirely possible to agree on issues in one area and disagree violently in others (for example, we might both agree that rum and raisin dark chocolate is delicious, but you might be insane enough to think that Turkish vomit [often mislabelled known as “Turkish delight”] is not totally disgusting).

 

To be fair to JP, he was once involved (on the periphery) with a cult-like church denomination with a leader who held great sway over the youthful congregation.  In that environment, everyone was encouraged to think alike and also to overlook the inconsistencies involved (it was a Christian thing, so there were plenty of them).  Anyone daring to differ, a heterodox, was subjected to some pretty major pressure to conform – with a threat of being cast out of the friendship group if they didn’t.  (Even having a conversion-resistant atheist like me as a friend was looked down on.)

 

Being a heterodox in that situation was (to my eyes) a good thing.  Challenge what you are being asked to believe, ask for proof, critically examine any evidence provided, acknowledge the fallacies.

 

I think, however, that heterodoxy – for its own sake – can be taken too far.

 

As I explained to someone recently, there are (at least) six levels of “facts” that we can be presented with:

• Actual facts
• Scientific research into facts
• Interpretation of scientific research into facts
• Journalistic reporting of interpretation of scientific research into facts
• Headlines
• Half-remembered expositions on what might be any of the above (or combinations thereof).

 

We can’t usually access actual facts (outside of mathematics), so I am always recommending that we go back to the original scientific research into facts.  However, it’s entirely possible that research is done poorly, or in a biased manner to reach a predetermined result, and that should be kept in mind during an assessment of any research.  But the best research is not a single entity, the best research is a conglomeration or synthesis of multiple lines of research around actual facts, such that the actual facts can be triangulated.

 

I see it a bit like this in normal circumstances:

 

The circles indicate research results which don’t necessarily precisely match the underlying fact, but (generally, if conducted competently and honestly) cluster around the fact.  A heterodox, by rejecting the consensus, may well end up a long way from the fact – especially if guided by vested interests (like someone who wants you to believe in their version of a sky-fairy, or to not worry about potential human effects on the climate).

 

I certainly do agree that we should be wary of ideological conformity, where we might be tempted to look for other facts if the facts that we are faced with won’t play the game.  However, it always seems relatively easy to identify when ideology is the driving factor.  If someone is trying to argue you into accepting their viewpoint but won’t properly explain their position and is resistant to providing any evidence, willing to jump into an “apologetics” or fallacy-based mode of defending their position, then – in my humble opinion – they are likely driven by ideology, rather than facts.