Cause Effect Paradigm 002

Paradigm Obsession Syndrome

G: You were talking about Cause-Effect Inversion. Even if we accept that, how does it help us?
S: It helps us avoid the Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome. To put it another way Cause-Effect Inversion is the antidote to Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome. To understand this we need to elaborate the Syndrome a bit further. Can I have your permission?
G: Granted.
S: We have already seen the basic characteristic of this Syndrome. It is reflected in the belief in and faith on the ability of Science to explain the Nature/Universe/ Creation completely one day in infinite time. This belief or faith is not based on any scientific reasoning but only a projection of the past successes of science in explaining many Natural phenomena and identifying many Laws that govern the Nature or Universe or Creation.
G: But do all scientists develop this Syndrome?
S: No. Pure scientists’ mind may not be able to accept this faith. For them, they accept as Truth only those Laws/ Principles/ Propositions for which scientific inquiry has found valid scientific proof and this acceptance is conditional on Scientific Inquiry not finding any inadequacy of the proof at any later point of time. Pure Scientific mind accepts as Truths that have been established by known and accepted scientific methods. It rejects propositions / theories that are inconsistent with the accepted Truths or have been proved wrong by scientific methods. It pleads ignorance about any other theories or propositions.
G: Then, how does the Obsession Syndrome develop?
S: It develops naturally from the great power that Science and Technology have demonstrated over centuries. If science has discovered so much and impacted Man’s life so much as compared to the ancient days, I would tend to develop a faith that one final day Science will discover all that completely and fully explain creation with zero probability of any part of the Complete sets of Truths being ever proved wrong after that final day.
G: I now seem to understand what you are trying to say about this Syndrome.
S: But there is more. When this Syndrome affects my mind, I tend also to believe that the search for and establishing cause and effect relationships are easy now that I am conversant with accepted scientific methods. So even before I am able to establish valid proofs, I start believing in cause and effect relationships that I only surmise to be Truths. If many others join me in the same belief, I develop a confidence in those surmises yet to be proved as Truth. When many people, including the common people, join this process of spreading of faith, surmises turns into Truths based on popularity. We develop different schools of thought. The scientific community and the common people get divided into different groups based on what they believe to be true. They tend to criticize each other based on inadequate proof supplied and possible vested interest motives.
G: I see. What is this motive issue?
S: So long as the debates over scientific theories/ propositions remain within the scientists, there is very little concern with the motive issue. One school of scientists may not agree with another. Both may go on finding fault with the logic/ arguments/ proofs supplied by each other. But sometimes, each school tries to go beyond the debate and start ascribing personal / group motives to explain why the other school has vested interest in favouring a particular theory without valid proof. For example, those in favour of theory X may get tempted to say that those favouring the competing theory Y have an ulterior extra-scientific interest to do so: the ulterior motive may be to protect the reputation of the leaders of their school of thought or to support a particular social policy.
G: How can scientists do that kind of bickering and character assassinations?
S: Normally they do not. And, it does not really matter much even if they do such quarreling strictly among themselves for the scientific community in general has the patience to bear the pains of long periods of waiting to get to the Truth.
G: So, the Syndrome does not really matter.
S: It matters in the real world outside when the policy-makers, administrators, politicians, educated classes, environmentalists and even the common people get involved or roped in subjects/ theories/ propositions of scientific debates.
G: How?
S: Some scientific Truths have implications on public policy. When scientists prove that nicotine and other elements in tobacco raises the chances of a smoker attracting cancer, anti-smoking lobbies develop. But many doctors who treat patients continue to smoke. The tobacco growers and cigarette/ tobacco product manufacturers resist ban on consumption of tobacco. Confusion arises. Different groups take their defense from scientific cause-effect relationship discoveries. Some may argue that if people start smoking on a limited scale after the age of 60, this may in itself not cause cancer before the smoker dies at the age of 75. There are many people who smoked away till they met death before attracting cancer. Now, public policy regarding smoking divides common people, even members in the same family, into smoking and anti-smoking groups. Even passive smoking becomes a great issue. Both the groups believe in cause-effect paradigm but fight based on their own understanding of the scientific basis of the relationship between smoking and cancer.
G: We know that smoking increases the risk of cancer. This is based on scientific observation and analysis.
S: You are right. But it is equally true that many smokers did not have cancer before they died and many non-smokers died of cancer. Both are scientific truths. So, the Truth that a scientist can accept is that smoking may most likely cause cancer and injury to health. If we are not affected by cause-effect obsession syndrome we will not accept the statement that smoking will certainly cause cancer. Science is not so easy and simple as people afflicted by cause-effect obsession syndrome would believe.
G: But most likely incidence of cancer due to smoking is based on scientific application of Probability Statistics Theory with empirical data.
S: True. That is why we use it with most likely qualification and we never mean that it is certain. Based on this high probability of the average smoker we tend to develop ban on smoking or smoking in public places.
G: That is logical.
S: No. Not necessarily if we come to know that the genetic/ biological/ molecular combination differences among individuals can lead to differences in the likelihood of each individual getting affected by cancer before death. This may mean different sets of human beings classified by such genetic differences may have different probabilities of being affected by cancer before death depending on he starts smoking and rate of smoking. In case later science confirms such calculations, public policy implications could be different: like smoking can be banned for individuals based on genetic test reports. This would be especially relevant once the society recognizes smoking may be giving enjoyment or pleasure to some people and this value of enjoyment from smoking has to be compared with the cost of smoking including differential probability of attracting cancer before death of different individuals.
G: But that is relevant if and when Science comes with such discovery of the Truth of differences in probability of attracting cancers for different individuals.
S: Correct. But once we start recognizing such possibilities in the future our moral justification for general smoking ban today weakens. We specifically correct the cautionary statement from “ smoking will cause cancer” to “ Smoking will cause cancer unless you are an exceptional case”.
G: Can you give another example?
S: Yes. Scientific Truth leads us to use pesticides to protect agricultural produce on the fields. Scientific Truth also leads us to ban use of pesticides given the potential adverse effect on the health of the people who eats vegetables produced by farmers who use pesticides. Then starts a process of trying to find the optimal rate of pesticide application. A debate on optimal standards emerges. Again, people get divided on the issue of use of pesticides. Each group thinks that they have the scientific proof of the cause-effect relationship between pesticide use and heath of the people. Observe the Coke-Pepsi drink controversy that caused widespread concern in India in 2003 and again in 2006. Both sides had their own scientific proof. If you observe you will find many learned persons joined the two sides of the debate and yet either most of these people will not fully aware of the scientific findings or were hiding that part of the scientific knowledge from the people that were not consistent with their argument or case. In fact, the debate created more confusion about scientific methods and findings. These debates are natural phenomenon and cannot be avoided but they are also the most unscientific activity that can happen.
G: So, what is the solution to such confusion caused by Cause-Effect Obsession paradigm?
S: The solution may lie in cultivating cause-effect paradigm inversion. That means we need to encourage people to view in the reverse way. Among those people who were affected by cancer, how many have had anything to with smoking or consuming tobacco? We work backwards from cancer to cigarette smoking and tobacco consumption. This approach of looking at things in this reverse way is Cause-Effect Inversion. It may sound absurd and funny but it helps remove cause-effect obsession syndrome that take you away from the letter and spirit of science. If we have Coke or Pepsi cola tomorrow as drink and apple as food, how should this cause us today to produce them with ingredients that meet the standards of pesticide residues. Can cola consumption tomorrow cause us to find today milk and municipal water supplied to homes as containing very high levels of pesticide residue and therefore cause us today to subject to processing of water and milk to certain standards of quality? Can safe food and drink tomorrow cause us to ban use of pesticides in agriculture today?
G: We better end this session here.