We Are All 'Naive Scientists'

"It is clear, then, that the idea of a fixed method, or a fixed theory of rationality, rests on too naive a view of man and his social surroundings." ~ Paul Feyerabend

Recently, I was chatting over coffee with a friend, who happens to be a psychologist.  We were discussing the inter-relationships and overlaps of his profession and mine, and he capped our conversation by commenting, "We are all naive scientists."

This idea struck me as profoundly evident, yet uncommonly recognized, in the human condition.  I quickly thought of examples of this naivety in personal finance and investing.

Naturally, I asked my psychologist friend to expand more on this "naive scientist" idea as it pertains to human behavior.  He said, and I paraphrase, that "The basic idea is that all sciences strive to Describe, Explain, Predict and Control" and that "formal sciences are extensions of what we try to do every day anyway." 

Obviously, the problem with this behavior is that most of us go about naively describing, explaining, predicting and controlling without the benefit of methodologies, theories and developed tools applied in formal scientific practices.  Even worse, some of us adopt others' (or even create our own) methodologies, theories or tools with little or no thought as to the proper application or suitability for our particular use -- or even when science need not or should not apply.

"We do not need science and philosophy to know what we should do to be honest and good, yea, even wise and virtuous." ~ Immanuel Kant

After giving this conversation with my psychologist friend further thought, I concluded that, even if we were all brilliant and accomplished scientists, it would still be a mistake to submit to the desire to apply science where science may not apply.

Science, like philosophy, is quite logical in nature and does not often lend itself to describing, explaining, predicting or controlling those things that are non-logical in nature, such as human emotion.  So when we go about trying to apply science to our life experiences, it is more likely than not that we are acting naively.

"We have to recognize accident, i.e., the fact that there is no formula, no 'principle', which covers all things; that there is no totality or system of things.  And this recognition at once supports a life of 'responsibility and adventure' and leads to scientific discovery." ~ John Anderson

Search is something we do when we are looking for something; Discovery is something that occurs when  something we may not have been searching for finds us; and Science is an extension of our human desire to search for answers and to find shortcuts to those answers so we may use those shortcuts again when we need them later.

Even in the realm of formal science, some of the greatest discoveries in history were not planned -- they were "accidents;" yet a life consisting of waiting around for these wonderful and random accidents to occur is not prudent either. 

Certainly there is a case to be made both for and against scientific applications to various life experiences -- and the world of personal finance and investing is no exception to this observation.

Balance, therefore, is the non-scientific but prudent life application -- a balance of responsibility and adventure -- that is up to the individual to define.  One simply needs to obtain the necessary level of self-awareness, combined with a bit of humility, to acknowledge and overcome their naive scientist  tendencies.

-----------------------------------

Related Posts:

Know Thy Risk

Enabling Opportunities

Balancing Responsibility & Adventure

Comments

[Trey Baird]

I interpret the "naive scientists" remark as a double meaning. And being a psychologist, your friend is probably used to asking questions intended to elicit one of several responses.

It all depends on what you define a "scientist" as.

If, to you, a scientist is someone who is incredibly intelligent, then a "naive scientist" is an oxymoron. It is a person who is searching for answers in the wrong place. Perhaps he is answering question that don't need answers?

However, if to you, a scientist is someone who is seeking truth, and doesn't allow bias or agendas to alter his work, then a "naive scientist" is redundant. Scientists, by definition are naive of what they are doing. If they are aware of what they are doing, then they are wasting their time.

I subscribe to the second definition.

[The Brandless Blog]

@ Trey,
"If they are aware of what they are doing, then they are wasting their time." - Well said.

For me I wouldn't like to imagine my Financial Advisors as Naive Scientists, using our money in investment experiment without knowing what they are doing.

But I have agree with Kent that advisors would have to search and discover what the client's needs are and formulate a proper plans for him not through former questionnaires or forms but through "naive" approach, like observations, listening and understanding their needs.

Rendell
BrandlessBlog.com

[prufock]

To Trey,
I think the idea of the "naive scientist" that he was trying to convey was that while we all attempt to "Describe, Explain, Predict and Control," most people do these things without awareness of methodology. Scientists are purposeful and particular in methodology, and while we may make use of similar procedures every day, we do so with much less emphasis on stringent controls. In this regard scientists are not naive at all.

To Kent:
I tend to disagree with the following statement:
"Science, like philosophy, is quite logical in nature and does not often lend itself to describing, explaining, predicting or controlling those things that are non-logical in nature, such as human emotion."

While there are, no doubt, questions that the scientific method can't answer, there are psychological journals that focus exclusively on human emotion.

[Kent @ The Financial Philosopher]

@Trey / Rendell / prufock:

Wow! Great thoughts!

Certainly, individuals will have their own definition of "scientist," which speaks to my point...

If, for example, an investor decides to buy shares of stock in XYZ company solely for the reason that the share price for XYZ stock has been consistently rising for three months, then this purchase decision was arguably based upon false premises; however, the investor may believe they have made a rational decision...

This particular investor, arguably, has used a "scientific" method (If A, Then B) but the investor failed to look at other variables that may be affecting XYZ stock share price (i.e. technological, managerial, political, governmental, economical, market, psychological, and/or unexplainable reasons).

Our "life decisions" are also often based upon such sloppy heuristics.

To summarize other various thoughts shared today...

Intelligent people are not necessarily wise;

Scientists are (or should be) "aware" of their objective but are not always "aware" of what they may discover;

I don't believe it to be prudent to make any attempt to "quantify" emotion -- it may be described, but not easily explained, predicted or controlled;

Humans are still animals and senses tend to lead (and get in the way of) logic and reason;

and psychology, in my humble opinion, is a branch of philosophy, which, properly applied, will balance "art" along with "science" in its applications and practices.

As my informal conclusion of the blog post inferred, the proper balance of art and science, and the wisdom to know the difference and how to allocate each, may very well define the border between success and failure.

Finally, I must say that your thoughts and comments (and those from other readers like you) are what help me crystallize and provoke my own thoughts, so thank-you...

"The supreme paradox of all thought is the attempt to discover something that thought cannot think." ~ Soren Kierkegaard

[Trey Baird]

@ Kent

You are surely a smart dude. After thinking about it a little more, I would add your theory as a third one to my list.

I do believe firmly that nothing a psychologist says ever has one meaning. They are trained to provoke certain triggers in the human mind in order to get an understand for why a person thinks the way he does.

I think that the phrase "naive scientist" is a provocative term, that different people will interpret differently.

Simply put, I think that we're all correct.

[Kent @ The Financial Philosopher]

Trey:

Thanks for your additional thoughts. I can certainly see that a psychologist could leverage the phrase, "naive scientist," as a trigger to underscore their intent with a particular client.

I could even see the potential for misuse of the phrase as a tool to make a client doubt their own behavior and feel in increased need to continue "therapy."

My psychologist friend, for the record, happens to adhere to my "theory" that a balance of science and art is required for best practices.

I also agree that we may all be correct.

One last thought: Could it be that once we awaken to our own naivety we are no longer naive?

This could be similar to the idea that the awareness of our ignorance is the definition of wisdom...

Here is a quote my psychologist friend shared with me:

"A man’s knowledge is like an expanding sphere, the surface corresponding to the boundary between the known and the unknown. As the sphere grows, so does its surface; the more a man learns, the more he realizes how much he does not know. Hence, the most ignorant man thinks he knows it all." ~ L. Sprague de Camp

Cheers...