Self-Molestation for Science

This is an interesting post on Free Exchange. It's written quite abstractly, and I don't think it's a particularly eloquent statement of the point it is getting at, but it's thought-provoking nonetheless.

So the post itself discusses some of the cultural biases inherent in interpreting economic theory.
It discusses an example where economics theorists were dissatisfied with the conclusions of on branch of economics theory, and so chose to rely instead on another. It argues, quite correctly, that this choice to change theoretical frameworks is a situation where the economist in question has to make a fundamentally biased choice - there is no definitively correct answer.

However, I was disappointed to see that the author did not make what I thought was the obvious leap to broaden the discussion to science in general, because this is what all scientists in all fields are forced to do every day. The very fact that we don't know everything (and thus have jobs!) implies that there is no definitely correct theoretical framework, and that each scientist much make biased choices about the framework in which he operates. The point the author is trying to make, I believe, is that while not quite as simple and clear-cut as many people think science is supposed to be, it actually is - or at least can be - a good thing. The essence of good science is good judgment. While we can certainly look at the existing evidence to help us determine the most likely theoretical framework, and we can change our minds as more evidence becomes available, scientists are forced to make a number of choices about what they personally think is the most likely scenario in the face of imperfect evidence. But if we didn't have to make such choices, we could not progress. It is important that there always be competing ideas - the trick is to design the institutions of science so that over time it becomes clear which is the correct idea, and for scientists to be ready and able to switch their thinking. I suppose this is what the dramatically inclined might refer to as a paradigm shift.

Anyway, science is a fundamentally human endeavor. We come to the knowledge of truth about the universe through the efforts of people - often petty, jealous, obstinate, greedy people. Papers are published not simply to righteously expound upon newly discovered truth, but to further careers, impress funding agencies, stroke egos, and all sorts of other selfish, undignified reasons. But still, this ugly process does serve the point for which it is intended - to uncover truth. The point the blog post comes so close to making well, is that in the same way that market economics turns the greedy, selfish profit motive into a public good - namely the creation and distribution of wealth - the institutions of science are able to turn the distinctly human motivations of scientists into a useful, successful quest for knowledge.