- Vicky Alexandrou
- Posts
- The science paradigm
The science paradigm
How does modern society view science & research?
‘Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance’
- Confucius
I am often intrigued by my "non-researcher" friends' understanding of science & research. Especially after the last few years where expert after expert was called upon to give advice and help make decisions throughout the pandemic which have left psychological marks on millions of people across the world. It has been interesting to see what information people took on board and why. Confirmation bias has definitely played a role, but I am also left wondered why some people believed one source of information over another. Therefore, I ran a survey asking people to select a statement that best represented their thoughts and opinions of scientists and their research, and the results were interesting (skip to the end if you are eager to see the data).
But before I report my findings, I thought I would share some information about what science is, principles of scientific endeavors and a brief history of scientific discovery over the years.
What is science?
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
This implies that it is an evolving evidence based paradigm and not an absolute truth. What we believe to be true today, may be displaced as our technology advances and we develop new ways to measure ‘things' that we simply can not observe using current technology. Furthermore, we often find that when one question is answered, it ultimately leads to more questions as we delve further into trying to understand the fundamentals of whatever area of research we are exploring until we can arrive at what is known as the ‘first principles’.
Put another way, we keep asking ‘why’ and ‘how’ until we can no longer do so.
The science paradigm.
Over the years there have been several philosophies of science, but the most adopted one in the natural sciences is Karl Popper’s philosophy of critical rationalism. Popper believed that for scientific knowledge to progress it must go through a process of conjecture (also referred to as ‘hypothesising’) and refutations (attempts to prove these hypotheses false). In order to determine if a hypothesis is falsifiable, we should be able to carry out an experiment or observation that could prove the theory wrong.
This approach is akin to making an assumption and then going out to gather the required evidence to prove whether the assumption is wrong. It is important to point out that the quality of the evidence is critical to the outcomes of the findings. It stands to reason that if we were to apply these principles to life, then it implies that is better to look for evidence that your assumptions or theories about a topic are wrong, rather than looking for evidence that you are right (the latter is also referred to as confirmation bias).
Popper’s philosophy is one of many scientific models that have been adopted over the years and the type of model used is selected based on the context and nature of specific research fields.
Science history & society
Over the centuries, the role of science and how it was viewed by society has evolved significantly due to cultural, religious and intellectual development.
In ancient civilisations such as Greece and the Middle east, thinkers such as Aristotle, Archimedes and other great minds, started to develop systematic approaches to understanding the natural world. This laid the groundwork for scientific inquiry into agriculture, astronomy and medicine.
During the middle ages, Middle east polymath Al-Khwarizmi played a significant role in the advancement of astronomy and mathematics (you can thank him for all those years of learning algebra in high school). While in Europe, science was mostly carried out within the framework of the Church, which used scientific inquiry as a way to explain and understand God's creation.
During the Renaissance period we saw figures such as Leonardo de Vinci and Galileo Galilei (inventor of the early microscope) revive scientific interest through observation and experimentation. Furthermore, the mathematical investigations of Rene Descartes (famously known for the phrase, ‘I think, therefore I am’), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (father of differential calculus) and Issac Newton (think, high school physics and the 3 laws of motion), laid the foundations for modern day mathematics and physics and led the shift towards empirical and rational thinking.
In the 19th century we saw a tremendous growth in scientific research and its application to technology, thanks to the Industrial Revolution. It was during this time that the institution of science was created in the form of societies and journals where scientific theories were debated, critiqued and published. Charles Darwin challenged existing views of the origin of the species (in particular those held by some members of organised religion), by publishing his ‘theory of evolution by natural selection’ thus leading to a major shift in the biological sciences.
The 20th century is best known for major advancements in physics, chemistry, biology and medicine with none more famous than Albert Einstein who revolutionised our understanding of the universe with his work on quantum mechanics and relativity. However, the dark side of such advancements were exemplified by the development of the atomic bomb.
In modern times, science is often paired with technology and is a crucial driver of innovation and economic growth. However, it also faces many challenges as it has become more politicised (think, climate issues) and ethical debates have arisen over topics such as genetic engineering and more recently AI integration into human brains (Neuralink). Coupled with the information versus mis-information onslaught which peaked during the COVID pandemic, it is no wonder that there is a growing mistrust of science and scientists in today’s society.
I was listening to Solve for Happy, by Mo Gawdat yesterday and as he read out the following statement it made me pause to ponder.
‘To know the wrong thing is worse than not to know at all’.
This made me think about all the mis-information that is currently going around about so many topics, and the various sources peddling some potentially dangerous ideas. However, anyone who has also read Robert Greens’, The 48 laws of Power (Particularly Law 27: Play on People’s need to Believe to create a cult-like following), would know that peddling mis-information is definitely not a new concept as he highlights that mis-information is prominent because those who peddle it give the appearance of specialised knowledge while spouting vague concepts with passion and vigour (one only needs to scroll on social media for 10 minutes to find evidence of this).
In contrast, experts in various scientific fields (who by comparison have a greater depth and breadth of knowledge about their topics), may not know how to communicate it with the equivalent vigour or in a relatable manner to the general public. Lets face it, people don’t trust or engage in what they don’t understand or can’t relate to.
The survey results
This brings me back to my earlier survey of people’s thoughts on scientists and research which to my surprise, despite all the negative comments I have heard over the recent years as to the inconsistent messaging delivered during the pandemic both from government and medical experts, the general consensus was that scientific research was about the ‘pursuit of knowledge’ (75.7%) and that people believe that ‘scientists are experts in their field who spend longer than most people learning about a topic’ (49.5%).
That is not to say that there isn’t mistrust or concern about the availability of cures for diseases that people believe are being kept from the public for the financial benefit of the pharmaceutical industry (13.5%). I can understand how these ideas exist and are perpetuated due to a lack of transparency on how drug discovery and clinical trials are carried out. Not to mention, when regulatory bodies such as the FDA & TGA are not above being influenced to allow certain drugs to come to market without what appears to be due process, this can lead to massive mistrust. A question that keeps coming up is, why haven’t they found a cure for cancer yet despite all the funding provided over the years? (5.4%) and the comment, ‘I’m sure they have found a cure for cancer but they are just keeping it secret’ is also one I have heard many times. In my opinion, these comments could be remedied by the Cancer council together with the medical science community by running a better education campaign for the general public.
In my opinion, I believe that the following points could help regain public trust in the scientific process:
Scientific research and international collaboration in addressing global health and other crises should be encouraged and better facilitated.
Clear and concise science communication to the general public, (not just scientific peers) should be an integral part of research training.
The scientific process should be more transparent and easily accessible to the general public, especially where tax payers’ dollars are being used to fund projects.
Personally, I would love for more people to ask me about my time in science and research, and not just about my field of study, but about how science is conducted in Universities.
I am grateful to everyone who participated in the survey, and although the numbers are relatively small from a statistical point of view, it would be interesting to see how the results shift as more people participate.
If you haven’t done so and wish to contribute, please use the link is below. I will update the results to X (Twitter) in the coming weeks.
Only by staying curious and asking questions can we test assumptions and better discern what is likely to be true and what is not.
On the other hand, clear and relatable communication by the science community is equally important and although there are a growing number of great science communicators online, I believe by involving the general public in conversations about scientific matters that concern their wellbeing we can help more people understand and by extension, trust science.
Stay curious,
Vicky :)
***Please note, these articles are based on my own experiences and opinions stated are my own and do not represent the opinion of any other individual, institution or group mentioned in the article.***
Reply