Relax, Science Can Save the Human Race, Right?
Introduction
I write this in July of 2020 and he world is still in the midst of the great Covid-19 pandemic. Whether we’re closer to the beginning, middle or the end is unknown. There is one phrase I keep hearing, not just in regard to the pandemic, but to many areas of life: “Science will save us!” Generally this call to science is used to remind us to look at the data and listen to the experts. That advice is pretty solid and we should remember and abide by it.
Except when we should not.
The Year of Bad Data
The year 2020 has been informally referred to as “the year the data was shit and the experts were wrong” by author and social pundit Scott Adams. I tend to agree with him. Nobody knows for sure if masks protect against viruses, the numbers and reporting methodology of cases has been shown to be erroneous and the treatment methods have been studied using bad test processes as if there was an agenda to the result. If the data is messed up and the experts using that data turn out to be wrong, then looking at the data and relying on experts is a very bad idea.
The question is, “Can science save us?” To answer that, we must first start with some basics.
What is Science?
Is science highly educated people analyzing and experimenting on things, then reporting back to the rest of us? No, it’s not that simple. You can find a variety of definitions of science online, and I encourage you to look them up yourself. I’ll save you some time for now, and offer up this definition:
Science is a system of knowledge about the natural world based on observing and measuring, creating predictions, and testing to determine if the predictions can accurately model the real world. The result is a scientific view of the world, a paradigm, that is limited to the observations and predictions used to model the natural world. When new observations, new data, and new predictions create better models of the natural world, science concedes that the paradigm should shift to take in account the improved models.
Science is based on 3 assumptions, if you believe Wikipedia:
- There is one objective reality that every rational person can agree upon;
- There are natural laws behind the objective reality (nothing mystical in science);
- The laws can be systematically deciphered and described.
Many people also confuse science with technology and engineering. Your high-tech car with the smarts to automatically brake to avoid a collision is not science, but a combination of technology and engineering. Technology, engineering, and even medicine are disciplines that apply the scientific knowledge of the natural world to solve real problems.
If we have the knowledge (science), and methods (technology, engineering, medicine, etc) to use that knowledge to solve problems, then the human race should be fine, case closed. What could go wrong?
The Missing Assumption
Sadly, there is plenty that can and does go wrong. The year 2020 has demonstrated that beyond doubt.
Science doesn’t just happen. Knowledge doesn’t appear from quantum vacuum. Scientific paradigms are created by people who observe, measure, predict and test. Science is a process performed by people, and people are inherently flawed. People suffer from personal biases that distort observations and measurements. People have agendas that influence the practice of science and the scientific method. People have egos that prevent them from seeing when their beloved paradigms need to shift. The scientific community is subject to fads that dictate what is acceptable science, much like young women are subject to fads in clothing. Scientists are people, and scientists suffer from these flaws, plus all other human flaws.
Science is a process performed by people, and people are inherently flawed.
For science to work as intended, that is, to establish and determine objective reality, there needs to be a fourth assumption. That is,
- Scientists will overcome their human flaws to determine a paradigm that is free from distortion by their human failings.
That’s a pretty big assumption, and a nearly impossible task, unless the scientist is a member of the Vulcan Science Academy. Emotional Intelligence and self-awareness are not pre-requisites for being a scientist. Ethics are not pre-requisites either. Both are required to fulfill assumption number 4.
Science Can’t Save Us
Without emotional intelligence and a solid sense of ethics, science can and will fail to produce useful knowledge, and can be used to deliberately create false paradigms. If scientists cannot overcome their human flaws to create science without distortion from biases, agendas and egos, then science cannot save us.
Don’t put your belief in science. Belief is for religion. Absolute belief is antithetical to science. Science, by its very nature, is required to continuously prove itself. You should demand it do so. Don’t listen to the opinions of thousands, or the bullying of other scientists, because science is not a fad. Even today’s paradigm can be thrown out and replaced tomorrow when new and better evidence appears.
Until we stop treating science as a religion, science cannot save us.
“IN SCIENCE THE AUTHORITY EMBODIED IN THE OPINION OF THOUSANDS IS NOT WORTH A SPARK OF REASON IN ONE MAN.”
GALILEO GALILEI
Thanks to Dave at The Spark of Reason and Scott Adams at locals.com for some inspiration
