Scientists don't always think like scientists. They’re human, so they’re also subject to error and bias. Science isn't actually real, nor is it right. Let’s find out why.
Today we’re exploring science, the scientific method, and scientists. This follows my essay about thinking like a scientist. We’re going to get into some interesting caveats. Are you ready to unpack why science isn’t right?
Science is a Process and Scientists are Human
Lately, I've been paying attention to the fallibility and imperfection of scientists and science. When we think about science, we think about scientific journals and methodology. But given that scientists are human and the people reviewing scientific journals are also human, they can be subject to cognitive bias.
Scientists may go into a scientific process and want their guesses or hypotheses to be right. In the quest to confirm their beliefs, sometimes they don't gather enough data. As confirmation bias is strong, they may stop when they find data that matches their conclusions. They may also cherry-pick the data that works for them and confirms their beliefs. This can either be through unconscious bias, or it can be intentional cherry-picking.
Another way cognitive bias can slip into the scientific community is that some scientists might fall into groupthink. Perhaps the topic is off-limits or not considered relevant or important within the scientific community. Once something becomes taboo or forbidden to talk about, scientists may not even research it. (WSJ)
Scientific predictions can seem inaccurate to the public sometimes. There can be two reasons for this. Scientific and mathematical predictions can only be based on data from the past or present. Despite all best efforts, this may or may not work, because, well… life is unpredictable.
Most importantly, a scientist is only as good as the data that they have. They may be able to say that, “Given the data that we have, this is true, this isn't true, or we don’t have a clue.” Unless someone's actually done the research and gathered the data, we can’t know if that's true or not. This means that there are many questions we don't know the answer to yet.
Science is about doubt
Fortunately, science isn't about certainty. This is what I mean when I say science isn't necessarily right. We can come up with outcomes and conclusions, but science is more like a method to test our guesses.
There are yard signs around my neighborhood with progressive slogans, one of which is “science is real.” But that's not a true statement. It's not something that can be real: It's just a process. It's not actually about the conclusions; the whole point of the process is to keep double-checking and asking questions.
Science is a method, a cycle that prompts us to keep seeking more information, evaluate things, and rethink our assumptions. It inspires us to continually adjust our conclusions about the world around us.
This means science is actually about doubt. Doubting its conclusions is actually science’s strength. To be able to say, “Huh, that's an interesting outcome. Let me try it again and again” without defending a prior outcome is what makes it awesome. Being doubtful and questioning is actually a strength.
A lot of political conflict is just about whether or not things are true, and getting more clear about how science works is really important.
Is the world flat?
Let’s look at an example from centuries ago. Someone might hypothesize that the world is flat, and they’d have to work out how to run an experiment on that.
Maybe they would choose to go to the top of the highest mountain and see that it's flat as far as they can see. Maybe they might spend their whole lifetime walking. In either of these valid experiments, the world would still appear flat. In a certain way, that means this person has used the scientific method, and they’ve come to a conclusion that’s functional for them and society. You can build societies and early civilizations on faith that the world is flat without running into any problems.
We only get new data when we navigate a super long distance around the earth, start flying planes, or go into space. That new data means we generate a new hypothesis, prove that hypothesis with lots evidence, and realize the earth is actually a sphere.
Truth isn't perfection we're going to arrive at: It's something we're always moving towards.
Mistakes are part of the process
We know certain scientists used incorrect data or came to improper conclusions because of the scientific method. Using this process gives us a chance to discover our mistakes and recognize that what we understood about the world is no longer true.
We need to adapt our understanding of the world when we get more information. This is super relevant because the theme we've been talking about for such a long time is wicked problems. They don't lend themselves to simple solutions, so we really need a process, a cycle where we're continuously checking ourselves.
There's an article in Scientific American called “If You Think Science is Right, You're Wrong.” It's by Naomi Oreskes, and she summarizes this well. Here’s a great quote from her:
This process can be frustrating. It takes a lot of time to gather data, but we must test our conclusions. Sometimes, we have to act and live without certainty, which means we might be wrong sometimes.
But the beautiful thing here is that life is an iterative process, so an iterative scientific process fits our world perfectly. It’s a captivating sequence where new outcomes create new realities, and they create new outcomes, and so on.
Why this matters
This is basically an extended metaphor about how we can think about the really tricky things we have to deal with in our society. If we develop our thinking skills, we can learn that we’re just trying to get through increasing shades of adequacy and become something better.
We can say at any point that this is or isn’t good enough. If it's not good enough, let's find a way to do it better. We can keep improving our current situation, and when we get that improvement, we can improve upon that.
We might not find objective truth, and we don't actually need it. All we need is a process that can help us continually move towards more truth, goodness, and beauty. We can always get better, but we're never going to be perfect.
Diversity is a blessing
That brings us to the real gift of democracy. We don't have to figure this out all by ourselves. In fact, we can't figure it all out all by ourselves. We need each other to make sense of the world; fortunately, we're not alone. Diverse perspectives, life experiences, and paths all help us see the world more clearly and keep us in check.
Miki Kashtan, one of my favorite facilitation thinkers, says dissent is a gift. Recognizing when someone disagrees with us is an opportunity to think better about what's going on. Being in relationship helps us become better thinkers.
This brings me to the need for all of us to acknowledge the value of being in this ongoing dance and tension between self and other, between my team and that team, and between this group and that group. That will be ongoing, and it benefits all of us. It helps us embrace our independence and our interdependence.
What’s next?
This whole series was inspired by a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. He reminds us the simplicity we find without considering complexity is of very little value. But there is untold value in the simplicity we can find on the far side of complexity.
We are about to come full circle on this journey. We have gone from simplicity to complexity, and we're about to get to the simplicity on the far side of complexity. That's coming up in the next couple of essays (and videos). For now, I'm going to close this out with another quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr:
As we learn and grow together, the experience will change us, and that’s a real gift.
Coming next, I'm going to be talking about self and other and the journey to get to omnipartiality—a bias in favor of everyone.
After that, we’re transitioning to a new series where we explore how the heck we manage all of this diversity and interdependence, especially when most people are not ready for it. Thank you for being part of the Omni-Win Project.
Share this post about science’s flaws and boons and spread the word!
Here’s an interesting article excerpt about how scientists sometimes make mistakes.
Prefer to watch your content? Check out my video on the topic of this essay:
Have you subscribed to the Omni-Win Project Podcast yet? Find it on your preferred platform and join the co-creation journey. Don’t miss your chance to make a difference.
Check out the Omni-Win Project website and follow me on other platforms.
Want long-form content, authentic discussions, and weekly videos?
Subscribe to my YouTube channel
You can schedule a call with me here: https://calendly.com/duncanautrey