Science and the Scientific Method – A living system

What is science? How does “science” work? Well, this might seem entirely abstract to some of you, but you’d be surprised at how uncomplicated the answer is. Let’s begin by describing the scientific method. What made Newton ask the question “why?” when an apple fell down from the tree and onto his head? What made Copernicus believe that the earth revolved around the sun? How does the mind of a scientist work? Well, it begins with them observing the phenomenon around them and collecting existing evidence. Now you might wonder how this seemingly simple task leads to uncovering monumental discoveries as proven in the past, but the fact of the matter is that most of us don’t even reach the first stage. If an apple fell on our heads, most of us might even feel an irrational anger towards the tree and curse it in our minds and sit somewhere else in annoyance. After this comes the second step, asking the right question. Or any question that seems to be the right one to ask, really. Some of us might pass stage one by simply observing the apple falling on our heads and not feel that irrational anger or annoyance but that generally isn’t followed by us questioning the phenomenon itself. Newton asked many questions to himself: Why did the apple fall down? Why didn’t it go upwards? What made this happen? Etc. This step is essential if we are to move onto the third step which is to create a theory on the existing evidence and forming a hypothesis by making predictions. Asking more questions like under what circumstances the event would repeat itself? Etc. Here, we might perform some experiments to test our hypothesis and report the findings. Now comes another crucial step. What is one to do if the results are opposing our existing beliefs? To be extremely candid, it is a fact that most people do not accept many such findings and commonly have a confirmation bias. We don’t like being wrong. We don’t like it when what we assumed to be correct is proven to be false. It is for this reason that we don’t look at things as objectively and accurately as we should. A good scientist would accept the findings, regardless of whether or not it was in accordance with their current views and would instead modify their hypothesis to suit the findings. To quote the Fourth Doctor, “You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don't alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views.” These are the essential steps as described by the Scientific Method. Here a crucial question must be answered: Is this restricted to only the scientists or the experts in areas of science? The simple answer is no. Here is why. One tends to assume that a scientific mind works in a unique way in all aspects of life. This is false. If one were to look at, say a Physicist’s thought process in areas outside of their work or in fields like politics, social issues, current affairs etc. one would find that the Physicist thinks and behaves quite identical to the common “non-science” people. However, if one were to look at a musician, poet or even a painter, one would observe that they extensively use the scientific method of thinking in their respective fields too. This is quite extraordinary because this implies that although the scientific method is largely considered to be universal, it’s expression varies from person to person. It’s not confined to a specific type of person or to a particular job requirement! Hence, we can reach a conclusion that while the Scientific Method is universal, both scientists and non-scientists do not apply it universally. Both categories of people seem to apply it in some narrow fields, and not apply in other fields. Here, the claims of the so-called scientist are more remarkable. It is as if their status as scientist makes them feel entitled to have a free pass in not following the Scientific Method in other fields. In order to explain this phenomenon, one may hypothesize that some of the steps in the pursuit of science are particularly hard psychologically. One of the steps that is hard is the one involving altering their view in presence of dis-confirming facts. Another step that is hard is to observe even the dis-confirming facts objectively. Let me illustrate this with two examples, Anecdote 1: Where the disconfirming fact was rejected. Galileo Galilei was one of the greatest astronomers of his time. He made significant contributions to the development of the scientific method itself! However, it was the discovery of the telescope which paved the way for the acceptance of the theory as proposed by Copernicus which ultimately resulted in an Inquisition process against him. Not only was he open to the view that the earth was not indeed at the centre of the universe and that the earth revolved around the sun, he was willing to openly oppose the strong views held and imposed by the Roman Catholic Church. For his beliefs, Galileo was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Church. It was not just him. The Italian philosopher, Giordano Bruno, was burned at the stake for adhering to the then unorthodox beliefs—including the ideas that the universe is infinite and that other solar systems exist. Here, the views held by the public, especially the Roman Catholic Church, were challenged and opposed. This was firmly declined by the people and in fact, those who did believe in the unorthodox views were met with some extremely grave consequences. Anecdote 2: Where facts were not observed objectively Arnold Sommerfeld updated the Bohr’s model by making the electron orbits elliptical and adjusting them according to Einstein’s theory of relativity. Today we are aware that that electrons do not actually orbit around the nucleus. However, scientists working in the early 20th century compared electrons to tiny spheres and also made the assumption that their motion would be similar to that of spheres. This was a false assumption as modern quantum mechanics has taught us that electrons are quite unpredictable and their behaviour doesn’t line up even remotely with everyday human concepts. Electrons in atoms don’t even occupy an exact position at an exact time. So, Sommerfeld’s theory had a radical misconception at its very heart. It appears to me, therefore, that while the Scientific Method is universal, the barriers to application of this method is equally, and even more strongly universal, applicable to both scientists and non-scientists. So, the question is there a way of overcoming the barriers to the application of the Scientific Method? In order to answer this question, we have to go to the first step, which is to observe facts accurately. When do you find yourself willing to alter your opinion? What kind of conditions should be in place, for one to feel comfortable in altering one’s opinion? I cannot answer it for you, or for other people, however when it comes to myself, I find that I alter my view when:- I have no choice but to alter my view, there is simply no other way. In other words, when it is a crisis situation I also change my views, when I see people that I trust change their views or if they have an alternate view to begin with Finally, I change my view when I am convinced that changing my view leads to a better outcome for me or improves my efficacy to deal with the situation While crisis can not or should not be the situation that we depend upon to follow the Scientific Method, the other two conditions can definitely be pursued. For example, I actively seek out friends who think differently, who have different preferences and those who have a very different world view compared to mine own. These people enrich my observations and point out when my views are not in accordance with their own sense of reality. I find the entire process energizing and enabling me as a person. This feeling of enablement makes me better equipped to handle different situations, encouraging me to pursue this method even more. A wise man (or was it a woman?), once said, “To go very far, you have to start from very near”. Hence, I ask you, when did you last actively listen to someone whose view were different from your own? When did you last attempt to see the world from their own eyes? Or to put it in a different way, when did someone seek you out because your views are distinct from their own? I feel this is the place where we must start. This creates a supportive eco-system allowing the Scientific Method to flourish. In a way, the Scientific Method is not really abstract, it is a living method, deeply rooted in a supportive eco-system. To nurture and further this eco-system is essential to furthering the application of the Scientific Method.