How science works – on the nature and role of data

Recently, I shared the blueprints of my science-powered BS detector and a manual on how everyone can run it when testing the validity of statements made in the name of science and technology. I had not expected how controversial a topic I had touched on. After all, none of the ideas and techniques I talked about were ambiguous in any way. Logical, scientific thinking should be universally applicable and respected, right? As it turns out the many, many emails and comments I got - thanks to all of you who have weighed in and got in touch with me! Conversation is a good thing! - paint a quite different picture. While I was relieved to receive overwhelmingly supportive feedback, there were also responses that challenged the common sense, science-based due diligence techniques I had laid out. A thought pattern appeared in those troubling comments that roughly followed this line of argumentation: "Separating the hard source data from all things else is good. However, analyzing the same data can lead to different interpretations and findings - and thus there is no one single scientific truth. Scientific experts say one thing today and another thing tomorrow. Sometimes they even contradict each other. So science really just is one method amongst many trying to make sense of data. How dare science claim it is objective and truthful?" This type of thinking, ironically, is yet another example of drawing a wrong conclusion (scientific findings are subjective and can't be trusted) from analyzing the evidence at hand (some scientific insights change over time). So I felt compelled to take another stand for science and explain how it works - and how it doesn't (some of you will recognize portions of the following from a 2020 post of mine...). Here goes:

Data is a dynamic concept. Data landscapes change and so do the connections and pathways between data points that lead us to predictions, conclusions, and decisions.

It is completely ok, often necessary, for our interpretation of data to change over time. Sometimes a change of perspective onto the very same data can lead to a fundamental change of the insights we derive. As long as we defend data integrity and apply scientific rigor and unbiased, fact-based, logical thinking in our analysis at all times, our wisdom will grow. If we don’t, we chase pink unicorns.

Illustration by David Somerville based on the original by Hugh Mc Leod

Use creativity and intuition to solve problems but not to distort reality

Intuition, imagination and creativity are important powers which help us find new ways of connecting the dots. But in the field of scientific exploration these powers are worthless if in the end we lack the tools or the will to scrutinize the product of our analysis for inconsistencies and contradictions with factual evidence and experimental observation.

An artist is not bound by this framework, a scientist very much is. Both need to be creative, but scientists have the added responsibility to test their work against reality. Modelling a real-life system - be it a pandemic, the climate, our brain or an economy - requires the most creative geniuses to give their very best. But it is not freewheeling art: it is making sense of the facts and data at hand following the scientific method.

A solution to a scientific question can be extremely creative, and sometimes the creativity in such a solution makes it beautiful art in itself. But not every creative piece of art is a valid solution to a scientific question. Sometimes reality is wonderful, sometimes it is horrible, often it is somewhere in between, and naturally our individual perception of which label applies depends very much on our viewpoint, believes and circumstances. At the end of the day the factual realities of the physical world around us are defined by scientific facts and data points. The line between those and everything else must not be blurred: it is the demarcation line between fact and vision, between wishful thinking and wanting to understand the physical world, between artistic freedom and the boundaries that nature has set for us.

Whenever scientific fact is confused with imagination, and whenever reality-defying ideas are mistaken for scientific fact - be it through malicious intent or innocent ignorance- we are crossing the divide between logical thinking and delusion, between common sense and conspiracy.

Respect the facts and scrutinize your sources

It is important to collectively value the scientific approach, common sense, and creativity: we should use common sense in our judgement of which sources to trust, rely on scientific tools as we analyze data, and be creative in how we choose and combine those scientific tools. We are responsible to respect a scientific fact when we see one and to call out everything else for what it is. Facts might not always be what we would like them to be but respecting them is the first step towards making decisions that we can justify and learn from.

The often-cited reality distortion field supposedly surrounding iconic entrepreneurs only works so far: science and technology cannot be bent to erase unpleasant realities. ‘Fake it until you make it’ is neither a sustainable nor ethical strategy. This is not negotiable - whenever we think it is, we miss an opportunity for impact at best - at worst, corner cutting yields catastrophic results.

Science should not be the only yardstick for making each and every decision – but without respecting and trusting science all other tools are worthless.