What is Science?
When one thinks of “Science”, images of individuals dressed in lab coats, labouring over a microscope or a telescope or surrounded by dazzling liquids in test-tubes, conjure up in our minds. During the “occasional” chit-chats about science, conversations typically gravitate towards utilities or splendours of ground-breaking inventions and technological advances in our lives. We may discuss the latest model of the iPhone, the landing of humans on moon, the ease with which virtual communications are made, or the enormity of the data that we can store and process. We may also discuss the diseases that have become treatable and the constantly evolving sphere of their management or the speed of modern-day traveling (bullet trains, super-sonic jets). While these are undoubtedly remarkably valuable outcomes of decades, even centuries, -long scientific endeavours, they one of the aspects of what science truly represents.
All humans think and all humans reason. Humans like reasons as they accord a sense of understanding of our surroundings. However, we are evolutionarily a bit lazy, too. So, we are happy to just scratch the surface and settle for anything that offers a semblance of reason. At its heart, science is a way of thinking that takes an inquisitive and systematic approach to making sense of the world/universe. It is an approach of scrutinizing any new information before accepting it and what we do once that information is found to be concurrent or contradictory to our belief system. In the subsequent paragraphs, we shall try to understand how factors of a scientific exploration can help us make a more informed judgement of what happens around us. However, to make more sense of the rest of the text, we shall define four terms first.
- We will call as “facts” that which is true; for e.g., “The sun rises in the east” or “Kids grow up to be adults”
- We will call as “personal facts” that which we think is true; for e.g., “Humans evolved from monkeys”, “Prayers can cure diseases” or “This is the worst time to live in”
- We will call as “information” that which is generated by the human mind, and this may be true or false; for e.g., “Drinking coffee is harmful”, “Humans are born to be happy”, or “Stellar/constellatory motion impacts human lives”
- We will define as “phenomenon” that which happens or exists in the universe or the world; for e.g., “the structure of the DNA”, “Planetary motion”, or “getting infected by the COVID-19”
With that bit of pedantic context satisfactorily established, let us now try to identify the elements that typify a scientific mind.
Humility
The starting point of a scientific mind is humility. One must acknowledge, dare I say, even celebrate, that they don’t know something and have gaps in their knowledge, and then set about plugging those gaps. Intellectual hubris leaves no room for a scientific temper, and in the absence of a humble admission of one’s epistemic shortcomings, progress of any kind is next to impossible.
Hypothesis building
Salient to arriving at the true nature of a phenomenon is hypothesis building. Most of us do this, albeit subconsciously, by appraising “information” that we receive. We generally retain information that reinforce our “personal facts” and discredit information incompatible with our world view. However, a scientific discourse involves having, in the least, two possibilities to explaining an information. Keeping open several possibilities, each closing in the face of contradicting information, helps one make an informed assent of the true nature of phenomenon. This also supports the fight with our own urge to announce that which seems either most logical or most sensational as the true nature of phenomenon.
Mechanism to the logic/Causality seeking
Every so often, we are bombarded with information that seems reasonable and rationally sound. Other times, we receive information from sources that appear to be authentic or individuals whom “many people” believe to be correct. Oftentimes, what we’re told is correct, but many a times, it is not. One way to test the verity of the information before we make it a part of our belief system is to seek the mechanism underlying the reason on offer. When someone claims a sage had the power to pull an asteroid into the orbit of the earth, it helps to point out that this will require unexplainable changes to the laws of physics; and, if the gravitational forces were modified, why only one asteroid was pulled in. Similarly, when it is extolled that the presence of just one individual changed the course of an organization, it helps to point out that change is inherent to nature. And to pin an outcome to an intervention, it is important to hypothesize the likelihood of that outcome in the absence of the intervention (p-value and statistics, anyone?). Here, it is essential to fight the urge to rationalize the information by conferring potential reasons ourselves.
Openness to Change
Another crucial tenet of a scientific mind is the constant need to self-criticize and self-correct. In the face of strong evidence and “information”, when our favourite hypothesis is discredited, world views must be updated, and “personal facts” must change. Protesting in the face of evidence may win one an intellectual battle, but it the long run, it takes one nowhere. When our belief systems are challenged or when someone says that we are wrong, instead of waxing defensive with our own insecurities, we can remind ourselves that it is okay to not know or be wrong. The vastness of “phenomena” in the universe is immeasurable. And in the grand scheme of everything that “can be” known, the magnitude of everything that “is” known is insignificant. And this will be the most critical step towards welcoming the scientific mind into our own intellectual real estate.
Non-Dogmatic/Non-autocratic
One of the most vital components of a scientific mind is a fearlessness of authority. Many ideas fail to see the light of the day because someone “important” thinks otherwise. It is also essential to not be married to an idea or information because someone we idolize or follow, has propagated it. One of the beauties of the truth is that it is not the preserve of “the wise”, “the elderly”, “the knowledgeable”, “the powerful”, or “the book”. The scientific mind does not have much regard for these enterprises. That said, a mind steeped in the scientific journey also does not hold these institutions in contempt. Any information, regardless of the source, needs to be given equal merit. When the information is compatible with logic and external validation, chances are that it explains the true nature of phenomenon. When the information cannot be justified by the means described above, one must be prepared to discard them.
There is and has been an urge to give preference to anecdotal or normative experiences over large-scale information. This is because experiences leave an indelible mark in our minds and are also easier to recollect when we try to make sense of the world/universe. We are not to be blamed for this predilection as there was an evolutionary advantage to understanding the universe based on the limited experiences. But that was, perhaps, when we lived in the caves. Over the course of 70,000 years, we have gathered a mammoth amount of information and we can train our minds to not be tempted to stick to its evolutionarily programmed way of operating. This is essentially what cultivating a scientific temper involves. The principles of reproducibility, alternate hypothesis, negative controls, and statistical significance help scientists distinguish the true nature of phenomenon from that which “seems so true”. The same principles, if slowly and consciously unified with our intuitive thinking, will help us make a more informed sense of the world.
The next time we hear about something been “scientifically” proven, let us see if we picture that slovenly dressed individual with an oversized lab coat labouring over a microscope or a telescope, or if we think of a non-dogmatic and dispassionate approach of an unbiased mind that forms a worldview purely based on testable facts.