Is Science Enough to Save Us?
In the quest to create a sustainable future, are we expecting too much from science?
Science is under attack. It feels strange to write that — since I’m referring to the whole of scientific inquiry rather than some controversial area of research — but the signs are clear. From personal harassment to gag orders, brazen lies to budget cuts, scientists from all disciplines are facing an assault on their institutions, resources, and ideas.
We are fighting back. Not just scientists, but those who care about social, environmental, and technological progress are mobilizing to defend science. We are marching, assembling, and making our voices heard.
But is it enough to defend science, or do we need a broader cultural shift? Can we truly solve problems like climate change, pollution, or the refugee crisis without a fundamental change of values? Some argue that our current systems which reward high-risk, short-term, compartmentalized behavior are incompatible with the fragile, long-term, interconnected world we inhabit.
My answer is yes, and yes. We do need a cultural shift, and science can help us create it.
Support for science is often mistaken for belief in materialism, the idea that the material universe accounts for all of reality. Most people aren’t eager to commit to such a view, nor should they. There is clearly a lot we don’t know about the universe. But you don’t need to be a philosophical materialist to practice scientific thinking. You just need to follow a pattern of open investigation that relies on observation and experiment.
Find what works
At its core, scientific thinking is pragmatic: our only concern is describing what works and what doesn’t work, with as few assumptions as possible. Any of us can do this in any context, and most of us do it all the time. The main difference between science and other endeavors is that in science we try to prove ourselves wrong over and over before we claim to be right. That’s how quantum mechanics is able to make the most precise predictions of any field, yet even very few experts say they understand it. Emphasizing the pragmatic nature of science could be the way to overcome our inherent bias against complexity.
Invite everyone
Traditionally, professional science was done in labs and in the field by patient, thoughtful people who endured countless academic trials and bureaucratic obstacles. They operated specialized equipment in specialized facilities with specialized technical knowledge, and published their findings in obscure, expensive journals read only by their peers. But the barriers to contributing to and benefitting from scientific progress are dissolving. More and more science is done in the open and with public participation. This new model is already showing many signs of success. Citizen scientists are becoming essential research partners, and open publishing is gaining momentum across the globe.
Do everything better
Science can help direct our efforts to make them more effective. For example, analyzing the data suggests that investing in young women lifts whole communities out of poverty; that reducing trade barriers yields the most good for each dollar spent; that hunger and poverty and exploitation are symptoms of an economic system that externalizes essential costs and values growth over wellbeing. What do we do with this information? That’s where the political conversations should begin. But we must start with the mindset that knowledge, like life, is a work in progress, subject to constant revision. We can always improve.
There will forever be those who claim that some realm of human experience is beyond the reach of scientific investigation. I’m fine with that; as long we can all have clean air, food, and water, and can lead lives with dignity and respect, we should be free to roam the vastness of the physical universe and whatever else is out there (or in here). Indeed, that’s where great adventures await.
To those who feel that science has led us astray or can’t be trusted, I acknowledge that science has created many problems and will likely introduce more in the future. It isn’t hard to find examples of science misused for profit or glory. But you could make the same argument about language: people miscommunicate often and it causes real problems, yet we don’t doubt for a moment that our lives are richer and more meaningful because of our capacity for language and expression. The best response to an abuse of language (like hate speech) is the persistent, responsible use of language (like dialogue). So it is with science.
As we struggle to find the proper place for science in our society, we can start from our common values — pragmatism, collaboration, and inventiveness — try out promising solutions, measure their effects, and let our experience guide us.
This article is the third in a series on science and society. Read parts one and two, and if you found this interesting, please click the applause icon below to help others find this post on Medium.
Join the movement! Take part in a citizen science project, support those who are fighting for science-based policy, and connect directly with science research.
