Follow the Science?

When climate activists or vaccination advocates try to argue against opposing views, one of their first arguments is "follow the science". Those who are less fanatical and a bit more skeptical are accused of denying scientific findings. Being "unscientific" is a killer argument akin to blaming someone for believing in astrology or voodoo magic and therefore being outright wrong.

What is science?

The Oxford Dictionary defines science as the process of generating "knowledge about the structure and behavior of the natural and physical world, based on facts that you can prove". There are basically two ways to generate scientific knowledge. The classic method (inductive reasoning) is to start with empirical observations and to come up with a generalized theory that explains the observations. The other way is to start with an abstract theory and try to verify it by practical experiments (deductive reasoning).

As long as the theory has not been fully proven, we better should refer to it as a hypothesis. Making a theory bulletproof can take years, if not decades and may even never be completed. A proof needs to take into account every conceivable situation. A single contradictory example refutes the theory or at least requires refining and establishing more restrictive preconditions for the theory to be valid. This is how science really works. Science is a trial-and-error process. The process never ends. Theories come, some stay, but most will be modified because flaws are detected, or completely discarded once a better theory is found.

However, sometimes a theory survives even when a contradictory theory is established. A good example of this is the dual nature of light. Classical physics describes light as an electromagnetic wave, while quantum physics models light as particles called photons. Some practical observations can be explained by the wave model, some by the quantum model, but neither is valid in all situations. Physics has learned to accept these contradictory explanations, and so should we. Something may be useful - as well as its opposite. There's no need to take sides.

Is science a democratic process?

"But the scientific community agrees on this ...". An argument often used against someone who doubts the conclusions that should follow from certain scientific findings. So because the majority agrees on some scientific findings you should too?

In a democratic society we believe that society should act according to the will of the majority. But does that mean that the majority is always right? I could come up with some examples here to cast doubt on that idea, but I don't want to start a political discussion. And because of Churchill's famous quote: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”.

Science cannot be a democratic process. Just ask Galileo Galilei. His scientific work led him to believe in the heliocentric model in which the earth rotates around the sun. However, the "majority of educated people at the time subscribed to the Aristotelian geocentric view" in which the earth is the center of the universe. To save his life, Galileo bowed to the will of the majority (in the form of the Catholic Church at the time), but secretly continued to think "and yet it moves". Today we know who was right ... 

How does the scientific community really work?

In universities and public research organizations, large teams of researchers steadily produce research, gradually, in very small steps at a time. Most of what is published is published for career reasons. If you want to achieve a Ph.D., you are expected to publish a lot. And your professor is expected to have a lot of researchers work for him and produce output. Quantity is easier to measure than quality. Maybe this favors quantity first.

A scientist is expected to base her work on as much existing knowledge as possible but must come up with something new. So when you publish, you cite a lot of work from others and explain why your work is different and new, but you rarely mark older research as misguided. You hope that those who you cite are proud about being cited and politely cite you as well. It's give and take. The more citations, the bigger your community, the better for your reputation.

Do not expect big leaps. Breakthrough results rarely come from large teams and organizations. It takes weird people - think Albert Einstein or Stephen Jobs - to create revolutionary ideas. And then it takes a team and some time to convert these ideas into something usable ...

Real scientists never solve a problem completely! Each scientific work should provide some answers to old questions, but always raise some new questions. So that follow up research is required. This may secure the scientist's own job and will help her organization to win more funding. Imagine how your scientific community friends who work on the same problem would feel about you, if you finally solved the problem and their work would no longer be necessary.

Nowadays we have thousands of scientific publications about global warming and the role of emissions. Some years ago we had a lot of scientific research showing that emissions from smoking are dangerous. So a natural conclusion could be: Do not smoke to avoid global warming. Is there research about the link between global warming and smoking? Probably not, because it looks like nonsense. But what if someone came up with the idea and organized public funding for the topic? Most research is done on topics for which a lot of funding is available. Public funding is often controlled by people who want to promote some political agenda, even if they establish scientific committees to distribute the money. Promoting the public good is nice, marketing their agenda to get reelected is a necessity. Private funding for research comes from industries which want to convert the results into business or do it for marketing purposes. All valid reasons. But again, never confuse quantity with quality and rarely with importance. And when you see research results, you should assume that no scientist wants to make her sponsor unhappy.

Conclusion

Follow the science. But be careful. What is considered consensus today, may be wrong tomorrow. It is a trial and error process. Life is evolution by mutations, not a majority vote. There is no predefined plan, no single right or wrong way. Nature tries a lot of diverse solutions simultaneously. What works will survive for now, what does not will disappear. If all animals had been dinosaurs a million years ago, nobody would need to walk their dog today ...

Apologies

This is not to blame scientists. I only tried to summarize my observations while working in what the public would consider a scientific environment. I admire those whom I consider to be real scientists, according to the definition in the Oxford dictionary. But in my opinion, only few are, and I am afraid society expects too much from science and scientists. 

I am not a scientist, I am an engineer. I studied electrical and computer engineering at a scientific university and worked as a scientific researcher to earn a Ph.D. After some years in industry doing development work I became a university professor again doing scientific research. But frankly, I never really produced ground-breaking new knowledge, i.e. real science in the Oxford dictionary sense. All I achieved was to combine existing knowledge to produce something that I believed to be of practical use for someone - and to earn a living from it. Development work - that is what engineers do. And what most other people do - including most scientists. Fortunately.