Inflammatory issues swirl about on a moment-to-moment basis in the catastrophe that is 2020. Several months into this onslaught of shocking events, it has become increasingly difficult to stay abreast of the issues and maintain emotional composure and stamina. I bounce back and forth between the draining despair of critical analysis and attempts at blissfully ignoring the world outside my immediate environment. I cannot be alone. A face-off has developed between the value of collective knowledge and opinion, even amongst those who consider themselves informed. Disturbing outcomes ensue if opinion wins. If this is obvious, then why has opinion any traction at all?
The answer is no doubt complex. One facet my mind repeatedly returns to is that there must be a disconnect somewhere in the transfer or understanding of scientific progress. This is aside from the misuse of science for personal gain, which seems to me is a separate, but related topic. The scientific process is not without caveats, and dare I say: flaws. Whether transparency in these limitations has been lost or whether there is a growing ignorance of critical thinking, I am not sure. Regardless, these are some important realities of science that I keep in mind when assimilating knowledge:
Scientific results are not facts, they are educated guesses backed by evidence. The amount of evidence varies greatly among topics, and depends on many things, some of which follow.
The progress of science is incremental and the depth of understanding of a topic increases the more it is studied. Educated guesses are often wrong. We must be willing to adjust our understanding of phenomena as new science (evidence) becomes available.
Hypothesis testing is inherently biased because it is performed by people. It relies on inference and observations to objectively drive structured inquiry. It is the most reliable tool that society has developed thus far, but it’s impossible to prevent some subjectivity from creeping in to the process. Each of us has a unique perspective on incoming information, colored by our experiences, which influences understanding and decision making.
Statistics are easy to misinterpret. They can’t be explicitly true or false; they exist on a spectrum of confidence in the result at hand. They are often saddled with the difficult task of extracting qualitative and quantitative information from a VERY small – hopefully – representative sample and extrapolating it to a MUCH larger population.
The quality of all science is not equal. Aside from any malicious intent (which no doubt exists, even if I pretend it doesn’t), there are many ways a scientific result may not be valid or enduring. The importance of sufficient resources, repeatability, peer evaluation, careful practice and application, and meaningful translation to the public cannot be overstated.
It is simply not possible for everyone to sift through what has been rigorously tested and what has not; we cannot all read the primary literature on every topic. We must routinely rely on others for the majority of new information that we use in daily life. This is an increasingly precarious position for a society where knowledge is accruing rapidly, yet transparent and effective translation of that knowledge might be failing, and understanding or care of the process by which that knowledge is obtained is shaky at best.
science shapes lives 