Below is an article I wrote at the request of someone I met when I was on the education panel. I never sent it to him because it took me months to say exactly what I wanted to, and by that time I thought it was probably a bit late. So here it is, for the first time.
As far back as 1818 with the first publication of Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, people have been afraid of science. Even before that with Galileo’s suggestion of a heliocentric solar system, popular culture and the majority of the planet have consistently demonised it. It’s often pictured by the populace as, rather than a herald, a cause, or creator. It’s the idea that it wasn’t always this way, and that scientists changed things. On numerous occasions I’ve heard people talk about Newton ‘inventing’ gravity.
But scientists know better. They know that scientific progression is less like adding to a chart then it is revealing one. The dust of ignorance is blown aside by winds of discovery, and bit by bit, reality is revealed to us. They understand the scientific method, and the reluctance with which the scientific community at large changes its mind. They understand the difference between ‘accepted science’, and, ACCEPTED science. This might seem a little confusing, so let me elaborate.
When people talk about accepted science, they normally mean classical science. This is ACCEPTED science. Newton’s laws of motion, the zeroth law of thermodynamics, voltage equals energy divided by charge, that sort of thing. Things easily derived or proved with a GCSE-or-perhaps-A-Level understanding of physics. But there is a second level of science, an unspoken agreement between physicists about what is universally believed to be true – a principal that is sound in theory, it’s just that all the pieces haven’t quite been slotted in to place yet. These are the things it’s hard for a normal civilian to accept, or even understand. This is ‘accepted science’.
A prime, and indeed perhaps the best example of this is the theory of evolution. This principle is a much maligned one, that many people either don’t understand or refuse to believe. Perhaps at the core of this issue is the perpetual concept of a ‘missing link’, but more so it is a lack of understanding of the word ‘theory’. So frequently is it confused with the word hypothesis, it is often taken to mean a guess, but this is not the case. A theory is a collection of paradigms, based upon observations of reality, designed to deliver the best possible explanation of that observed reality. By this definition, the existence of God is just as much a theory as evolution is (for the record, this is good ammo for when a creationist tells you evolution is ‘just a theory’). Every single thing you believe and understand to be true is a theory, an understanding derived from information given to you by your senses. I believe this keyboard I’m typing on is made of plastic because it looks and feels like plastic – this is my best guess based on the information at hand. It might be wrong, but it’s probably not. This is my own little theory.
Another reason it is often ignored is because of an incomplete understanding of the scientific method. This is a phrase that has many connotations and definitions, so I will present my own in another brief tangent here: When I talk about the scientific method, I mean the process of discovery in it’s entirety. From the conception of an idea to a formalised hypothesis, to a repeatable, reliable, fair and unbiased experiment, and then finally the theory’s acceptance as fact by the scientific community at large, i.e., it’s induction into ACCEPTED science. This induction is always, and indeed must always be, based on consensus (another word with which many people are unfamiliar).
This last part is what many people don’t realise. A fantastic and very topical example of this phenomenon is the widespread denial or plain rejection of climate science. If you took a straw poll at the next dinner party you attended about what people believe regarding climate change, you’d probably be quite surprised with the results. While around 90% of the scientific community believes that climate change does exist, and that the human race’s desire for the consumption of oil is largely responsible, that percentage is reversed in the general population, with many people finding themselves either uninterested or unbelieving. In fact, while there is no vocal group of scientists speaking out against climate science, there are a large number of extremely vocal citizens who are. Why do they do this? The answer is simple: the news. The popular media has this bizarre snowball effect (something I refer to as the “Barry Chuckle phenomenon” due to constant yet unfounded reports of the children’s entertainer’s death), where the printing of some information in one paper is quickly picked up by the others and spreads rapidly, often losing the source of the information in the first place, or totally misconstruing it all together.
A lot of this comes from the idea that correlation implies causation, but I think it’s better chalked up to one of the corner stones of modern journalism – presenting a balanced argument. There is no greater threat to the population’s understanding of science than this extremely important part of the education of a nation’s people. When a scientist examines the possible explanations for a particular phenomenon, he doesn’t give equal credence to each. He puts all his eggs in one basket, and goes with what he believes to be the correct one based on the evidence. But journalists don’t think like this. They’re taught in schools and universities the idea of presenting both sides of an argument, splitting the idea down the middle, or perhaps into thirds or quarters. How wrong is it that people can ignore evolution as nonsense, leaning on such preposterous examples as the complexity of DNA. I’ve even heard entropy used as an argument against evolution! Admittedly these are ideas not normally spread through the general channels of the media, but an American might not think so – Bill O’reilly is an example of someone allowed on television who should definitely not be. “How’d the moon get there?”, “How do the tides work?”, “Sun goes up, sun comes down, you can’t explain that.”
So it’s easy to blame the newspapers for this misunderstanding of science, but should we? Is it alright for people to carry on believing that climate change is not a threat to the planet in spite of the overwhelming evidence in favour of it? Is it okay for journalists to misrepresent what scientists have told them due to an incomplete understanding of their methods? I’d say no. I’d say the responsibility to teach falls to those with knowledge. It’s up to the scientific community to break down the barriers of secrecy that surround their methods, and educate not necessarily the newspapers, but the government. As long as a minority are allowed to continue to lie to the majority, they will. I’m all for people being allowed to have their own opinions, but when those opinions are opinions that go against facts, then at the very least they shouldn’t be allowed to put them under a headline and sell them for profit. Yes, I understand the hypocrisy present in me writing an article about science condemning the writing of articles about science, but this is exactly my point. I am a scientist, so it is my job to tell people what science is all about, and encourage them to learn more about what I do. I hope others will do the same.