Oversimplification: Belief in Science

While I am a long-time fan of the KISS Principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) and apply it whenever and wherever I can, simplification is not a universally good idea, and oversimplification is almost always bad. I have come to believe, about most of our problems are a result of people wanting to oversimplify things. This will be the first of a series about how oversimplification is backfiring for us.

I hold bachelor and master of science degrees. My husband holds a bachelor of science degree, and my son was just awarded the same degree a couple of weeks ago. The business for which we all work is a science-based business—we provide wildlife and habitat management consulting and assistance. My two major roles in the business are management of the business side of things and geospatial sciences work. You could correctly say that science is a big part of our lives. Yet the recently popular phrase, “I believe in science” has been an ever-growing burr under my saddle.

What do people even mean by “I believe in science?” A simple Googling of the phrase reveals that the fundamental meaning of the phrase is related to rejection of beliefs in anything supernatural, including God or any other higher power, and an embracing of science as a belief system in place of religion. This is what I had suspected. In my observation, people who Believe in Science (who will hereafter be referred to as BiSers) are rejecting what they believe to be superstition or fantasy in favor of what they believe to be concrete facts.

Take it from a person who has studied science and makes her living from science; science does not offer the security that BiSers obviously think it does. Science constantly, by its nature, changes. What was a scientific fact yesterday can be discounted and replaced by a new fact tomorrow. If you have studied the scientific method, you will find that science never PROVES anything. In fact, back when I was working with professors on experiments and studies and writing up results for publication in scientific journals, I learned quickly that you do not say an experiment proves anything—you say an experiment either supports or fails to support a hypothesis. The best science can do is provide strong support for one idea or another, which hardly sounds like producing concrete facts. In one of my other former careers, I was a librarian. Libraries must “weed” books occasionally to keep collections fresh. Science (including medical) books were weeded hardest—every three to five years—as science changes so fast, and books more than three to five years old are going to contain inaccurate information.

Science does not exist in a bubble set apart from humans and all their messiness. To be clear, science is science, but what is researched and what is published are heavily influenced by humans via political, economic, and sociological factors. Here is one example: humans are animals and like all animals have genetically based and environmentally influenced characteristics, yet it is currently forbidden by society to suggest or even mention that human personality, intelligence, emotions, and other such unseen factors are genetically influenced. A scientist who wanted to research this concept would not get the support to do the research and would not be able to get results published. In fact, a person who even expressed an interest in studying this topic would likely find their career as a scientist destroyed for wanting to work in a forbidden area.

Science can appear to be very wishy-washy as it has in regard to COVID-19, but if you understand science for what it really is—a process of learning and discovery—instead of thinking of it as the source of all that is real, then you understand that the facts and the related recommendations will change. Science cannot be stuffed into an oversimplification box and attempting to do so will cause you heartache and grief, I promise. <Spring-CreekArtsGuild@gmail.com>