Science has never been more powerful, but it is under attack.

If this place has done its job—and I suspect it has—you’re all scientists now. Sorry, English and history graduates, even you are, too. Science is not a major or a career. It is a commitment to a systematic way of thinking, an allegiance to a way of building knowledge and explaining the universe through testing and factual observation. The thing is, that isn’t a normal way of thinking. It is unnatural and counterintuitive. It has to be learned. Scientific explanation stands in contrast to the wisdom of divinity and experience and common sense. Common sense once told us that the sun moves across the sky and that being out in the cold produced colds. But a scientific mind recognized that these intuitions were only hypotheses. They had to be tested.

When I came to college from my Ohio home town, the most intellectually unnerving thing I discovered was how wrong many of my assumptions were about how the world works—whether the natural or the human-made world. I looked to my professors and fellow-students to supply my replacement ideas. Then I returned home with some of those ideas and told my parents everything they’d got wrong (which they just loved). But, even then, I was just replacing one set of received beliefs for another. It took me a long time to recognize the particular mind-set that scientists have. The great physicist Edwin Hubble, speaking at Caltech’s commencement in 1938, said a scientist has “a healthy skepticism, suspended judgement, and disciplined imagination”—not only about other people’s ideas but also about his or her own. The scientist has an experimental mind, not a litigious one.

As a student, this seemed to me more than a way of thinking. It was a way of being—a weird way of being. You are supposed to have skepticism and imagination, but not too much. You are supposed to suspend judgment, yet exercise it. Ultimately, you hope to observe the world with an open mind, gathering facts and testing your predictions and expectations against them. Then you make up your mind and either affirm or reject the ideas at hand. But you also hope to accept that nothing is ever completely settled, that all knowledge is just probable knowledge. A contradictory piece of evidence can always emerge. Hubble said it best when he said, “The scientist explains the world by successive approximations.”

Source: The Mistrust of Science – The New Yorker

Categories: Uncategorized

Related Posts

Uncategorized

Cancer Gene Trust Search

Source: Cancer Gene Trust Search Related PostsScientists Find Form of Crispr Gene Editing With New Capabilities – The New York TimesPills of Science – 1 WeekDNA Extraction Virtual LabDNA Extraction Virtual LabCancer Gene Panels http://t.co/u8SHjG91I5

Uncategorized

The Long-Term Stock Exchange Is Worth a Shot – Bloomberg

Silicon Valley venture capitalists are shaking things up with “tenure voting.” Source: The Long-Term Stock Exchange Is Worth a Shot – Bloomberg Related PostsThe Right Way to Grant Equity to Your EmployeesHow CEO Anne Wojcicki Read more…

Uncategorized

How to Be a Know-It-All | The New Yorker

What you learn from the Very Short Introduction series. Source: How to Be a Know-It-All | The New Yorker Related PostsIntroduction to Scientific Python – StanfordDeep LearningIntroduction to Biostatistics and BioinformaticsIntroduction to Biostatistics and BioinformaticsThe Read more…