I’ve always had a bit of a passion for science. But what does that mean? What is science? There’s a lot of talk these days about anti-science, as if it were some kind of political party or team to be opposed, or about bad science, which, strangely, tends not to be a discussion about either the philosophy of science or about more or less effective methodologies. In fact, people do tend to apply labels to the experiences of life and those labels, unfortunately, more often stop thought than promote understanding.
So, let me say what I mean when I use the word science. My understanding of what science is owes a lot to the philosopher, Gilles Deleuze. He said there were three ways to think about experience – science, philosophy and art. You can read more about that here. He said science was thinking about function. That makes a lot of sense to me. A scientific approach to a phenomenon is one of curiosity, one of wonder; it’s driven by a hunger to understand. Specifically, it’s about a hunger to understand how something works – whether that be the brain, evolution, or the weather. Indeed it’s about a way of trying to make sense of some aspect of the world. There are two important consequences to the Deleuzean definition for me – one is that science is only one way of thinking about the world, and the other is that it is the main way to think about how something works.
But there are other factors to consider when thinking about science. Popper’s famous principle of “falsification” really hit the mark too. The scientific method is not one of proving things; it’s one of attempting to disprove things. In brief, what Popper said was that we form a hypothesis (an explanatory theory of something) and then, as scientists, we conduct experiments to try to disprove that hypothesis. The more we fail to do that, the stronger the hypothesis becomes. In other words, good science is a process of never ceasing to doubt. A good scientist never says he or she has worked everything out and there’s nothing more to be discovered here. A good scientist must be humble, open-minded, curious and never cease to wonder. When you read the writings of a scientist who claims to be the holder of The Truth, or who claims to be absolutely certain of their position, beyond doubt, you know you’ve found a scientist who’s lost the plot. Scientists aren’t gods. They are people. When they get hooked on certainty conversation with them becomes uncomfortable or even downright unpleasant. That’s not a function of science though, because a scientific approach necessitates a perspective of doubt which should humble.
There’s another quality which is often mentioned in relation to science. One definition I read, (and I confess I can’t right at this moment remember where!), was that science is the study of what can be measured. Well, I’m not entirely comfortable with that definition but I can see where it’s coming from. It’s impossible for us to lead a value-free life. Everything we think and experience and do and influenced by our values. In the scientific approach, there is a tendency to value the physical over the non-physical and that’s what tends to lead to a view that science is about what can be measured. For example we can easily measure the physical dimensions of red patch on the skin of a patient with eczema but we can’t measure their itch, and we can’t measure their emotional experience of their eczema. If we dismiss what can’t be measured we dismiss the experience of eczema (as Cassell would call it, the “illness”) and focus only on the physical changes which are measurable (Cassell again – the “disease”)
So, let me say again. I’m passionate about science. Why? Because I am insatiably curious! I love to explore and discover. I love to understand the world, my life and the people I meet. I know that understanding is an eternal process. It has no stopping point. It’s never finished. It has no conclusion. So, for me, science is a way of understanding life better. That said, philosophy and the arts are equally important ways of understanding the world and each will shed a very special light which the other ways of thinking won’t.
I am equally passionate about philosophy and the arts.
I titled this post “Good science” because I want to highlight a positive conception of science – insatiably curious, constantly developing, continuously humble, practised with an intention of building our knowledge and understanding.
Heroes Not Zombies 
[…] wrote an interesting post today on Good scienceHere’s a quick […]
[…] Read the complete post here […]
[…] Good science My understanding of what science is owes a lot to the philosopher, Gilles Deleuze. He said there were three ways to think about experience – science, philosophy and art. You can read more about that here. He said science was thinking … […]
Great post, I enjoyed reading it.
As for, “science is the study of what can be measured”, I think this is true, and let me explain.
All measurements are in relation to something – there is no absolute “unit” with which to normalize all measurements, or for that matter any sub group of measurements (space, time, mass, etc) – all measurements are intrinsically in relation to each other. Science aims to prescribe explanations to phenomena, and will always do so with respect to other phenomena – there is no escaping this.
So when you say there is no way of gaging the itch or the emotional response to a patch of eczema, I disagree. There is a way, although it might not be robust among more than one person (i.e. the relationship between these factors will break down between people, thus indicating the chosen set of relations to describe itch and emotions are flawed).
“In the scientific approach, there is a tendency to value the physical over the non-physical and that’s what tends to lead to a view that science is about what can be measured.”
Well, lets be honest – you’re assuming there exists something called “non-physical”. To a materialist, and to science, there is no such thing. Thus, science has no problem describing non-physical ‘stuff’ because it doesn’t exist – science can only address what can be observed (i.e. measured).
Thankyou for this really considered comment.
I see where you’re coming from, but I’ve read a lot around the subject of trying to measure “quality of life”, which I’m sure you’ll agree is an attempt to measure something subjective rather than objective (maybe those are better terms than physical and non-physical?) – I was amazed to discover how hard it is to come up with a robust and reliable measure of this type and the literature on it is really thought-provoking. You’re absolutely right though about how these measures of subjective phenomena break down when comparing two or more people. The “instrument” used to do the measurement has to be re-calibrated for every single individual.
About the “non-physical” – your response really intrigues me – and I wonder if we need to try and clarify our terms a bit to understand each other. Can I ask you about love, or beauty, or passion for example? I’m not sure how you describe such phenomena/experiences as physical. I get that they don’t exist without physical components (like people!!) but in what way could you say they are either physical or that they don’t exist?
Please say more…..
One of your best posts. I enjoyed it.
Thankyou sugarmouse – I appreciate your kind comments
“Can I ask you about love, or beauty, or passion for example?”
I can answer this in two ways:
1) Scientific reductionist: they are the manifestations of chemical reactions and past experiences in the brain (i.e. memories – which are also manifestations of chemical reactions).
2) Person: Love, beauty, and passion are uniquely human traits that I cannot explain or describe outside my own personal experience – and thus intrinsically lacks any meaningful definition to you, or anyone for that matter.
The problem with ‘feeling’ is – people have a very hard time dissociating them’self’ from their physical bodies, when really the ‘self’ could easily be (and, according to scientific observation likely is) simply a collection of physical and chemical theories.
Of course, who wants to view themselves as a bag of chemicals, without purpose, responding to environmental stimuli? I for one do not, but I also have no problem accepting I am a bag of chemicals – its the manner in which you accept this that provides you purpose, or lack thereof, in life.
Just some ramblings.
This is a wonderful post, Bob! It’s so good to hear people sticking up for science not just because it makes better washing machines or alerts us to Earth-bound meteors, but for the inspiring part it can play in our short voyage through time and space. I was ignorant of Deleuze’s triune ways of thinking of the world, and reading about them here and elsewhere on your blog I find them very compelling. I esepcially like the way concepts are, if you like, place in a different category to functions. As you say, scientists (myself included) too often speak of our concepts as if they were facts, which of course they are not, no matter their utility in describing or predicting facts. The relations between our science and the real world, between our concepts and the real world, and between our perceptions and the real world, are murky indeed. Hang on, what is this real world? Does it even exist? I quite like the following mini-essay “A spoon is like a headache” (http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_3.html#hoffman)
Mindfulness, whether as part of a spiritual/religious tradition such as Buddhism, or a secular version, could be described as uniting the three arms of Deleuze’s idea. A selfless attention to the way perceived things interact (science), an attempt to move beyond dualistic concepts (philosophy), and a sense of beauty in the world (art).
nouseforadave, go check out Phil Wilson’s post – http://reallyhardsums.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/human-ways-of-perceiving-the-universe/
He’s got a great quote from John Barrow about this – including “A work of Rembrandt or Miro, of Mozart or Cage, can always be viewed only as an elaborated form of mathematical pattern if you insist. But while it is possible to analyse musical works in terms of variations in air pressure or paintings as frequency variations in light, it is not terribly useful.” I think this is an interesting perspective. OK, it’s a kind of utilitarian one but interesting all the same – what USE is it to consider music or painting this materialistic/so-called scientific way?
Hey, keep rambling, I really appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts.
Phil, I’m no philosopher but I have found Deleuze to be very helpful. I like your paragraph on mindfulness, which is, at best, a holistic way of approaching life. One of the things I appreciated in Deleuze’s work was that he wasn’t saying any one of these ways of thinking was superior to the others – just that we should be clear about how we approaching a problem and use the best tools (including thinking methods!)
[…] This is really another example of the non-linear nature of reality. You can’t take a simplistic notion like more of something will do more of the same so less of something will just do less of what more is, and declare it as a Truth. Life, it turns out, is more complex, and way more interesting! It’s Good Science. […]
[…] Research more about this from here […]
[…] like that. Science for me is about discovering patterns, and getting some insights into how something works. That’s what I loved […]