When did science become about measurement, prediction and control?
The scientific method seems to have transformed from the pursuit of understanding through awareness and observation to a system which is predominantly about prediction and control.
My ideal scientist is someone who knows their knowledge is limited, not someone who claims they are certain that what the know is “the answer”.
Measurements are part of science but they aren’t everything. We can’t measure the whole of reality. When measurements, or quantitate approaches, are elevated above observation and qualitative methods, then we end up where we are – with a hierarchy which privileges materialism and objects over the experiential and the subject.
That always bothered me in medical practice because human beings can’t be reduced to a data set without dehumanising people. In my experience no two humans were identical, people constantly surprised and amazed me and it was only ever possible to control the experience of illness over the short term.
I’ve been driven by curiosity and wonder since childhood. There’s something deeply satisfying about learning and understanding.
It might be a truism but I too find that the more I know, the more I know I don’t know. The universe is a place of endless wonder and mystery to me. And I love that.
It bothers me that science has veered off into prediction and control. Because both prediction and control only deliver over the short term.
Think of the weather report. The further out the prediction the less accurate it is. That’s true of pretty much everything in Nature and Life. Because we’ve come to understand that reality is complex and massively interconnected we’ve discovered that prediction is not possible in detail. That should keep us humble.
I like the notion that a doctor’s job is to understand. And understanding is driven by caring. I want to understand this patient today because I care about them. It’s not a doctor’s job to control people.
But of course in Medicine there is more than diagnosis. There’s also prognosis – and that brings me to prediction again. Because prognosis involves understanding where we might be heading. It involves recognising patterns and learning from experience so we don’t stumble through life blindly.
I guess I return to “and not or”. We need both. We need measurements and predictions as well as experience and understanding. So in fact I’m not “against” measurement and prediction. It just disturbs me when we use them to bolster a false sense of certainty and control.
Why is this bothering me just now? Probably because it seems that autocracy is increasing around the world and that the experience this pandemic is being used to further attempts by those with power to decrease freedom and replace it with control.
Life is messy, individuals are unique and embracing that knowledge can be liberating.
I suppose I’m arguing for a change of emphasis. I’d like to see a shift towards caring and tolerance because I value uniqueness and diversity. And so I’d like to see less emphasis on prediction and control.
Heroes Not Zombies 
It is agenda-driven ‘science’ — dissenting voices are silenced by various means.
I’m not a scientist – I found scientific subjects far too difficult at school! – but I’ve been trying to understand a bit more about the scientific method, a hugely important subject in these times when science denial is a big problem, especially in religious circles. Denial of the science behind climate change; denial by anti-vaxxers of the science behind Covid; denial of the science behind evolution.
My understanding is that scientists come up with hypotheses to try to explain certain phenomena, and then subject these to rigorous experimentation and testing. If a hypothesis stands up to this, it becomes a full blown theory. But as far as I can see, this scientific method always leaves open the possibility that new evidence may emerge to overturn such a theory – the term “theory” is always used, even for such well established and proven theories as relativity or evolution. So yes, the best scientists are indeed those who do not claim that they know it all and have all the answers!
That’s a pretty good summary Martin. My issue is really with those who take too limited a view (too reductionist) and who turn partial and/or relatively brief observations into predictable generalisations.
I wrote to the BMJ once to complain about researchers concluding that in the treatment under study “there was a reduction in all cause mortality”. What they meant was that for the duration of the study (even just a few weeks) there were less deaths than expected but what they didn’t mean was that the treatment had the benefit of immortality!