Science is a Human Process

Recently, I came across a thought-provoking book titled On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, Second Edition. It emphasizes the importance of acknowledging the human aspect of scientific endeavors. The initial chapters highlight that science is fundamentally a human-driven process, replete with imperfections.

Individual scientists differ in personality, thought processes, and methodologies just like any group of people. They can also exhibit irrationality and stubbornness. A noteworthy example is Albert Einstein's initial resistance to Quantum Mechanics, a theory that is now widely accepted. This illustrates that even the most esteemed scientists are not immune to personal biases.

Day-to-day, scientists must make decisions influenced by their own values and experiences. Questions arise such as: Which experiments to conduct? What methodologies to use? Which ideas to pursue? How might these choices impact their careers?

So, how do we derive rational outcomes from such a subjective process? Is human bias an inherent challenge in science? Some insightful answers are found in the aforementioned book.

Science as a Collective Endeavor

While personal values can shape scientific inquiry, the collaborative nature of science incorporates checks and balances through peer review and reproducibility.

Peer review subjects ideas, experiments, or hypotheses to the scrutiny of numerous individuals, each bringing their distinct perspectives. This diverse evaluation helps ensure that only the most robust scientific findings endure. It's akin to a pre-internet form of crowdsourcing. The diversity of opinions strengthens the process against flawed ideas.

Reproducibility serves as a further safeguard against individual and collective biases. Ultimately, scientific claims must withstand experimental validation. As Feynman noted, if results are not reproducible, the idea is incorrect, regardless of how compellingly it is argued. Conversely, if an experiment contradicts established theories, then a paradigm shift may be necessary.

While science incorporates mechanisms to mitigate human bias, do these traits always pose a challenge?

Individualism and Bias: Potential Catalysts for Progress

Given that science is conducted by humans, should we combat personal biases? To some extent, yes—relying too heavily on marketing instincts can lead one astray from scientific truth. Yet, personal biases, strong convictions, and individual goals can drive significant advancements in understanding.

Who dares to challenge Albert Einstein’s views on Quantum Mechanics? Interestingly, many scientists did. This suggests that perhaps these attributes are not inherently detrimental.

References