Science, the Pursuit of Truth, and What's Stopping It

            Science seeks to uncover the laws of nature, but what does it mean for science to pursue truth?  Firstly, an observation is made.  Speculation about that observation follows, leading to experimentation.  Following an outcome, another explanation about the phenomenon in question leads the cycle of hypothesizing and experimenting to continue in a process fondly known as the scientific method.  Cooperation and trust between others can reveal more truths, albeit avoiding dangerous pitfalls of logical fallacies and biases that can impede sound judgments.  Formal education provides the tools needed to safely navigate this intellectual minefield, so long as these skills are consistently employed.

            For many students in the United States, the introduction to the scientific method as a formal concept begins in middle school.  Although many children employ the scientific method without realizing it (observing, hypothesizing, experimenting, re-hypothesizing, etc.), science curricula starting middle school through higher education reinforces the scientific method to the point of pain for some.  Yes, going over deductive reasoning while staying within the bounds of logic for the umpteenth time can result in boredom and frustration, but without the critical thinking skills that result from these exercises, the struggle to discover truth would end preemptively.

            Yet mortality has its limitations; one individual cannot feasibly observe and experiment and hypothesize about any given subject exhaustively in one lifetime, nor can one collect all the information in the universe while on this mortal coil.  Therefore, cooperation must occur.  Humans have an interesting ability not found readily in other forms of life, trust.  This ability allows multiple individuals to work on many different projects at the same time, with the understanding that another party does their due diligence and reports their findings in a comprehensible way to add to the collective knowledge accessible to the human race.

            So what can influence trust?  In short, trust depends on the individual and the topic in question, and can be any mix of three things: logic, passion, and an authoritative voice.  However, any combination of these three can result in propagation of misinformation.  For instance, inflexibility in accepting ethos triggers confirmation bias, wherein the only information accepted validates personal beliefs; all contrary evidence is rejected often on the grounds of unacceptable authority.  Slippery slope (if X then Y will evidently happen, followed by Z etc.) fallacies often result from emotionally charged dialogues, and are found very often in regards to political spin.  Nobody, no matter how educated, is immune to fallacies, because even the individual who is perceived to be most logical can exhibit some of the most dangerous biases that stem from some permutation of superiority.  For instance, naïve realism bias stems from the perceived ability of oneself to witness events as “true,” which therefore must be real, and anyone who sees differently is regarded as “unintelligent.”  The lists and examples of biases and fallacies can extend even further (to see more comprehensive lists of logical fallacies and cognitive biases, follow the links.)

            Education and science, when exercised responsibly, is an antidote for many of these hazards.  This past election successfully used a great deal of these fallacies and biases on all sides, for better or for worse.  It is the responsibility of oneself to recognize when these occur, to foster trust and understanding between fellow beings, and to ultimately decipher the world around us.