This essay is the first of hopefully three. It began as one but as I started to flesh things out, I realized though they originated in one conversation, it was properly three essays. They basically all involve in some sense a discussion of science. Just putting that out there right at the start.
I guess such is often the case. Rarely, do we actually have the luxury of arguing for or explaining one point, one item. Typically, it is a set of propositions or ideas, a bundle, often intertwined, and that seems to be the case here. Or perhaps it is simply that I have two or three ideas on the field of practice that we call science and so I have simply lumped them together here. Granted these did all originate derive from one conversation. We will see.
This essay, the first of the three, will simply ask what is science? The first essay looks at what we often call science. I try to make several points in it. The first is that the various sciences that make up sciences do not fit neatly together and that it might be better to reference them as ‘the sciences’ – plural, as opposed to ‘science’ - singular. Tied to this point is the idea of there probably being multiple methods, or practices, as opposed to a method. I had not intended to venture into domains associated with Paul Feyerabend, but it is not too surprising considering the topic.
I move on to two items we often consider as or confuse with science. The first of these is education. I suggest that to study physics or biology is much more about learning about science than the actual doing of physics or biology. And the second is engineering. The first point regarding education is fairly obvious. The second regarding engineering, however, gives me pause. It ultimately reveals a limitation and a needed subtlety regarding my ideas on the idea of sciences versus non-science.
The second essay will examine two very different criticisms of science. The first is a paper written by Paul Glasziou and the second is a recent book written by Mattias Desmet. I examine them and basically want to urge that we should more see them not as a criticism of science but as criticisms of particular sciences. A nod to this first essay. Further, though they are both criticisms, each engages their project quite differently, aiming at different audiences, and wanting to achieve different goals.
Lastly in the third, following a theme introduced by Glasziou’s paper, I want to look at the concept of waste. He suggests that much of scientific research is wasted. For now, let me say that what he calls waste, was until his essay, largely not seen as such. In short, in the third essay, I want to play with various ideas on waste. It seems that in some sense something cannot be wasted until someone has a use for it, and yet waste is seen as having no use. In short, for something to seen as waste it must be either useful but neglected or to simply have no use.
The above are coming attractions if that at this moment. Again, we begin with what is and what is not science. This is not a deep dive in any sense, but rather an overly quick examination of several items typically associated with science. It is a sort of determination, and we arrive at three classifications. There are those items that are found in science, the particular sciences. And there is that which educates and is about science. Lastly, we have the application of science, what I point to as engineering. These last two are not of science.
A final disclaimer, these are the ramblings of a non-scientist. There is little or nothing of science in this essay. I do reference several scientists now and again, and a very small sampling of their work but otherwise there is no real science here. Regardless, what follows are some ideas I keep tripping over regarding what I see science as and how it functions in our world today.
Science and Method
Ever engage in a conversation and realize that there are in fact multiple conversations going on? It was such a conversation that prompted me to start this essay. This particular conversation or set of conversations involved what both participants described as science. The problem was we were pointing to multiple phenomena. Science is a subject that lends itself to such. It is a subject that all typically have some ideas about, but few of us actually do science. Despite our reliance upon a range of scientific discoveries over the past four centuries, despite what we do know of science or perhaps because of what we do not know, all of this prevents us fully grasping it. We got it but we do not.
With that, my intent here is to attempt to point to what science is and what it is not. I am interested not so much in arguing these points. Rather, I hope to more show or point the reader to what I see and ask if they can also see what it is I am pointing to. No doubt there are consequences to these observations, but for now I am interested in what is seen.
Commonly, science is seen as a method of discovery, a means of gaining understanding, a way of acquiring knowledge. That method in turn entails things such as hypotheses, experimentation, data, and theories. This is how an elementary school teacher may introduce it. This is very much we are told what scientists do, and what we are witnessing is the scientific method.
As we proceed, we will probably add to the above the sharing and debate of the results of those experiments and how those experiments were conducted. Likewise, we will ponder the associated theories one is attempting to prove or disprove through these experiments. Likewise, we will probably want others to try and replicate these experiments. This again is, we are told, science, and likewise, the scientific method.
Is the above in fact a satisfactory description of science? Again, the above is certainly common enough. When science is discussed, it is typically in these terms. In talking of science, we will point to a theory, to research, to the evidence or data it is based upon, and ultimately how it can be applied.
The problem is that we all in our lives engage in such. We routinely engage in what we often call experiments. We often formulate hypotheses and arrive at theories which in turn explain what is going on. Things ranging from last night’s dinner and why it was so terrible to speculations regarding why someone would want to read or write this essay. Both would involve theories, and likewise, each would appeal to a set of data points to affirm or deny those original speculations, those hypotheses. We may even arrive at a theory to improve our dinners and essays.
The problem is that we do not want to say that these are scientific affairs. I routinely hear of artists and musicians who were experimenting with this and that and arriving at some set of conclusions- a new set or collection of works. It might be that experimentation is simply a method of gaining something new, but such practices are not unique to science. In short, the ‘scientific method’ is not sufficient in defining science. Such may be used by scientists, but it is, in today’s world, certainly not unique to scientists.
So, let me try again. Perhaps a better explanation of science is that it is today a set of largely established historical practices. Each with a set of problems, a particular domain of research or phenomena, its methods of research-of engaging these phenomena. Each will have a way of engaging what is being researched, whether it entail the tagging of animals so as to be able to track them in the wild or the use of electron microscopes or both. Each will have a history, a collection of theories and works, and likewise a set of achievements and those who achieved such.
The researchers and scientists engaged in these practices, researching in these domains, pursuing these methods, will recognize and acknowledge prior research and ideas in the space. They will in some sense be cognizant of those preceding them. All of these that we point to will in turn guide how they proceed.
Each of these domains will hold up certain key works as achievements. They will recognize certain theories and hypotheses, certain experiments, certain articles and certain researchers who preceded them as achievements, as things that define and differentiate their field of study. Each domain will have its Heisenberg and Darwin, its uncertainty principle, and theory of evolution. In short, each will have its own history and practices, past and present, even its own mythology. Again, these are what define a particular science.
This is more what science entails - a set of domains which though perhaps loosely connected, will each have a certain history of research projects, methods, and practices. Each domain will have a set which most in the field can point to as actual discoveries. There will be a set of works that are largely held up as significant, and it is again these works which largely guide and direct; they define the domain and research going forward. And of course, each domain, each science will have its dissenters, its minority view challenging the more standard or accepted positions.
Let us look at one domain-biology, one of the basic domains of science, which entails numerous subdomains. The study of cells-microbiology, and the study of genetics are both examples of biology. And then you have domains such as lepidopterology, which if you were to do a family tree type chart would fall under zoology and entomology. All of the above are tied to or within the domain of biology. All to some degree rely upon and interface with the domain of biochemistry, which leads one into chemistry, which is not of biology, but still of science. Each of the above with their own practices, questions, technologies, and yes legends and mythologies.
The study of cells, what is today called microbiology, is commonly attributed to Antonie Philips van Leeuwenhoek. He was probably the first to start using and for that matter build, what became the microscope, which in turn led to the concept of the cell. He introduced the cell theory into biology.
Likewise, Mendel and his meticulous work and notes relating to his peas led to the science of genetics. Maria Sibyllan Merian, with her drawings of butterflies and pupae, similarly to Mendel and Leeuwenhoek in their respective fields, made major contributions to lepidopterology. The variety of phenomena, the variety of actual methods to make some sense of these phenomena, are what define these sciences, and it is the interrelation of phenomenon, theory and explanation, the history of research and the characters that did it that define these sciences.
Each with their unique way of collecting data, of examining what it was they were examining. And what each was studying was or became a unique domain and that is still largely true today, due largely to their work. And though they share to some degree a general method, in that all did work with theories, offered up hypotheses, and documented their results, it was not this that ultimately unites them. Rather it is the interconnections of cells, genetics, and living things such as a Luna moth or a Monarch butterfly and work of the scientists, the biologists, the researchers that pursued these phenomena.
Though it must be acknowledged that though each had their own style or approach to documenting their work, that documentation was meticulous, whatever that documentation entailed. It revealed the phenomenon. Each, through their documentation, through their work product, whether that involved charts and tables, drawings or notes, challenged what was accepted and more importantly redefined the space. Ultimately, it was the accessibility, the quality of their works which brought their works together into a common field, the domain of biology.
What I am pointing at is that it was not a scientific method that they shared, but that their methods were brought to bear ultimately on particular domains, all within what we call biology, the study of life. They examined particular components and aspects of that broad domain. And further, their unique methods of looking at and defining their particular domains shaped and largely determined what biology is today. Biology here, just as I suggested earlier regarding science, is determined and shaped by its subdomains, those doing genetics, microbiology, and entomology as opposed to any universal ‘scientific’ method.
Even with just these three there is just a diversity of interests, a range of questions. And the domains that make up science and biology and the like are driven by the questions asked of the particular phenomenon, phenomena, and the methods arrived at in that process. And as these methods develop and evolve, we begin to see how they complement and likewise often challenge each other. And again, each is with its own practices, methods, its own histories, heroes and heroines, and questions and theories. To talk of simple science is to betray the richness of each of these domains, their practices, their histories, their achievements.
Science and Not Science
Having looked briefly at the domains of science, I now want to look at a few items that are related to and sometimes confused with science. These include education, and ultimately engineering, though I arrive at the later through an examination of libraries.
Let us begin with education. The term education suffers the same challenges as science and biology. When you reference education are you pointing to K-12, or ‘higher ed’ or perhaps preschool? And then there are the liberal arts, the traditional American public school, professional education and schools, vocational schools, STEM subjects, and the list goes on.
I suspect we can illustrate that education, whatever it is, is not science. Is it that education typically informs or guides one in their actions? That is one of the ideals, and yes, I am probably playing with the equivalent of the ‘scientific method’ here, but one problem at a time. If we look at the basic practice of students sitting in a classroom, the intent is to generally inform about a subject. Regardless of intent, regardless of the subject, there is a lot of lecturing, reading, note-taking and typically testing. Students are being introduced to various subjects through lectures, and texts. It is through lectures and texts that they learn about these subjects, whether that be history or physics.
Even students in classes involving labs are not doing actual science. Rather, they are getting a sampling of what it is they are reading and being lectured about. It is a hands-on sampling or presentation. My recollection of chemistry class was that any results we had that went counter to the scientific norms and expectations led not to us challenging the science but to the teacher assessing what went wrong; what did my fellow students and I not do?
To read of science, to be lectured on science, to even do some work in a lab to further illustrate and appreciate what was discovered and done in a science is not science. The lab class is perhaps interesting because it is perhaps in a way a gateway to doing chemistry. Perhaps. A physics student working on the Hadron Collider - CERN in Geneva is in a very unique position of getting an education and yes maybe even doing some science. And any student doing an internship is in that nexus of now, to some degree, applying or at least witnessing the application of what they have learned – they have moved from learning about a subject to doing some amount of it.
In short, however, education typically involves learning about something. And to learn about science will involve several options. One can look at the history of a science, entailing the theories, the experiments, the practices of a science, the achievements of a science. To do science might involve all of these but with an emphasis upon the practice, the technology, the questions, and procedures of it-the how. And as those high school and college chemistry classes mimic these, they are perhaps a good place to start, but they are neither chemistry, nor biology, nor science. Again, to become educated in a subject is to learn something about a subject. It is not to perform or be productive in that subject. Isn’t that the common criticism of school? “I know all this stuff but am unable to do anything.”
I say that, and I think of a music school student mastering the french horn or the trumpet, any instrument. Their introduction to their instrument, to the reading of music, the teaching of some initial pieces of music, and the music theory that goes with it are often anything but musical. It might lead to the performance of some music, but those preparatory classes, practice, rehearsals, and the struggle often associated with such are anything but music. Those moments can be painful both for those around the student, and the students themselves. Where such struggles bring them, however, is sometimes music. That which proceeded, however, is not. Those tortuous moments often are what inspire. Students often can recall both these moments and the mentors that propelled them into these struggles years later. Again, such lead to music. But are not music.
Let us turn to the library, every school, every community has a library. Every research institution has access to a library. Historically, the place where one finds books. Later it became books, periodicals, journals, even records and videos. It is not so simple today. Today, I access my local library online from my desk or my couch, wherever. I can search and read the libraries databases, download, and even print as needed, anywhere. Both in the traditional library and on today’s online version it seems that the key is to retain, preserve and to make all content available.
Today it is information, as opposed to books, that is available through a library. It is information that is critical for varied research projects, especially relating to the sciences. That said, science is not the only thing done in a library. Further, each science has to some degree structured its library. That is true not only of the sciences, but really any audience, any population using a particular library. The library in an attempt to stay relevant makes it possible to access all of their services from my home. Libraries, through their varied collections and the systems used to distribute those collections, that information, facilitate scientific research, education, the arts, even engineering, etc.
In that function, however, they are not science. That seems intuitively obvious to me as I type this. Yet in numerous colleges and universities one can get a degree in information and library science. A librarian might very well have a degree in such but is it a science? It can quickly be said that the librarian maintaining the local librarian is not engaged in science. Yet, there are faculty members in these library and information science departments pushing the limits of information science, publishing the results of their work. In a sense it looks and seems like one of the sciences I describe above.
“In that function, it is not a science.” I start the above paragraph with that sentence. Yet, I go on above to talk about how library and information science can in the end be seen as a science. Library science seems to be, if you follow what I wrote above in the earlier section, a science. It has a set of practices, is focused upon certain phenomenon, asks certain questions, has certain prized texts, it has researchers it holds in esteem, etc. Every student at least in the not-too-distant past knew of Melvil Dewey. Yet, despite all of this, here I am claiming that the field or domain is not a science.
Is library science a science or not? More importantly, is anything a science simply because it has a set of practices, is focused upon certain phenomenon, asks certain questions, embraces certain research practices, has certain prized texts, has researchers it holds in esteem, etc.? Like scientific method, my own definition seems not to be adequate to deciding this question. Lots of things can be seen again to have what is listed above. With that list we can probably include literature as a science.
I had illustrated above that the scientific method is not adequate for the various sciences. I went on to suggest that we should reference the sciences – plural versus science. Why is it now that I want to differentiate library science from those I consider science or one of the sciences? And to just refer to something in the plural is really NOT a very good solution anyway. We still need to identify what unites them. We still need an essence or something that we can point to and identify as that which binds them. Don’t we? What is it that allows us to say that ballet is not science and physics is? Or likewise for me to suggest above that library science is not a science?
All of the three, ballet, library science and physics provide us with types of knowledge, no doubt each a different type. Ballet informs us regarding the human body, and its potentials. Library science reveals how we can structure the knowledge and information we have. And physics reveals the physical world of which we are part and the dynamics of that world. So, the providing of knowledge is not the differentiator as each provides some type of knowledge.
Nor would I want to say that it is the unique knowledge provided by each that differentiates them. Certainly not by itself. What is a unique knowledge? The knowledge gained by examining a phenomenon certainly contributes to the differences amongst the sciences and likewise the science and non-sciences, but it is in conjunction to things such as I listed above – unique practices, unique phenomenon, asking certain questions, having certain texts, researchers, all of these arrive at a unique knowledge which differentiates the science, but that is not the question we are after, is it?
What makes something a science and another not a science is different from differentiating sciences. The two are just two different questions, and differentiating the science from the non-science comes down to one thing-intent. Whatever intentionality is it seems to play a role in determining what is and what is not a science. And to further complicate things I would argue that it is largely not the intentionality of individuals but rather the intentionality of the field of study, the tradition, the practice of the domain or subject. Is the subject or the researchers in question attempting to resolve a practical problem or are they trying to understand a phenomenon? Is it the case that they are intent upon applying knowledge? Or is it the case that they want to understand why something is or why something occurs as it does?
And that question can be asked of researchers and likewise research domains, subjects, areas of research, etc. Is a group or individuals attempting to determine how best to structure the knowledge and information we have so as to ensure its integrity and make it available to those who require it or are they trying to understand or prove the existence of a sub-atomic particle? Again, these are questions of intent and are held by those in a field of study and more importantly asked by folks outside of that field, such as myself.
Now it should be all those things that make up a field or discipline, especially the questions and goals they share, that will contribute to my decision regarding their intents and whether the field or discipline is something we see as a science or not. Is the group in question trying to make sense of the universe or are they working rather on a problem that will help us structure our libraries or provide us more RAM in our PC or laptop? What are they trying to do?
This, however, leads to another question. What of a researcher who designs a critical experiment to prove that a theory is true? Is this person a scientist or an engineer. Leeuwenhoek, who we pointed to earlier very much falls into this trap. He provided us with both the ‘cell theory’ and the prototypical microscope. It seems he to be asking multiple questions. He wants to know what, if anything, is in pond water, and then built exactly the device needed to achieve that. The same can be said of Galileo in his use of the telescope to arrive at his conclusions regarding the moons of Jupiter.
Forget about ballet dancer or librarian. Were the teams that designed, conceived of and implemented the lasers used this past December at the US National Ignition Facility in the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, who were working to create a sustained fusion reaction, scientists or engineers?
The problem is that they were probably doing both. They were working on creating a sustained fusion reaction, so there is that desire to confirm what we believe to be true. And no doubt a great deal of engineering was required to confirm that our science was valid – that a fusion reaction was sustainable. Again, considering the challenges of the science, the particles and the energy levels they were trying to measure, some engineering is required.
But then it gets more complicated. The reason that they were looking to explore fusion reactions, the reason for that experiment this past December, was to better understand fission reactions and ultimately the detonation of nuclear weapons. In short, as the US no longer does testing of such weapons, we need to find alternative means of confirming that our arsenal is actually going to work. Though there is serious scientific fruit to be harvested here, their actual intent sounds much more like an engineering task.
Perhaps a better research project or experiment to look at is the work done by the CERN Large Hadron Collider in Geneva Switzerland back in 2012 and their work in general. In 2012 they proved the existence of Higgs boson, a particle that facilitates other particles, such as electrons and the like, having mass. They proceeded to develop an experiment that would prove the existence of this particle. In proving that this particle exists, they would now have an explanation of how sub-atomic particles have mass. This project has significance today only in theoretical physics.
There is little or no application for the Higgs boson today. It will neither impact our nuclear weapon arsenal or effect the next generation of smart phones. To arrive at such seems to only inform us of the dynamics of our universe. Such is an example of pure science. It offers no practical value, granted for some it provided a theological value. For most, however, it was much more like the images provided by the Hubble and Webb space telescopes. In each of these we arrive at engineering focused purely on the desire and intent to know.
In each of these we are, or scientists are attempting to know something about our world, our universe, nature, and it is this that differentiates science from non-science. Science is a set of speculations, a set of theories of how the world is, how it works, and likewise a set of experiments that attempt to confirm these ideas. There is little of practical value in such projects. The practical will follow the discoveries of science. The discoveries themselves will not factor into the price of tea anywhere. It is not until the intent moves from the discovery of knowledge, the doing of science, to the application of the knowledge acquired. We have at that moment moved from science to engineering, and engineering feats such as the Webb space telescope and libraries of Alexandria and Mount Pleasant NY.
Again, the question of intent is typically not determined by those in the field or domain of a science or non-science. These are questions that are typically asked by those outside of the domain and disciplines - people such as myself. Often times by people who have primarily only been educated about science. A question of intent is similar to the attribution of method to a science. Those in the field have no need to be focused on either question, or no interest in asking such questions. And those outside of a domain, whether the domain in question involves science, engineering or even art, often do not grasp that domain adequately to answer the question.
For those in the domain or discipline, they will largely rely upon the history and practices of the domain or discipline they are engaged in. It will be through an appeal to that history, that experience, that will determine their intent and likewise their methods, their tools and engineering requirements. Not having that history and likewise only experiencing the sciences from the outside, only having outside reports and education about science, we will generalize their intent based upon only our history of interactions with the discipline, with the science, what we have available to us.
It will be seen by many that to do science is to search and to discover. It is to know, and in that knowledge, it appeals to theory and experiment. These for most of us are what differentiates a scientist from others. And likewise, those focused on research that leads not to discovery, but rather to a better mousetrap are not scientists, but engineers and the like. In short, we begin to understand science through an introduction to intents and a general method, but as we dig deeper, as we begin to work in or simply learn about a particular domain or discipline even, we discover multiple intents and a deeper richer logic and likewise the decision-making processes that actually drive these sciences. In short, we are left with what one is trying to do and how they are doing it that allows us to answer some of the above.
