Science as a Human Endeavour

Science is continually changing as new knowledge is discovered. However, many students believe that scientific knowledge is immutable and that there is always a single, correct ‘textbook’ answer to every scientific question. This is contrary to the expected learning outcomes in the Australian Curriculum, which states: “Science involves the construction of explanations based on evidence and science knowledge can be changed as new evidence becomes available.” Similarly, at university level, the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards (LTAS) Threshold Learning Outcomes for Science state that “current scientific knowledge is both contestable and testable by further inquiry”, and that “scientific knowledge is dynamic.” Part of the reason for the misconception that modern scientific knowledge is unchanging is that many text books present a misleading view of John Dewey’s “scientific method”. In How We Think, Dewey contrasts empirical thinking and scientific thinking, giving an example of the latter as formulating ideas and testing those ideas using controlled experiments. Textbooks typically apply Dewey’s “scientific method” to astrophysics, in which there were major revisions of cosmological models from earth-centric models to various sun-centric views of the solar system, and different understandings of gravity by Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, amongst others. Each paradigm shift has been a major revision of pre-existing knowledge. The most recent example of this textbook scientific method is Einstein’s general relativity, 100 years ago. The synthesis of new pharmaceuticals, advances in nanotechnology, genetic modification are all examples of discoveries of new knowledge, without necessarily displacing pre-existing knowledge. A notable recent Australian exemplar of the textbook scientific method, involving the revision of pre-existing knowledge, is the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine awarded to Marshall and Warren. Prior to their work, it was believed that bacteria could not survive in the stomach, and that stomach inflammation and ulcers were due to stress or lifestyle factors. Marshall and Warren showed that inflammation and ulcers were due to the bacterium Helicobacter pylori, and they could cure these diseases by killing the bacterium. Their discoveries rewrote medical textbooks. While the Marshall and Warren story is discussed in the biology sections of school science textbooks, it is not discussed as an example of “the scientific method”. The textbook scientific method is outdated and divorced from modern reality. A second short-coming of the textbook scientific method has been discussed previously in this column (April 2012 issue, page 39). Since Dewey’s “scientific method” was intended to be an example of the methods (plural) of science, it is incorrect for textbooks to present it as the scientific method. The LTAS statements and Australian Curriculum are quite explicit about this, always referring to “scientific methods” and the “methods of science”. By promoting only one scientific method, textbooks implicitly devalue all other aspects of scientific endeavour. Human endeavours are full of both human triumphs and human imperfections. The latter can include personal rivalries and jealousies, vested interests, political or religious ideologies and zealotries, and other frailties. While textbooks celebrate the triumph of Einstein’s relativity as an improvement over Newtonian physics, the truth is that many in the scientific community did not accept relativity for many years. Einstein’s first paper on relativity was published in 1905, his main papers on general relativity were published in 1915‑1917, and there was experimental verification in 1919 that the bending of light during a solar eclipse was consistent with general relativity and inconsistent with other theories. Einstein received 62 nominations for the Nobel Prize in Physics between 1910 and 1922, but was awarded the Nobel Prize, only when the committee specifically excluded the work on relativity from consideration. The idea of resistance to change was expounded by Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Even when a new, improved scientific idea has been put forward and verified, there is huge emotional and other investments in the older established idea that prevent or delay the acceptance of the new idea. Nuclear fission in the 1930s and 1940s provided undeniable evidence for relativity. Fictional works like Game of Thrones are captivating and compelling because they show both human tribulations and human depravities. The stories of science are also filled with conflict of interest, human drama and intrigue. Even though 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), and the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers, there is still wide-spread resistance to and non-acceptance of anthropogenic climate change. Similarly, there is still significant resistance to evolution, even though it is accepted by most. Perhaps students will be more interested in learning about science as a human endeavour, when that human endeavour is presented more realistically, warts and all.