2.1.1 Assumptions and Values Underlying Science

Version 1.2 July 2020                                                       (Previous Version)

Many scientists aren’t fully aware of the assumptions they make when practicing science.  This leaves them open to criticism from those who question science, such as some philosophers, sociologists, and some – but by no means all – religious people.  The best scientists don't hide these assumptions, but openly discuss them and question them when relevant. 

Some people doubt that we can do science as currently understood.  Scientists have to address a version of the “dilemma of truth� discussed in Chapter 1.1 – Epistemology.  Are our minds part of the universe or not?  In this dilemma, our thoughts (including scientific conclusions) may be either a) caused by the natural laws of the universe or caused by God or b) not caused at all, perhaps random or arbitrary.  This seems to cover all options.  But in either case, if our beliefs are caused or random, they are not necessarily true.  As discussed in Part 1 we all live with this dilemma and there appears to be no objective resolution.  But as people, and particularly as scientists, we choose to believe that it is valid to seek the truth.  We value Truth as a guiding principle.  Most scientists would say that they are just seeking the truth.

Some social constructivists could suggest that all our beliefs are caused, including scientific beliefs, scientific theories, and scientific paradigms.  We discuss this more in Section 2.1.5.

Other scientists mistakenly declare that they have no beliefs.  But as we say in the introduction classical science involves experiments; experiments involve making a hypothesis for the experiment to test; a hypothesis has to be based on some underlying understanding of reality, i.e. beliefs about the world; these beliefs may be tentative, but then, most of our beliefs are tentative.

Most of these assumptions are essentially philosophical positions similar to those we have reached in Part 1 on Philosophy.  Science cannot be conducted without these assumptions.

Underlying assumptions of scientists include a set of values: guides for our behaviour.  These include our core values of Truth, Diversity and Reality. 

Science reinforces many of the philosophical positions we adopt:

·       that there is an ultimate Truth to be found;

·       that there is an ultimate Reality that exists independently of us that we can observe;

·       that this reality is at least in part comprehensible;

·       that this reality has three spatial dimensions (if not more) and changes over time;

·       that causation is implicit in this reality;

·       that how this reality appears to us can be deceptive and our interpretations erroneous;

·       that we must value a Diversity of informed opinion, and be open to criticism in our scientific research and teaching.

As science learns more, these positions becomes more and more defensible.

We expect scientists to first, do no harm (which is part of the Hippocratic Oath that medical doctors are expected to adhere to).

·       Scientists must avoid causing harm to the subjects of their experiments, be they human or non-human, and avoid damaging the environment.

·       Virtually all research establishments around the world now have ethics committees and all researchers must ensure adverse impacts on people, animals and the environment are minimised and the potential gain in knowledge is worth it before they can proceed.

·       Infamous scientists who disregarded the adverse impacts of their experiments on people, animals or the environment, or were outright cruel, are not accepted as ‘colleagues’ by other scientists, but as outcasts, or “mad or evil scientistsâ€�.  Examples in real life are:

·       SS officer Josef Mengele, the most prominent of a group of German Nazi doctors who conducted cruel, inhumane medical experiments on prisoners, causing great harm or death, at Auschwitz concentration camp in World War 2 (1939-1945).

·       General Shirō Ishii, who led Detachment 731, a unit of the Japanese Army which conducted biological and chemical warfare research involving lethal human experiments during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945), including testing biological weapons in the field on cities in China, killing up to half a million people.

Rejecting evil, avoiding harm, is valuing Life. 

We expect scientists to take into account the needs of their colleagues, their employers and society at large, and the impacts on them, which requires the core value of Compassion (or Love)...Self-obsessed scientists who are thoughtless or negligent or socially destructive do exist, but we need to hold such people to higher standards.

Science (and its offshoots such as technology and engineering) has such a major impact on our lives.  Science is also big business (in research laboratories and universities), funded by governments through research grants, or corporations or not for profit organisations.  So science must be conducted responsibly and explained responsibly.  Society must intervene to change the behaviour of scientists who act badly (not valuing Truth, Diversity, Reality, Life and Love).  Individually and collectively scientists must value Responsibility.

·       Much of science is conducted in teams, and scientists must treat their colleagues fairly.

·       Science is also competitive, and scientists must treat their competitors with respect.

·       The peer review process (see 2.1.6) requires reviewers to be fair and honest.

·       Scientists are obliged to not waste the resources of society and their employers.

·       Scientists should not overblow their research, to give false hope or encourage funding.

·       Scientists must explain the consequences of new developments as best they can.

·       Scientists must actively participate in public affairs, especially to clarify factual matters within their area of expertise: they cannot leave it to politicians and journalists

Science explains many phenomena that were once explained by religion:

·       the origins of the universe, life, suffering, compassion and consciousness;

·       ways to reduce suffering and promote altruism;

·       why we have earthquakes, droughts, floods, fires, epidemics and disease;

·       ways to predict, prevent, mitigate and recover from catastrophic events;

·       why we have failures in communication, personal conflicts and wars;

·       ways to improve communication, reduce conflict and avoid wars;

·       why the sky is blue, the rain falls, the crops grow;

·       why we have our sense of longing, insignificance and awe.

As science learns more, these scientific explanations becomes more and more defensible.

These aren’t part of our underlying assumptions but are outcomes of scientific progress.

The significance of these outcomes further reinforces the need for responsibility in science.

Most scientists express wonder at the immensity, complexity and majesty of the universe: in practice almost all scientists value Beauty.  It is not an essential selection criteria for a position in science or in evaluating the worth of a piece of research, but it is common.  Scientists often use Occam’s razor (otherwise known as the principle of parsimony) to evaluate whether an explanation is the best one that fits the facts, and for many scientists this is reflected in a feeling of elegance: simplicity that encompasses complexity is beautiful.  Many scientists, technologists, and technicians have this feeling.  Beauty is not exclusive to the arts and humanities, and it not foreign to science.

Similarly, in practice almost all scientists live in hope, that they will participate in a big discovery or that science as a whole will solve some of the major problems humanity faces, or perhaps that some intellectual epiphany will come their way.  Hope for an interesting outcome drives science, guiding how science is conducted.  Hope is a core value of science.

History tells us that we must be wary of our observations and those reported by others, and we must be wary of all explanations of these observations, because over time many of these have been found to be inconsistent internally or with each other  Some people are unaware of the truth, some deliberately hide it, some deliberately try to deceive.  Some simply grow up in a different culture or language group and have different perceptions and ways of seeing things that are hard to discern and hard to assess.  As we learn more, as individuals and as societies, we realise many things we previously believed turn out to be wrong.  An underlying assumption in science, based on these insights, are that we must be sceptical and practice a scientific form of systematic doubt.  Along with valuing the Truth, we must live with Uncertainty.

Some of the historical confusion with changing beliefs or social differences may be resolved by clarifying more precisely what we mean.  So we value Accuracy, in the use of language, in observations and measurements, reasoning and presentation.

We suggest that Uncertainty is inherent in the notion of valuing Diversity, and is inherent in the core value choice we make to value the Truth.  Likewise, Accuracy is inherent in our choice to value the notion of a shared public Reality, which includes the notion that we use language to share our understandings of this reality.  For these reasons, we would call Uncertainty and Accuracy derived values, because they are inherent in, implied by, or deduced from core values.

This is the current summary of our conclusions in this area:

These underlie the various techniques used in science that together form ‘the scientific method’.