In the 1950s many science-fiction movies and TV shows took it for granted that, by the 21st century, we’d be living in a society that understood and respected science. Science and engineering had made significant contributions to the Second World War including the development of radar and nuclear power. Over the years, our daily lives have been transformed, lengthened and enriched by science in ways that have exceeded the imaginations of science-fiction writers.

It is disturbing, then, that a significant portion of the public deny scientific evidence on a wide range of topics from climate change to the safety of vaccines and even the shape of the Earth. This science scepticism is highly selective. Few doubt or distrust science when it brings flatscreen TVs or smartphones, but some draw the line when it conflicts with their cherished preconceived notions. For many, their views on vaccines or climate change are fixed in stone – unwavering no matter how much evidence or logical arguments are presented to contradict their opinion.

Psychology and neuroscience have identified a phenomenon termed “belief perseverance” that accounts for why everyone resists new information that conflicts with our preconceived notions. More evidence or better arguments are not the answer. The more information that comes in that conflicts with a pre-existing worldview, the more our brains reject it – known as the “backfire effect”. The worldviews of many are tied to their political affiliations, and when new information such as the effectiveness of masks and vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic becomes politicized, it can be a serious problem.

Scientists are in a unique position to counter the backfire effect. We have been trained to be open to new information, test it for validity, and most importantly, be willing to change our minds in the light of new information. For a scientist, there is a singular pleasure in discovery, in learning that something that one previously took as established fact is not in fact. We are always on the lookout for something new and unanticipated, while simultaneously guarding against errors and mistakes.

When I was a graduate student, another student told me: “When you see something remarkable in your research, don’t think Nobel prize, think ‘How did I screw this up?’ Assume it’s wrong and try to find your mistake. If there’s no error, great. But if there is an error, and you don’t find it, you can be sure that someone else will.”

To counter the defensive reactions to new information that challenges our preconceptions, everyone should learn to think like a scientist

There are two important points here. The first is that reality exists, and that data are data. If you are seeing a real effect, others will confirm it. And if not, they won’t. Second, be open to doubt and uncertainty. There are a host of observations and results for which we do not have a valid scientific explanation. Scientists do not see this as a flaw in the scientific method, but as an opportunity. When faced with something we don’t understand, scientists don’t throw up their hands, rather, they roll up their sleeves.

Scientists will often disagree about how to interpret a particular result, but we all agree on what constitutes a valid observation. For example, only after thorough checking for mistakes or statistical or experimental artefacts would over 97% of climate scientists reach agreement on a warming global temperature driven by anthropomorphic causes, indicating that one can trust its validity. After all, there is nothing a scientist loves more than proving that their colleagues are wrong – it’s almost as good as making a new discovery. Expertise matters and in cases such as this, you want to give weight to those who specialize in climate science, for they are intimately familiar with all the ways one can be fooled or led astray.

Guiding principles

To counter the defensive reactions to new information that challenges our preconceptions, everyone should learn to think like a scientist. Of course, there are many examples where a scientist has refused to accept data that contradict a favourite theory or model. It takes continued and sustained effort to learn to be your own harshest critic and to admit that something you took to be true is in fact not so. Rather than dogmatic certainty, one must embrace doubt and be open to changing one’s mind.

Science is, of course, not a set of answers, but rather a process, a way of asking questions of the world

The essence of thinking like a scientist, and escaping from the trap of the backfire effect, can be summarized in one single question: What if I’m wrong? Asking this is all it takes to think scientifically. Science is, of course, not a set of answers, but rather a process, a way of asking questions of the world. Science also consists of agreed-upon criteria for what constitutes a proper answer. Sometimes these facts are presented as “science”. But new studies can lead to new information, and in the best-case scenario, our understanding of the world and how it works improves.

If science is to thrive, we must understand its human foundations

New discoveries may lead to previously established results being shown to be not the full story. That does not mean that we can’t know anything – rather, it is the promise that tomorrow our understanding will continue to improve. The challenges we face, from pandemics to climate change to AI, are too great to let the backfire effect dictate the choices we make. We are constantly being bombarded by people who know that when we are reacting emotionally, we can be more easily manipulated.

In the 21st century, science should be recognized as universal. The principles that improve our lives should not be ignored or rejected when politically inconvenient.

• SEO Powered Content & PR Distribution. Get Amplified Today.
• PlatoData.Network Vertical Generative Ai. Empower Yourself. Access Here.
• PlatoAiStream. Web3 Intelligence. Knowledge Amplified. Access Here.
• PlatoESG. Automotive / EVs, Carbon, CleanTech, Energy, Environment, Solar, Waste Management. Access Here.
• BlockOffsets. Modernizing Environmental Offset Ownership. Access Here.
• Source: https://physicsworld.com/a/why-it-would-be-better-if-everyone-thought-like-a-scientist/