Curiosity and knowledge are co-factors vital to science but how are the cultivated?
Is empirical thought a native skill or a habit of mind we must develop through practise?
Scientist, David J. Helfand, insists the latter.
Scientific advancements are ubiquitous in our modern world, but owning the latest tech is one thing—understanding its workings and potential is quite another.
Observing correlations in nature then reimagining the applications has led to many vital breakthroughs in health, longevity, performance and other quality of life imperatives along with resolutions to challenges of species conservation and biodiversity. Still some argue that an analytical perspective dulls wonder and imagination.
When we view the world through scientific skew do we forgot fascination for fact?
If that were the case, why has art and science long held a synergistic relationship?
Our ability to be inspired by science reflects an aptitude for curiosity and knowledge—two qualities that can be taught.
And making facts fun, has another advantage—it enables us to cull and curate the influx of misinformation which permeates our advanced society.
In his book ‘A Survival Guide To The Misinformation Age’, Helfand prompts readers to cultivate a scientific mind through habitual practice. Lacking erudite protraction of complex subjects, the guide celebrates the wonder of science by encouraging curiosity and knowledge in equal measure and with verve. As a preview to this page-turner, I asked the author to share some of his strategies and perspective on science. Here are his thoughts…
What are the ingredients of a scientific mind and daily habits which cultivate them?
Textbooks notwithstanding, science is not a collection of “facts” stitched together with nebulous “theories”, Rather, it is a process for building predictive models about the way the world works. Indeed, it is the most successful procedure for understanding nature that humankind has invented in its 150,000-year sojourn on this planet. The scientific mind engages in careful observation, uses logical reasoning, is skeptical, and acknowledges nature as the ultimate arbiter of the models it creates.
A scientific mind is often quantitative; thus, whenever it encounters a number, it asks if that number makes sense. Is the claim of a newscaster, a politician, or an obstreperous neighbor logically consistent with other things it knows? It is happy to make estimates without knowing all the details.
A scientific mind is comfortable with uncertainty while striving to reduce it. If a measurement is less than perfect, it quantifies the uncertainty. If a prediction is uncertain, it doesn’t get ignored, it gets subjected to more tests and experiments. The scientific mind tries to place probabilities on possible outcomes when precise predications are impossible.
A scientific mind uses images and graphical representations of measurements to seek out relationships and interconnections that can be useful in understanding the workings of the world. It looks for patterns, but is always aware that the human mind is highly adept at finding patterns even where none exist. It is comfortable acknowledging that coincidences happen—frequently.
A scientific mind is skeptical, subjecting its own experiences and the reports of others to questioning, testing, and a search for consistent explanations.
When a scientific mind sees a fortune cookie that says
“You will encounter one of Australia’s twelve hundred billionaires at 11:11:11 Tuesday morning, and your life will be transformed.”
that scientific mind
—makes quantitative estimates:
“There can’t be 1200 billionaires in Australia, because our national net wealth is around a trillion dollars and that means the other 23 million citizens would have nothing”.
—rebels at excessive precision:
“By whose watch will it be 11:11:11, and how can I time the process of meeting someone to a second anyway?”
—ignores, as a coincidence, the fact that
“The message contains 111 characters, a number that is repeated twice in 11:11:11; the #1s signify nothing.”
—is highly skeptical
“The machine in the fortune-cookie factory far away is highly unlikely to be able to predict my future.”
Through practice how can this perspective positively influence the future?
We find ourselves at the start of the third millennium by our current method of calendrical reckoning, the 4,568,000th millennium calculated in geologic time. And this millennium is unique. Never before in Earth’s history have there been 7.5 billion large members of a single mammalian species occupying almost every ecological niche on the planet. More importantly, never before has a species possessed the ability to contemplate its future. Unfortunately, far too few of these 7.5 billion mammals have the leisure time, the resources, or the inclination to think much about the future. The fate of our species is in the hands of those who do have this luxury.
We face many daunting challenges as we press up against the limits of our planet’s resources, from biodiversity collapse to climate change, and from the exhaustion of fresh water to the food production required to feed an expanding population. These challenges are not amenable to ideological solutions, and heavenly intercession is unlikely. They require the application of quantitative reasoning, logical argument, experimentation, and a willingness to acknowledge that personal beliefs, political platforms, and religious convictions are all trumped by the reality of nature. Only through quantitative, logical, skeptical inquiry—by exercising scientific habits of mind—will we address our challenges and emerge as a successful species at the dawn of the next millennium.
Join the author for a Walk in the Park—your view of an idyll stroll will never be the same!
A Survival Guide To The Misinformation Age: Scientific Habits of Mind by David J. Helfand (Columbia University Press, 2016) ISBN: 9780231168724
David J. Helfand is the former chair of the department of Astronomy at Columbia University where he has served on the faculty for nearly four decades. He has also been a visiting scientist at the Danish Space Research Institute and Sackler Distinguished Visiting Astronomer at Cambridge University. He was a founding tutor and served as president and vice chancellor at Quest University Canada; he recently completed a term as president of the American Astronomical Society. He has published commentary in Nature, Physics Today, the Globe and Mail, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, among other publications.
