22.
ARTWORK: Eliza Williams
in the name of science PATRICK GLEESON
Science says jump. Science says sit. Science says turn right. Now left. Got you! I didn’t say Science says. Science is easy to spot in the media – usually flaunted right in the title. It’s much harder, however, to identify its significance. Even in good faith, the communication of scientific views is often ambiguous or misleading, and our willingness to accept them without concern for context offers broadcasters a disconcerting influence over the choices we make. I do not wish to dramatise the issue – there are certainly more pressing problems to solve. Nonetheless, our misperceptions and biases towards science are worth addressing, especially when their impact can be easily reduced. What is science? The word ‘science’ serves two roles. Often it is a label for a diverse group of disciplines. When I say I study science, there’s a reasonable chance that I undertake lab-work, dabble in mathematics, and spend time analysing data. Stereotyped or not, the label has a remarkably positive reputation in pop culture and the public eye. This sweeping reputation blurs the word’s more subtle function for differentiating reputable information. Science is invoked daily as a stamp of credibility: trust me, it’s science. Indeed, standards for reliability are baked into the dictionary definition
of the term. Such standards, however, are not built into our perceptions, and we often rely heavily on science’s public image while forgetting that we might not be hearing the whole story. The power of science If a friend of mine claims to have travelled from the future, I will laugh and let her know that I’ve just returned from Mars. However, there are several ways she can gain my trust; next week’s winning lottery ticket would be a good start. At the heart of science lies society’s most rigorous and robust criteria for when to consider information reliable and upholding them in the search for new information is its core business. This method – the scientific method – is science’s most important development. We begin with an experiment. Claims must be supported by evidence, which must be obtained by repeatable means. Resulting theories must make falsifiable predictions, and have these predictions observed. Over time, this leads to accurate information. Eventually the preservation of reliability must extend beyond the experimental bubble because results must be communicated – we can’t run every test for ourselves. Scientific claims necessarily become separated from their data and methodology because it is neither feasible nor immediately helpful to include them for the public. As a result, the criteria for trust shift from raw evidence to reputable credentials and the further we travel from the source, the more reliant we become on media credibility.
