Science as truth-seeking. Science is the gold standard of truth-seeking. It is our best tool for understanding what exists in the universe and how it works, objectively and independent of emotion and bias.
To determine what exists scientists develop various instruments and techniques to observe and measure things, from the smallest subatomic particle to distances between far-flung solar systems. These instruments and techniques must meet such standards as consistency over time (e.g., getting the same measurement when measuring the same thing twice), specificity (i.e., measuring only what you say you’re measuring), sensitivity (ability to detect the presence of what you’re measuring), and agreement between different observers who use the instruments. The instruments (e.g., a microscope) often increase the power of our senses to observe things and to meet the scientific standards above.
To understand how things work, scientists measure two things and study the relationship between them, for example, the relationship between certain negative interactions between spouses and the likelihood of divorce. Such research is often aimed at establishing cause and effect. If scientists want to establish such relationships in a population of animals or humans they may use random sampling to try to give each member of that population an equal chance of being included in a study, and thus allow the study’s authors to make general statements about the population. For example, if they want to study the relationship between songbird populations and nest-robbing in blue jays, a good study would observe nest-robbing and songbird populations not just in one city, but in a random sample of locations across the range of blue jays and songbirds. Sometimes scientists use statistics to measure the strength and reliability of relationships they discover.
To be published in a scientific journal a study must be “peer reviewed” by other scientists who have knowledge of the things being studied, suggest revisions in the report, and determine whether it will be published based the quality of the science. Good research reports also discuss the likelihood of alternative explanations for the findings, based on the researcher’s expertise (i.e., broad knowledge of scientific findings in a particular subject matter). Before a study is widely accepted and included in textbooks it is usually replicated (i.e., repeated by a different set of scientists who find the same results).
Even after all this, truth-seeking does not end on a topic. Scientists are not always successful in removing bias and conducting good quality science. Therefore, scientists prize skepticism and others may challenge established findings and design different experiments that bring them into question. This is why the public sometimes becomes confused or frustrated with science: There is no final truth, only theories and models with varying degrees of evidence. For example, some astrophysicists assume humans may not even have the capacity to fully understand the universe.
Technology is science that serves human goals beyond truth-seeking and requires value-seeking to do that well. When science discovers something about how the world works this can have both helpful and harmful applications. For example, technology has astonishingly advanced medical treatments during our lifetimes, and created weapons and toxins that could easily destroy our species and planet.
Human nature and truth-seeking. One of the main reasons science is such a challenging field is that human nature and culture contain inherent threats to truth-seeking. The methods of science were created to guard against these.
The first threat to truth-seeking is bias. Every human being is subject to this. Another way to say this is that we are not naturally objective. As noted in defining truth, this means that what we see and hear is often distorted by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. This is why there are so many problems with eyewitness testimony in courts. No one is capable of mounting a scientific study on every question they face, so our brains try to take shortcuts. Examples are overgeneralization and jumping to conclusions. Sometimes our brains do this to try to protect us from what we fear. Other times, we tend to perceive and believe what feels good, and what we want to believe, regardless of the evidence. Another possibility is that we feel overwhelmed by the complexity of the world and oversimplify. Even if we look at evidence, “confirmatory bias” makes it likely we’ll notice or even seek out evidence that supports what we already believe. Rarely do we have access to all the evidence on a given issue, or even a representative sample thereof. Nor do we have access to scientific instruments and methods that might help us overcome our biases.
Though it isn’t often viewed this way, cynicism is a form of bias. It may be our mind’s overzealous attempt to protect us from dashed hopes or betrayal. It usually involves negative overgeneralization (“all politicians are crooks”) or jumping to conclusions (“that will never help”). Any protection it may provide comes at the cost of inaction on important matters and missed opportunities for progress. It blinds us to the possible.
Defensiveness is another part of human nature that threatens truth-seeking. Many people have difficulty listening to criticism with curiosity and humility to see if there is truth in it. Even harder is admitting they’re wrong. Listening to criticism is not the same as agreeing with it. In fact, listening puts you in a better position to defend yourself if necessary. In the end it is your choice whether you use or reject the criticism. Facing it openly is a sign of strength, not weakness. It also encourages truth-telling.
Lies are a third part of human nature that obviously threatens truth-seeking. People lie because they are afraid of the consequences of telling the truth or because they get something they want by dishonesty. They deny others the benefits of knowing the truth.