L S Shashidhara
When do we know we have gained an objective understanding of a phenomenon? Is it based on an individual’s knowledge because that person claims to have followed an unbiased approach, or when the majority come to the same understanding or all of humanity conclude the same? None of these will help us to achieve objectivity, given the limitations of our perception and cognitive processes. We sense the world with the help of our sensory organs, all of which have limitations. We perceive the world with the help of evolutionarily evolved cognitive skills, which include memorising all our experiences and comparing new sensory information with those experiences. This makes all our perceptions inherently biased.
Scientific methods have evolved over millennia to overcome our limited ability to be objective in our pursuit of knowledge, enabling us to understand the natural and human worlds across the scale of size, complexity, and time. Scientific methods involve framing specific hypotheses based on an observation/experience comparing the same against the prior knowledge or by a logical extension of what is known. Next, systematically test/validate the hypothesis by generating evidence both in its favour and against it. Since all humans are biased, scientific methods include three critical steps to generate unbiased knowledge. One, by designing the efforts of generating new evidence by focusing on disproving a hypothesis rather than proving it. Second, all new information generated is subjected to peer review. Third, even after peer review, all information is continuously evaluated against newly generated ones using the latest methods. This is how scientists can perceive the world beyond “human perception”. A telltale example of what scientific methods can achieve: even if all living humans see the sun moving around us, science has shown that reality is just the opposite.
A major misconception of scientific methods, specifically among Indians, is that they represent Western science. Scientific methods have been used for millennia to make hypotheses and validate the same. Methods of validation were mostly dialogue, argumentation, and deductive logic. Modern methods of experimental validation using technology such as microscopes, telescopes, spectroscopy, etc., were first developed in Europe and spread elsewhere. This helped scientists see the world in a way normal eyes can’t see. As science progressed, a larger community was involved, and they shared their work; this expansion of the scientific community and rapid methods of communication (printing press, faster modes for human mobility, etc.) helped Europe dominate science. This dominance does not make them own science and scientific methods. They existed and exist across all human societies; perhaps their origin goes back to when humans evolved with the ability to express their thoughts through syntactic languages.
What does this mean for the practice of science? (i) Absolute honesty in how we design our studies, how we report, and how flexible we should be in accepting alternate views. (ii) Scientists must understand that they should strictly adhere to scientific methods and they can’t speculate beyond what logic and rationality allow. They should subject all their speculations to scientific scrutiny. (iii) Since scientists are humans with one or the other inherent form of bias, subjecting everything they conceive needs to be validated as rigorously as anyone else’s opinion. This also indicates that if scientists belong to one gender, one socio-economic group, one geographical location or one community, science will progress only in specific directions. The more diversity and inclusivity in the scientific community, the more hypothesis diversity. As all are subject to the same scientific evaluation, ultimately, science would be enriched with more objectivity and the validated knowledge would be further expanded. It also helps to scientifically validate a large body of knowledge generated by trial-and-error methods or intuitive methods.
What does this mean for the general public and society at large –(i) given that often, the entire human population’s perception can be on the wrong side of reality, people should realise that the majoritarian view cannot be construed as the correct interpretation of any phenomenon. (ii) they should not take any information that comes to them through various modes as factual unless it comes from sources known to communicate only validated information.
The summary of all this is that people should be inquisitive, question authority and demand evidence; they should be tolerant of diverse views and practices. Differences in opinions must be discussed rationally and adjudicated using scientific methods such as seeking evidence, cause-and-effect relationships, etc. Even when no objective conclusion can be drawn, or universal truth can be established, someone’s views should still be respected if they are personal and do not influence others or vitiate social harmony. If they harm individuals, such beliefs are to be eliminated through a process of science and not by coercion. We need to espouse and practice this essence of scientific temper.
Thus, Scientific temper involves not submitting to dogmas, beliefs, irrational thoughts/views/opinions, authority, etc., without critically thinking and evaluating the available evidence. Often, deductive logic alone helps us to achieve some of these goals. For example, can we interpret a historical event with our perspective of today’s society? Scientific temper ultimately helps us understand ourselves better, our identity in our societies, the entire humanity, the living world and the universe at large. More importantly, it allows us to understand our fellow human beings better, thereby achieving true harmony and non-violence in society without losing freedom of our thoughts, opinions, and views.
Prof. L S Shashidhara is a renowned developmental biologist currently serving as the Director of National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS), Bengaluru, India.
Note: This article were written in response to Prof. Gita Chadha’s talk on Re-envisioning Scientific Temper, delivered on 18th March 2024 during her tenure as Obaid Siddiqi Chair (2023–24).
Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.