These days, as I return to my status as a student, I’ve grown increasingly curious about the study of science, which is not my domain and has always been a rather intimidating part of my education. I remember being wary of math and science in general, readily declaring my weakness in quantitative reasoning whenever asked. Now I’m starting to question this self-belief and wondering if I could teach myself the foundations of these disciplines again, so that I can for once not fear the processes and knowledge of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math).
And so I started this self-guided study in the place I was most comfortable with: by seeking books about the philosophy of science, written by scientists for non-scientists like myself. I picked up Richard Feynman’s The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist from the public library. As a non-sciency person, I’ve always been a fan of Feynman’s writing and lectures (not to mention his brilliant pedagogical approach). He strikes me as the kind of scientist who would happily discuss “the meaning of it all” while most others would either not think about this or have very little interest in articulating their view on it to a broad audience. Questions of meaning and purpose, after all, aren’t always answerable through scientific investigation, at least not in the same way questions about the physical and biological world are.
The book is a collection of three lectures Feynnman delivered at the University of Washington in 1963. While I read this, many bits from the book sparked thoughts about the state of science and how it’s viewed and treated in certain societies today. I couldn’t help my social-scientist tendencies and started writing down my sociologically oriented responses to some of the book content.
Maybe I’m already failing at approaching my science education from the right angle. But then again, I find that thinking about science philosophically and sociologically is a very valid way to cultivate an understanding of the field, its processes, and of course, its importance. I think this inquiry is a good place to start before going into the specific mechanics within science. So here go my thoughts.
Science and technology
In discussing the distinction between science and technology, Feynman made an interesting remark about the Soviet Union (this was after all from 1963). He described it as a “backward country” despite being “technologically advanced”. The criticism was directed at the suppression of intellectual freedom under the country’s political system. I chuckled at this statement because in some ways, I think this captures the reality of science and technology in the US today.
Nowadays, American society is shaped by technological innovations that are certainly powerful applications of science. Yet, this growth in technology exists alongside political attacks on scientific knowledge and institutions. There is a rise in disregard for science and scientific thinking, both from the top down and bottom up. The current administration shamelessly pulls money and resources from research because they’re more interested in missions that are antithetical to science. Scientific facts and knowledge get sidelined in the mainstream consciousness as a result.
Technological advancement, despite its claim of scientific association, has become a tool driven completely by a different kind of vision and motivation. This motivation was power centralization in the Soviet Union half a century ago; now in the US it’s money and profit. Technology as the derivative and an application of science has increasingly lost touch with the driving force and values of scientific inquiry. In its current state, the US tech industry doesn’t seem so bothered by the suppression of rigorous research and denial of scientific findings, as long as the thirst for money and wealth is satisfied.
Not surprisingly given the time of the lectures, Feynman was enthusiastic about space exploration, which he deemed important for scientific advancement. Feynman cited many motivations that weren’t quite romantic: military interest, Cold War competition, and technological growth. I have to say I’m rather biased against the whole space endeavor, particularly given today’s optics of extraordinarily wealthy people pouring resources into rockets and space ventures, while so many pressing problems are neglected. But then again, I’m also aware that I know little about the actual contributions and legacy of space research for the technology of modern society. Perhaps it was and still is a much bigger deal than I assume. Though I still think that there is so much misplaced attention and resources targeted at space research, I admit my skepticism is tied to the highly publicized examples of space tourism.
Science and politics
Another scenario described by Feynman, this time concerning politics, feels just as relevant today. If one is to ask political candidates in their campaigns about their “solutions” for a complex challenge, the voters often prefer the ones that give definitive answers that confidently provide “pseudo solutions” aka political promises. Someone practicing scientific caution around certainty might give a “non-answer” would disappoint the voters, but should in any case be the preferred approach to actual problem solving. This cautious answer would admit that the problem is difficult and full of uncertainty, and would propose that the right approach is to consult experts and examine the available evidence before jumping to a course of action.
I think the scenario captures an unfortunate feature of political communication. We seem to have cultivated an environment where confidence is frequently mistaken for competence, and where the appearance of certainty can be more politically rewarding than intellectual honesty. Of course, scientists don’t necessarily make good politicians, nor can political decisions be reduced to scientific questions. A politician who constantly processes uncertainty without offering solutions wouldn’t be particularly useful or respectable either.
The scenario still reinforces this idea that the more politicized our society becomes, the less tolerance we have for scientific uncertainty, because people grow increasingly comfortable with simplistic, empty statements that don’t offer any value except for a momentary sense of security. This raises the question of how science communication can be compatible with and serve broader purposes in society. Again, this comes with the assumption that there is no hostility or indifference to science to start with (unlike the current situation in the US as I described above).
I’m not totally convinced that a scientific conclusion needs to always be “dumbed down” for a general audience, nor that scientists should not claim uncertainty for the sake of mobilizing public support. Sure, communicating complex ideas in accessible language is important. But veering too far into adapting scientific principles for populist appeal risks denying the whole of society a more critical, nuanced, and honest view of things. With time and repeated practice, it puts the general public at odds with scientific inquiry as we all become less and less proficient in comprehending and appreciating the principles, practices, and knowledge of science.
Perhaps the goal of science communication shouldn’t merely be to persuade people to accept scientific conclusions mindlessly. It’s to help them understand how these conclusions are reached, why they are credible, and how to make use of them. That is what genuine scientific literacy is to me.
Science and ethics (religion)
Feynman dedicated much of his second lecture to discussing the relationship between science and religion. This probably deserves a separate, much more in-depth discussion which draws from considerably more perspectives than Feynman’s alone. For now, I want to pick up on one particular idea Feynman mentioned.
Feynman argued that the ethical dimension of religion (simply, questions around what’s the right thing to do and the right way to live) is beyond the boundaries of science. I generally agree with this assessment, though not for the same reasons cited by Feynman. He described ethical questions as incongruent with the questions sought by science (broadly: how do things work and why). He also referred to the principle of uncertainty in scientific thinking, and the fact that perhaps there is no way to “prove” or “justify” religious doctrines like the Golden Rule in Christianity through scientific means.
My reason for thinking ethics can’t be settled by science alone is that science seeks to identify patterns and develop explanations about the world through observation and evidence, but ethics and morality cannot be reduced to universal rules tat apply across every situation. This is partly why organized religions fail to appeal to me at least, because these institutions often treat ethics and morality as simple statements and dogma we repeat to ourselves and practice regardless of the nuances in individual contexts where we apply them. I’m not a philosopher nor theologian by any stretch, so this is a very crude attempt at defining the boundary between science and ethics. Still, it’s a worthwhile task to understand the limits of science while recognizing where it’s of value.
Science as a field of study
Feynman didn’t really discuss science education on its own, even though he delivered his lectures at a university. Still, I found plenty of lessons about what it means to be a good learner of science throughout the book. One of the most valuable takeaways is that he implicitly recognized that science isn’t an exclusive collection of specialized knowledge and procedures accessible only by a select few. Rather, science can be cultivated and practiced by regular members of society too.
In discussing aspects of society like politics, religion, the media, advertising, and much more, Feynman demonstrates how scientific reasoning can inform the way we encounter and evaluate ordinary claims about the world. We can all question assumptions, look for evidence, distinguish observation from interpretation, and remain open to changing our minds. Yes, science as a field takes rigor and discipline to carry out replicable research, but it’s encouraging to realize that the foundations of science aren’t removed from our everyday life and way of thinking.
There’s also something comforting about the idea that being scientifically minded doesn’t require knowing everything nor mastering a bunch of complex mechanisms, protocols and instruments. In fact, scientific inquiry is all about recognizing the limits of what we know. It is driven by curiosity, a willingness to sit with doubt, and enough intellectual humility to accept being proven wrong. And these are qualities I think society could use a lot more of these days.
And so I’m even more excited to take myself through this self-learning journey now that I have thought through the relevance and meaning of science in my own life and the world I’m in. We’ll see about this hypothesis that I can and will get myself over the fear of science.