I was going to do my next article on the marvels of the human immune system, since the last one was about vaccination and they are obviously connected. The article after that was going to be on influenza and why it is unusual among the more common infectious diseases. I sometimes have a plan about what I write. I’m still going to do those articles, however, just now I find myself inspired to write about another topic, more fundamental to why I write these articles at all. That subject is scientific literacy. I’ll get back to the other stuff next time. You’ll love it. Very cool stuff.
Most of the time, when we think of “literacy”, we think about reading and writing. “Literacy”, however, has a broader meaning, which relates to having competence or knowledge in any specific area. “Math literacy”, for instance, means having enough of an understanding of the fundamentals of mathematics to be able to use it in everyday life and not be handicapped by not being able to use math.
“Science literacy” encompasses that thought, but for me, it extends a bit further. To be scientifically literate means that, not only do you understand enough basic science to be able to function in normal life, but you also understand enough science that you can understand and participate in the discussion when we, as a society, need to address issues where science becomes a social issue. You need to understand, at a minimum, enough science to know when someone is providing you with factual scientific information or with opinion or personal belief (or outright lies, sometimes) disguised as fact in order to mislead you or to advance an agenda. This is an issue that is very important to me, as it should be important to everyone, and it’s much of the reason I write these articles, despite the fact that practically nobody actually reads them. I also write them because science is just very cool and a great deal of fun and I want to share that with people. In addition, I miss teaching and I miss my students, so this gives me a little bit of an outlet to feed that need.
ENIAC, one of the first programmable computers (public domain)
So, let’s begin. First off, we need to establish something that most people don’t know about science. That thing is that science can never prove anything. What science does is that it accumulates data and that data supports certain conclusions. If and when new data comes along, those conclusions may or may not need to be changed. How science does that is by examining a phenomenon under a given set of circumstances, gathering information about that phenomenon, and based on that information, drawing conclusions. The process is called the Scientific Method. It sounds fancy, but it’s actually just an orderly way of saying how we all already think about things and solve problems. Step one is to make an observation. It doesn’t matter what. Let’s observe that the floor is wet. The next step is to come up with a possible explanation for why the floor is wet. This is called “forming an hypothesis”. An hypothesis is just a possible explanation for an observation. Let’s say our hypothesis is that “the floor is wet because the roof is leaking”. So far, this is all a perfectly normal thought process, right? So now that we have an hypothesis, we need to test the hypothesis to determine whether or not our hypothesis is true. The way this is done is by experimentation. Let’s design an experiment to test the hypothesis. Our experiment is to throw a tarp over the roof and observe whether or not the floor stays wet. Let’s say the floor is no longer wet. Does this mean that the hypothesis—that the roof is leaking—is correct? Not necessarily. Maybe it stopped raining and the water that was leaking through the window stopped. But, based on the fact that throwing a tarp over the roof seemed to have the effect of causing water to stop pooling on the floor, we make the conclusion that the hypothesis about the roof leaking was correct and we reach the conclusion that replacing the roof will stop water from pooling on the floor. We get the roof replaced. The next time it rains, we make the observation that water is still appearing on the floor. We must accept the fact that our previous conclusion was in error and re-evaluate the data. This is how science works, and it points out an important thing to understand. There is a very important difference between “correlation” and “causation”. “Correlation” means that two things seem to be related because they coexisted in time or space. Putting the tarp on the roof correlated to the disappearance of the water on the floor. The two events were linked in space and time. However, it turns out that they were unrelated. There was no causal relationship. The “causation” for the water on the floor was the leaky window. Just because “A” follows “B” doesn’t mean that “A” was caused by “B”. A real-world example might be that, just because a child is diagnosed with autism after being vaccinated, does not establish in any way that the autism was caused by the vaccine. The two events are correlated, but not necessarily (and, in this case, not at all) causally related.
This is not to say that science is just all a bunch of limited conclusions based on variable evidence. It is not that at all. The validity of science depends upon observation, experimentation under very rigorous conditions, comparison of any new information with the entire body of knowledge on that subject and the repeatability (or replication) of any result. The result of a single experiment is interesting. However, until someone else can do that same experiment and get the same result, it has no validity. If the results can be replicated, they must be compared to everything that is already known. If there are conflicts with previous data, those conflicts have to be resolved by more experimentation. Not until a result has been through this process will it be believed by other scientists. However, just because it is believed on day 1 doesn’t mean it will be believed on day 2. If any new data comes to light that suggests that what we believed was true might not be, the process must start all over again. It actually happens quite a bit. It’s not too often that a good study is proven entirely wrong, but as new information comes along, it is often necessary to re-evaluate the old information. This is how our understanding of the universe evolves. Knowledge is much like a brick wall, and scientists the bricklayers. Bits of new knowledge are laid atop the foundations formed by all the knowledge of the past, and it’s not until there are many, many bricks laid that our knowledge and understanding can gain depth. Once there are enough observations that agree, scientists will begin to accept something as a fact. If every single piece of reliable data that has ever been collected suggests that a certain result is correct, it gains the status of fact. If, however, there is one single piece of reliable evidence that goes against that conclusion, it isn’t a fact. In science, conclusions that have an overwhelming amount of evidence to support them are sometimes referred to as “theories”. If a theory gains enough support over a long enough time under a large enough set of observations and circumstances, it may become a scientific “law”. There really is no difference between a “theory” and a “law” in science. It’s just sort of a honorary title. A law is, basically, a theory with seniority. Just because something is a law, like the law of gravity, doesn’t make it absolute. As I said, science can never absolutely prove anything, because nothing can be observed under every possible set of conditions. Scientists are pretty sure that the law of gravity is correct, because untold numbers of experiments and observations support it and never once has a single bit of evidence been discovered to say that it’s wrong. It is possible that, someday, someone will drop something and instead of falling down, it will fall up. It isn’t likely, and no one can come up with any possible set of circumstances where that might occur, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. It’s just impossible as far as we know.
Let’s talk about something else that science can’t do, and this is something that trips up lots of people, including some scientists. Science can never prove a negative statement. Let’s take, for instance, a statement like, “you can’t prove that vaccines don’t cause autism”. That is a true statement, because it states that I can’t prove a negative. While such a statement is true, it is also pointless as an argument about a possible relationship between two things. I also can’t prove that autism isn’t caused by ketchup, sunspots, Justin Bieber or your Aunt Fannie’s apple pie. All science can do is gather data. In this case, there is not one single piece of reliable data that has ever proven a causal link between the administration of a vaccine and the development of autism by the recipient. Does that prove that vaccines don’t cause autism? No. It just says that there is, after years and years of data gathering, absolutely no evidence that it does.
So far, I’ve tried to explain how scientific research is done and how scientific data is used. My point is that everyone needs to understand the process. If someone tells you that a thing is so, and cannot produce the reliable, reproducible evidence that supports it, be skeptical. Understand the limits of what science can do, but don’t be fooled into thinking that just because something is a “theory”, it is just a guess. Now let’s talk a bit about why everyone needs to be scientifically literate, aside from the fact that it just makes life more interesting.
Every aspect of our lives, every moment of our days, is completely controlled by science and technology. From the microchips in your cell phone to the oats in your Cheerios to the electricity that lights your kitchen and on and on, is absolutely dependent on science and technology. “Technology”, by the way, is just the term used for the practical application of science to do something. Science has done wonderful things for us. There are, literally, billions of people alive on this planet today who wouldn’t be if not for science. Science makes life easier, more productive and often vastly better. But, like everything else, it can be a two-edged sword. With the steam engines that brought the Industrial Revolution that transformed human society came pollution, urban population explosions, and many more negative consequences. It’s not all rainbows and unicorns, but mostly, science has worked to improve, prolong, protect and enrich our lives.
Here’s the big payoff on why scientific literacy is so important. Science was always important, but on July 16, 1945, science took on a new significance. Before that day, science could make life better, and in some cases, make life worse, but it was still just a tool. After that day, which is the day that the first atomic bomb was detonated in the New Mexico desert, science took on the power to end life as we know it. It took thousands of years of scientific endeavor for us to reach that point. In the 80 years since, we’ve developed at least three other technologies that, although they offer huge promise in many ways, they carry that same potential to destroy life. One of those technologies is genetic engineering. One is artificial intelligence. Another is the internet. It is incumbent upon us all, as members of society and members of the human race, to be part of the discussion about how we will use our science. What types of genetic engineering will be allow and where do we draw the line? How do we use artificial intelligence and at what point does it become too dangerous? I, for one, don’t think there is nearly enough discussion about AI going on. It’s just “there” now. There are a great many things that are possible that shouldn’t be done. I’m not saying AI development (or the other disruptive technologies) is bad or that it should be stopped. I’m just saying we should thoughfully determine how such technologies are used in our society. In many ways, our knowledge has already outstripped our wisdom. We must all be part of the conversation about how we use our science. It is too important to leave to others. It is too easy to be misled by people with agendas spreading false information. We must all know enough science to be able to say “yes” or “no”, based not on what others say is true, but on what we, through our own understanding, know is true. We are in a world completely dependent on science, and we must know enough to control it, because if we don’t control our science, our science will most certainly control us.
I don’t want to suggest that we fear science. Overall, science has been, and will continue to be, a great boon to mankind. It is the scaffold upon which all of modern life is built. We just have to recognize and direct its power. Just like the Nile in ancient Egypt. The floodwaters of the Nile brought life to Egypt and much of the world beyond by enriching the soil, but it could also wash away entire cities. Such is the power of science.