Regarding the philosophy of science, there are some very important matters that I want to clarify.
Natural reality
Although normally we consider “science” as a framework only in the investigation of our natural world (as in biology, chemistry, and physics), it is much, much more than that. Science enables us to interact with all natural reality in very useful ways. “Natural reality” consists of all phenomena that occur in the physical universe. All the stuff and all the events that happen in the physical universe. That includes all the components of your everyday life like going to work, getting paid, expecting laws to be fairly enforced, shopping, paying your bills, and dealing with problems.
Public verifiability
The key is that the phenomena that make up natural reality are available to be observed and experienced by anyone and anything. That is, they are “publicly verifiable.” Examples include simple everyday phenomena like your toothbrush, the mileage odometer reading in your car, a text conversation you had with your friend, and the amount of money in your bank account. All such phenomena can be independently observed by anyone. Therefore, natural reality presents a stable system that all living things can depend upon and interact with in consistent and predictable ways. This is a good thing.
And humans have a choice on how to deal with natural reality. We can accept natural reality as it presents itself. Or, we can reject natural reality and substitute in our mind an alternate reality. Let’s deal with the “accepting” of natural reality first.
Objectivity
Accepting natural reality on its own terms is an “objective” viewpoint. For example, when shopping, if the price tag reads, “$24.99,” you and the cashier agree on and accept the price of the item. When you have a class that is scheduled to start at 9:35 AM, you can predict with high confidence that the class actually WILL start at 9:35. Accordingly, you attempt to synchronize your activity so that you can make that class. That’s being objective – by interacting with the world using verifiable facts and reason.
“Objectivity” is the practice of being objective in your interactions with the world. Stable and orderly civilization is made possible because of objectivity. As an educator, I emphatically advocate generous applications of objectivity as the most effective way to promote your best interests.
Ideology
Now, a few words about how humans act to reject natural reality. Sometimes, natural reality threatens the way we identify ourselves, threatens our ideology. An “ideology” consists of a set of personal beliefs and expectations of how we want the world to work – in our minds how things should be.
Ideologies tend to have a strong emotional foundation that will mount a vigorous defense if confronted by a natural reality that conflicts with our ideology. If natural reality doesn’t match the expectations defined by our ideology, then many may choose to reject natural reality and replace it with a fantasized, alternate reality that aligns with our ideology. This is not a choice that I recommend.
Emotional bias
For example, emotional bias can be an outcome of our ideological viewpoint. “Bias” means to favor one viewpoint over others – mainly based on emotional preferences. Bias often ignores objective analysis. Without knowing it, people nurture their emotional biases by searching for external support for them.
Confirmation bias
For example, people will search for and accept only news articles and opinion pieces that confirm their own emotional biases – while ignoring and rejecting outright all other objective articles that conflict with their beliefs. This is called “confirmation bias.”
Echo Chamber
An echo chamber is a social construct in which individuals choose only to communicate with others who share their core beliefs – often in a way that is hostile to alternate beliefs. Being a participant in an echo chamber has the feel of “belonging,” being on a team and advocating for the team in opposition to other teams. While inside an echo chamber, the most important factor is loyalty to the team. Objectivity is subservient to the interests of the team.
Willful ignorance
Willful ignorance is an intentional act to avoid, ignore and reject certain information – often out of fear that such information will conflict with, and threaten to overthrow your ideology.
As emotional bias and willful ignorance are driven mainly by emotional forces, competing views based on objectivity and reason may have little effect.
Cognitive dissonance
Rejecting objective reality, because if you accept objective reality, it will make you look bad, and/or disrupt your emotionally based preferences.
You might think that mounting a direct and objective challenge to a fantasized ideological viewpoint – an argument based on verifiable facts and reason – would force a person to reevaluate their fantasized world view. But not so.
There is a psychological phenomenon that protects a person’s emotional fantasy about the world. This psychological effect is referred to as “cognitive dissonance.” Here is how it works. Imagine that you drive a vehicle that guzzles a lot of gasoline. Gets, maybe 10 mpg. You really love this vehicle. It promotes your self-image. In your mind it makes you look successful, or powerful, or trendy, or dangerous, or whatever. You have this vehicle washed regularly so it always looks clean and fresh. You have a very strong emotional attachment to it. You love being seen in it. You take lots of selfies with it in different places. It’s part of your identity. You need it… to feel good about yourself. Despite that it costs you 50% of your income in gas and maintenance, you still love it and want it.
When a friend suggests that your gas and maintenance bills are way too high, considering how little money you make, you dismiss their argument. Because if you were to accept it as objective and reasonable, that would mean you would have to admit that you were foolish for spending so much money on the car. And you cannot accept that you might be foolish. In addition, if you accepted your friend’s argument, then you would have to consider replacing your vehicle with a more fuel-efficient one – and there is no way you are going to do that, no matter what. So, you reject your friend’s objective argument because you’re not a fool, and you’re not going to sell your “baby.” That is cognitive dissonance. This is a problem.
False equivalence
False equivalence happens when greatly unequal numerical support for two opposing opinions is portrayed as having equivalent numerical support. For example, when one untrained person presents an uninformed argument vacant of objective evidence – that their unsupported argument is considered to have the same weight as an opposing argument held by thousands of trained experts with mountains of supporting objective evidence. For example, thousands of scientists bring decades of objective climate research to bear on the phenomenon of global climate change. But a news channel interviews one US senator, with no science background, for his emotional and purely rhetorical opposing view. The effect is that viewers are conditioned to believe that both arguments have equal weight. And that choosing one over the other is a trivial matter of personal preference.
The danger of normalizing emotional bias and false equivalence in political struggles and social discourse is that it weakens the effectiveness of objectivity. Without objectivity in the legislatures, the courts and on the streets, persecuted and oppressed individuals lose the power to apply reason in defense of their interests. Laws become less effective. Functioning democracy and civil rights are weakened. As a result, power in a democracy can be leached from the governed and concentrated into those who control the message. And the message can be shaped to control the populace by stoking their base fears, and by mocking objectivity. I believe this is a very bad thing.
So, science not only enables us to understand volcanoes and DNA, it also encourages objectivity in all aspects of our lives, our families, our communities, and our society. Although you may not be a professional scientist, you are still a beneficiary of thousands of years of scientific discovery, and hundreds of years of social objectivity.