The Power of Scientific Thinking in a Polarized World

Source: Qimono/Pixabay

The first woman scientist to win the Nobel Prize, Marie Curie, lived by the credo that scientific thinking could be of great value to society. She stressed that science education was the key to developing people's moral and intellectual strengths and that this would lead to a better national situation.

Curie and other Nobel Prize-winning scientists, such as Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman, held similar views on the value of science education to society and were concerned about the rise in militarism, fascism, and authoritarianism in World War II. They witnessed ethnic and national fanaticism bubbling around them and habits of thought familiar from ages past, reaching for control of people's minds. Because of such concerns, they stressed the humanizing power of scientific thinking and its vital role in a democratic society (Feynman, 1999).

Today, we are once again witnessing worries about the rise of militarism, fascism, and authoritarianism. National security experts have testified on Capitol Hill about the rise of authoritarianism to warn lawmakers that in some countries, leaders are seeking to gain power by undermining democratic systems.

Many scientists have been galvanized by what has been dubbed the "post-truth" era to speak out on the importance of science. Oxford Dictionaries defines "post-truth" as "Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief" (Flood, 2016).

To counteract the effects of post-truth speech, disinformation, and misinformation, scientists are now urged to be trained in communication skills to convey public trust in science, rationality, and objective facts rather than appeals to emotions and beliefs. For the past few years, The National Academy of Sciences has held a series of colloquia in an effort to identify ways that might help scientists communicate more effectively with the public.

Most efforts to date have focused on improving the content, accessibility, and delivery of scientific communications. This communication skills approach relies on a "knowledge deficit model," the idea that the lack of support for science and "good policies" merely reflects a lack of scientific information.

Though it is important to supply the public with more scientific information on a range of topics, some evidence suggests that efforts to persuade the public often fail. For instance, communication strategies on vaccines and G.M.O.s intended to persuade the public that their religious or personal beliefs do not align with scientific facts often wind up backfiring. If people feel forced to accept scientific information, they may do the opposite to assert their autonomy (Weissmark, 2018a).

However, when areas of science are contentious, a missing fact is not the sole core of the problem. What is equally or more important is teaching the public to think scientifically (Weissmark, 2018b).

What is scientific thinking?

For nearly 20 years at Harvard, I have been teaching a course on advanced research methods and on the psychology of diversity, and, with my team of researchers, have been conducting research on the Science of Diversity using the scientific thinking approach. I have seen how attainable this skill is. Yet, when I first began to research scientific thinking, I was surprised by the striking gap between science education and scientific thinking education.

So, how is it different from everyday thinking?

Foremost, scientific thinking does not rely on armchair theorizing, political conviction, or personal opinion but on methods of empirical research (external observations) independently available to anyone as a means for opening up the world to scrutiny. All opinions are hypotheses to be tested empirically rather than appeals to emotion.

Cognition Essential Reads

Left-Handedness and Cognition: New Insights

Men and the Hidden Costs of Overthinking

For instance, recent high-profile police shooting deaths of black men and women have raised contentious questions about the extent to which law enforcement officers are affected by racial biases. Some people think there are racial differences in police use of force due to racial bias and discrimination, whereas others think this can be explained by other factors. Researchers test these as working hypotheses.

Second, there is a feature of scientific thinking that is often not talked about explicitly. We might term this feature scientific integrity or honesty, and we just hope that students will catch on by example. When conducting a study, researchers are expected to report everything that might make it invalid or unreliable to give alternative interpretations of the data. Scientific thinking requires reporting specific details that could cast doubt on those interpretations and what could potentially be wrong with the conclusions.

For instance, if a researcher is reporting on police shootings and claims that studies have shown no racial bias in shootings and minorities are not in mortal danger from racist police, such a report would be incomplete because other studies have come to the opposite conclusion.

To encourage scientific thinking, the researcher would ask the public to consider the question: Why did studies on racial bias in police shootings reach such different conclusions?

This requires an awareness of the conflicting findings and reasons for the conflict. Guiding policy or activism by citing one-sided facts in support of an opinion without reference to conflicting data would then come to be seen as suspicious by the public (Weissmark, 2018b).

Third, scientific thinking considers all the facts and information to help others evaluate the value of the research, not simply the information that persuades judgment in one specific way. This approach encourages scientists to examine our assumptions and to be honest with themselves.

For instance, if I reported only on the studies showing that there is no evidence of racial bias in police shootings, why did I do so? We might term this principle of scientific thinking self-awareness—the ability to see our intentions and ourselves clearly.

Fourth, scientific thinking always remains tentative and refutable or subject to possible disconfirmation. The limitations of scientific thinking make us mindful of the errors in research—and the limitations of all human understanding.

Fifth, all scientific thinking is subject to error. It is better to study the causes and assess the importance of potential errors rather than to be unaware of the errors concealed in the data and the mind of the scientist.

Sixth, scientific thinking takes discipline and diligence. Thinking like a scientist keeps us constantly open to new ideas and questions before we reach conclusions. The scientific method encourages us to change our minds when the data suggest doing so and to be persistent in studying it again. When the results are not what we expected, we are pressed to find out why and to figure out a better approach.

In today's polarized society, conversations on so many topics often become debates, arguments, and politicized. By contrast, scientific thinking is designed to facilitate conversations on contentious topics between divergent viewpoints and foster understanding.

Data from many years of our course evaluations show that facilitated conversations using scientific thinking may have a transformational impact on people's lives.

When conversations in our classes on diversity get bogged down by opinions, we remind our students: "Let's use our scientific thinking life raft." It is an apt analogy. A raft can help us from sinking and becoming stuck in the workings of our own minds.

The list below highlights the differences between rational debate discourse and scientific thinking discourse. They are two different discourse approaches. Scientific thinking has the ability to transform one-dimensional, polarizing views into mutual understanding and open dialogue.

Rational Debating Discourse Versus Scientific Thinking Discourse

• Argument versus hypothetical
• Convince and persuade versus consider and investigate
• Win/lose versus open to being wrong (chance findings)
• Cherry-picking the data versus considering all the evidence
• Eliminating contradictions versus calculating the contradictions (meta-analysis)
• Final conclusion versus provisional
• Claim versus suggest
• Exaggerating versus citing the limitations
• Personal viewpoint versus impersonal hypothesis
• Belief versus doubt
• Convinced versus skeptical
• Seeking to prove a theory/belief/view versus disprove the null hypothesis
• Come to the right "conclusion" versus do not jump to conclusions
• One view/belief to prove versus holding that all hypothetical views have an equal value

In conclusion, it is a universal truth that diversity is a feature of nature. This is true of individuals, families, social classes, religious groups, ethnic groups, and nations. There will always be diverse polarized opinions with which people are passionately identified.

Scientific thinking is a fair, two-sided method for evaluating diverse views, fake news, misinformation, and disinformation and for engaging citizens in civic conversations to advance collective understanding. If the purpose of education is to increase our knowledge so we can get closer to the objective truth, then scientific thinking is a valuable tool.