I have to start off by saying that I’m double vaccinated and plan to receive a booster shot in December. I’m convinced climate change is real and is caused by humans. And I’m an atheist who wholeheartedly subscribes to the theory of evolution.
But (you must have seen it coming), I am also of the opinion that we need more clarity on the on the role we want science to play in our world. I’m writing this, not because I’m a science sceptic (read the first paragraph again), but because I believe we’ve forgotten what science is good for.
What is science good for?
Science helps us understand the world. The scientific method is a powerful tool for developing and verifying hypotheses that explain phenomena. Science also allows us to make predictions about events and outcomes. Science is what allows us to fly and to build skyscrapers. It helps us heal the sick and harness the energy of the sun. We don’t freak out every time there’s an eclipse, thanks to science. And science is to be thanked for almost everything we own in our homes.
Science therefore allows us to describe and harness the natural world to satisfy our needs. And I’m thankful for science almost every day of my life. I don’t want to imagine what undergoing an operation a century ago would have been like, never mind the early Middle Ages. However, what science doesn’t do very well is explain human behaviour or decipher the complexity of the human psyche. Which is why we have the Social Sciences.
Social Science
The term ‘social science’ first appears in a book by the philosopher William Thompson in 1824. However, the polymath, Al Biruni, who lived between 973 and 1048, conducted extensive comparative anthropological studies of the peoples of the Middle East, the Mediterranean and South Asia. His observations were presented in an objective and neutral manner and he’s considered by many to be the world’s first anthropologist.
Social science attempts to apply the scientific method to human behaviour. The most blunt expression of this is when researchers gather and present quantitative data in an attempt to infer why people have done what they did. However, humans are an incredibly complex animal which makes it difficult to consistently replicate human behavioural research findings. And the findings are rarely accurate enough to meet the demands imposed on the natural sciences. And there are also those in the scientific community who question the value of this kind of research.
We have come to regard science as the most correct way to understand the world. So much so that we attempt to apply the same approach to understanding humans and human social order with varying degrees of success. And what many have concluded is that human nature is too unpredictable and imperfect to be able to apply the scientific method to it and thereby adequately describe and predict what people will do. Which, in turn, has led many to dismiss the social sciences altogether.
It all started with religion.
Religion was the first discipline that attempted to explain the world. Before science the world was a bewildering place for humans. And our species, being story tellers by nature, tried to explain the world by making up stories of beings who created us and put us here on earth and gods who controlled everything from the heavens to the weather. Any science that found its way into these stories was accidental. And for centuries these religious stories brought comfort to those who lived in a very mysterious and sometimes unpredictable world.
Then the enlightenment arrived. And with it came wisdom, spectacles, mirrors and science. We started studying the human body and inventing flying machines. We elevated reason and evidence as the ultimate sources of knowledge and wisely decided to separate the institutions of church and state.
It was around this time that the battle between religion and science started in earnest. And strangely religion fought the battle with science on science’s terms. It was a bit like a thumb wrestler showing up for a boxing match. The battle was fought on the grounds of which discipline told a more accurate truth. Religion could explain the natural world but it did so inaccurately, and science didn’t take long to disprove many of the foundations make up religious dogma. Concepts such as the planets orbit the earth, the world is 4000 years old and every species of animal on earth was at one point escorted onto a boat a bit more than half the size of the Titanic to save the animal kingdom from a flood, stood little chance to survive the cold and clinical gaze of science.
But, consider that religion wasn’t ever intended to describe the world. It’s purpose was to provide solace and comfort for all of us who have to grapple with our existence. And it did so by helping the world feel safer and more familiar to us. Through the use of stories, religion was able to give humans purpose and provide guidance on what a good life might look like. Then science, quite ruthlessly, came along and tore these stories apart with facts.
What religion got right.
Religion did more than bring communities together and help people lead ‘meaningful’ lives. It did more than comfort those who watched the moon turn red, or who witnessed their children die for inexplicable reason. It helped explain the urges, the suffering and the complicated internal lives people had to deal with. And science has done a poor job of offering up an alternative salve for the psychological turmoil we have to endure during our lives.
Sure, science has given us psychiatry. It allows us to diagnose (label) our psychological ailments and is able to prescribe a course of therapy and drugs to address some of our more extreme problems. However, positive outcomes in most fields that attempt to address psychological distress are more closely correlated to the human connection patients have with their therapists than with the course of drugs that have been prescribed. Helping people cope with psychological travails of life is more of a human endeavour than a scientific one.
Science provides little comfort when your child is diagnosed with a brain tumour. While religion would try to comfort you through stories relating to god’s plan, of children joining god in heaven, and by helping you find meaning in the suffering you’re experiencing. And if you believe in a god, or gods, these stories can be very powerful in helping you cope with your impending loss.
Science can’t do the same.
So, we should all turn to religion?
No. I don’t believe religion is the answer.
But I suspect that social science has more to offer that what we are led to believe. In a world driven by reason and rationality there is little time dedicated to our spiritual and emotional needs. We aren’t taught to manage our biases, to cope with more extreme emotions or to understand our base urges. And maybe that is where social science can help us. Maybe there is a lot to learn about how other cultures deal with grief and conflict. Perhaps we should explore the meaning of life more publicly. Maybe our politicians should spend more time debating and defining what a good life looks like in the countries they lead.
Maybe we need to remove the ‘science’ from social science, and acknowledge that science doesn’t have all the answers. And that when it comes to dealing with the human condition, science has taken something from us that needs replacing.