Andrew+Hess+-+WITS?+-+Final

What is science? This seems like an innocent enough question, one that should have a simple answer. However when one actually thinks about it and looks past the typical textbook answer things become...blurry. No one really seems to have an answer that anyone will solidly agree upon in a deeper philosophical sense. Maybe there is a reason for this. Maybe we're trying to define science in terms of a category that it doesn't fit in. It seems that we try to look at science as a singular entity, but in reality I think it may be otherwise. I think, that science is more of a hive mind. It's not a single thing like a person or even a structured government, but really is a cooperative organization similar to a bees or an ants nest. We've labeled these “things” as hives but to properly define and understand how they work you have to analyze the individuals. It's how each single entity interacts with others that determines how the whole appears to function.

Basing my thoughts off of the work of Michael Polanyi, science is like a nest of ants. Each scientist acts alone as an individual with their own personal drive and talent. When one makes a step forward all the others watch, and if it seems plausible they build off of it. To use Polanyi's example, take a group of workers piecing together a jigsaw puzzle, each on their own with the same puzzle. If they work completely independently then the end productivity in such a type of intellectual pursuit is equivalent to that of a single worker. However if each is able to see the others, when one puts in a piece everyone else is able to do the same and as a group they can look forward at the new possibilities opened up. In the terms of science, each answered question opens up a dozen more. So with communication, when one discovery is made and proven then the group as a whole can move on to the next. And with the variety of fields and the people that study them, everyone can fill the space that most interests them and where they will do the most good. In this way there is no solid hierarchy but at a distance the actions of the individuals produce a net motion in the whole. This singular whole is what we traditionally look at as science.

Now science may be a collective entity but that doesn't answer how one becomes part of the machinery that makes it tick, and why each is placed where they are. Since it's a free system placement becomes a matter of individual action and desire. Ones goes where they want and study that which interests them. However just because someone does a specific type of study doesn't mean that what they come up with will be accepted. They won't even necessarily be considered scientists. So how does this work? A simple boiled down answer is, respect. Scientific insights are spread and validated through parallel study and respect. Going back to Polanyi, as described by Richard Rhodes, quote “Suppose Scientist M announces a new result. He knows his highly specialized subject better than anyone in the world; who is competent to judge him? But next to Scientist M are Scientists L and N. Their subjects overlap M's, so they understand his work well enough to assess its quality and reliability and to understand where it fits into science. Next to L and N are other scientists, K and O and J and P, who know L and N well enough to decide whether to trust their judgment about M. On out to Scientists A and Z, whose subjects are almost completely removed from M's.” So in this way the whole determines what is acceptable and who is reliable, in other words, who is a scientist, it and does so autonomously with no fixed body governing the process and appointment.

By extrapolating from this framework with a few injections of human nature it is possible to generally explain the variations in science throughout history. Early on, during the time of the Greeks, science was simple and intellectuals were few and far between. So someone such as Aristotle with a large amount of earned respect required just a small amount of basic logic to make and pass his theories which went pretty much straight to the public. I'm not debating whether or not what he said was correct, there were the limitations of technology, experimentation, etc but his large statue in history may come from having little peer review and enough respect to push out a lot of theories and have them accepted. But then it comes down to why did his theories hold up so long? To explain this I would say human nature and aversion to change. During the middle centuries where Aristotle was held so highly, thought and question were frowned upon, obedience and faith were virtues. The Church and the government became the governing body of knowledge but if as I've said science is a leaderless, open system then there's obviously a direct conflict. The system would struggle to function as somewhat apparently it did. With Galileo as an example, intellectuals were persecuted for attempting to spread possible new ideas, advancement stagnated and the Dark Ages occurred. As the culture softened and once again allowed new thinking and questioning then scientific growth was able to continue openly.

The effects of human nature are not purely on the large scale, smaller cases are numerous. Mainly in reflectance to change and accept radical ideas. An example being the battle between Bohr and Schrodinger over the structure of the atom. Bohr developed an explanation that involved quantum physics while Schrodinger tried to solve everything with mechanical/classical physics. Schrodinger was more readily accepted because his methods appeased the traditional physicist. During a seminar by Schrodinger in Munich Heisenburg raised objections and is quoted as to the response he was given, “Wilhelm Wien, who held the chair of experimental physics at the University of Munich, answered rather sharply that one must really put an end to quantum jumps and the whole atomic mysticism, and the difficulties I had mentioned would certainly soon be solved by Schrodinger.” People don't always like change and Schrodinger probably received an unbalanced amount of respect for his work because it tried to solidify the status quo.

Now to continue, it is possible to raise the issue of, if anyone can be a scientist, why does it seem that one needs a degree to be considered one? To answer simply, a degree does not make you a scientist, instead it is a check for a base amount of respect. Humanity's knowledge base is getting to be absolutely enormous and since science is a building process, one needs to understand what is already known before that can really contribute, usually. So getting a degree says to every else that “I know what I'm doing.” This plays into the respect of the institution that provides the degree as well. The better the education instilled by a university the more respect that it usually is given and therefore the more respect that is given to a holder of it's degrees. But in this way it's not an absolute necessity to hold a degree to be a scientist, it's just a leg up. Anyone can be an accepted scientist as long as they can earn it, not having one makes crossing the buffer zone far harder but not impossible. And again the growth of human knowledge over time explains some of the change in requirements over the same period. The buffer zone is the extended knowledge that lies between average level and the level at the frontiers of science. To find something new you have to be at the boundaries. Centuries ago they were very close, one could mix the dropping of stones and a little logic to start developing new ideas. Now you may need an understanding of quantum physics and a particle accelerator or of genetics and the map of the human genome in hand. As time and science progress it takes more and more to be at that level that one can earn the acceptance as a scientist.

Another fun oddity is the lab coat. Why does wearing one seem to instantly label a person as a scientist and as being intelligent. The lab coat is the uniform of the lab worker, being a lab worker means you've had to gain the acceptance of the community to hold such a position. Having the acceptance of the community probably means you have proven your intellect and skill to some extent. So as connotation lab coat now means scientist.

All in all science is governed almost like an economic system expect instead of money the tender is influence and respect. And like a stock market, who you throw yourself in with can lead to major gains and equally large losses.