What is science? Even scientists can't agree
Scientists spend their careers trying to understand the world, but a new study suggests they have surprisingly different ideas about what science itself is. The study, published in Royal Society Open Science, found that scientists disagree about the meaning and purpose of science even more than the general public does. Of the 18 descriptions of science examined, few received unqualified…
Scientists continue to grapple with defining what constitutes "science," according to a recent study published in Royal Society Open Science. The research, conducted by Marina Dubova and Qiawen E. Liu, surveyed 91 experts and 99 members of the public on 18 different historical descriptions of science. While both groups agreed on certain core elements of the scientific process—such as curiosity-driven exploration and solving mysteries—they displayed vastly divergent perspectives on the meaning and purpose of science.
The study found that scientists held a significantly broader range of views compared to the general public. Some scientists viewed science as a quest for objective truth, while others emphasized the role of human judgment, creativity, and improvisation in the research process. Surprisingly, the public's understanding of science was more uniform, tending to view it as a reliable method for uncovering objective truths with less emphasis on uncertainty or creativity.
Dubova, now an assistant professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, suggests these differences may stem from the varied approaches scientists develop over time, similar to how chefs might disagree about cooking methods. Interestingly, the public's views were more aligned with those of physicists and biologists than with researchers in psychology or the social sciences. This could be due to the greater prominence of physics and biology in science education.
The findings raise important questions about the implications for artificial intelligence. As AI systems become more capable of conducting scientific research, Dubova expresses concern that automating discovery could reinforce a narrow, single-minded view of science, potentially overshadowing other valuable approaches.
Dubova emphasizes that the common understanding of science should not be taken for granted. She encourages both scientists and the general public to continually question and explore the diverse perspectives that shape our understanding of scientific inquiry.
Written by urgent.news from Phys.org's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
