"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." --Albert Einstein
In my previous blog I introduced the problem of scientism -- the religious-like belief that science is necessarily the best or only valid approach to learning more about the physical world and solving applied problems. Here I address some of the comments to that blog by discussing the negative consequences of scientism in agriculture and environmental conservation. I conclude by offering a few "nonscientific" alternatives for situations in which a formal scientific methodology may not be the most appropriate and effective approach.
Scientism in Agriculture
More than 70 years ago, Sir Albert Howard foresaw many of the problems that would result from the over-zealous application of science to the vast biological and social complexities of agroecosystems. As summarized by Michael Pollan in "The Omnivore's Dilemma," Howard argued that ''the problem is that once science has reduced a complex phenomenon to a couple of variables, however important they may be, the natural tendency is to overlook everything else, to assume that what you can measure is all there is, or at least all that really matters.''
While many often cite the "miracle of modern food production" as a prime example of the indispensable benefits of a scientific approach, a more holistic analysis reveals the many unintended horrors that have accompanied the undeniably impressive accomplishments of science-based agriculture. For example, the same science that delivered ever-increasing agricultural yields has also delivered ever-increasing malnutrition, social inequities, population explosions and environmental disasters. Indeed, some scholars believe the invention of agriculture in general and the modern industrialized agricultural sciences in particular have been the ''worst mistake in the history of the human race.''
At present, a few multinational corporate giants control an ever-increasing majority of our food production and distribution systems. Often under the guise of ''scientific progress,'' these corporations continue to replace small, diversified, highly productive, ecologically sustainable, locally controlled, indigenous agricultural systems (developed in the absence of western science) with ever larger, genetically engineered monocultures that displace the local human community, require many calories of fossil fuel to produce one calorie of food, and contaminate the land and water with synthetic fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Can ever-more sophisticated and powerful science get us out of this mess?
Scientism in Environmental Conservation
When I first started working as a research ecologist for the U.S. Forest Service, I thought that my rigorous, "objective" data would ultimately help resolve issues such as how best to control noxious alien species and save endangered native species. But after repeatedly failing to help resolve anything with this science, I came to two conclusions: 1) The combination of the heterogeneity of nature and real-world human complexities of doing conservation often severely limit the practical relevance of conventional science (see my "Science-driven restoration: A square grid on a round earth?" paper for more on this) and 2) many conservation conflicts are in reality largely political disputes. The general difficulty of trying to use science to resolve political controversies was eloquently summarized in an article published, ironically enough, in American Scientist:
Scientific inquiry is inherently unsuitable for helping to resolve political disputes. Even when a disagreement seems to be amenable to technical analysis, the nature of science itself usually acts to inflame rather than quench the debate ... Science seeks to come to grips with the richness and complexity of nature through numerous disciplinary approaches, each of which gives factual, yet always incomplete, views of reality ... "More research" is often prescribed as the antidote, but new results quite often reveal previously unknown complexities, increasing the sense of uncertainty and highlighting the differences between competing perspectives. --Daniel Sarewitz
Yet, many well-intentioned people believe that ever-more science is the key to both improving our understanding of today's pressing environmental problems and designing effective solutions to solve them. Consequently, we continue to forge ahead with more research instead of, or even at the expense of, urgently needed conservation actions. To take just one notorious example, much of the hundreds of millions of dollars specifically earmarked for the restoration of Alaska's Prince William Sound following 1989's devastating oil spill was ultimately usurped by an ever-expanding scientific ''cottage industry'' while local concerns were pushed aside. Now I fear we are poised to repeat these mistakes in response to last year's BP oil spill.
Alternatives to a Science-Driven Approach
Even a cursory review of the history and development of any branch of science will reveal how quickly implicitly accepted "truths" may change over time. Thus one of the first things we can do to avoid the scientism trap is to simply acknowledge that our present scientific knowledge and methodologies are subjective and ephemeral products of our era and our culture. This can also help us avoid the arrogance and hubris that too often have characterized scientists and science-worshippers, and adopt a more humble, open-minded, inclusive disposition.
Here are two additional suggestions for alternative approaches that may in certain situations replace or at least complement a formal scientific methodology:
1. Consider the perspectives and methodologies of other cultures. Because the paradigm of western science is so pervasive in the United States, it is easy to forget that this approach is both a fairly recent historical development and that many other cultures have and continue to effectively learn about the world and solve their problems in "nonscientific" ways. For example, I believe that by viewing the issue of world hunger through the lens of local and indigenous peoples, the Food First Institute has developed a far better understanding of the causes of and solutions to this problem than conventional agricultural scientists and science-based organizations.
2. Value experiential knowledge and intuition. Scientism has led many of us to ignore or discount the kinds of more holistic knowledge, insights and practical skills that can develop from prolonged first-hand experience. For instance, I have found that some "uneducated" people who have spent their lives living and working on the land have developed an intuitive understanding of ecology and conservation that is far more nuanced and practically valuable than the more academic, scientific knowledge acquired by Ph.D. ecologists such as myself.
Despite my continuing love of science and conservation (I have spent most of my life studying, teaching and doing them), I have concluded that a more holistic, hybrid approach to environmental problems is often more effective than a more formal scientific methodology. I call this more informal paradigm "intelligent tinkering" after a famous phrase written by the pioneering ecologist, conservationist and environmental philosopher Aldo Leopold. Leopold similarly believed there was a large gap between the complexity of the "land organism" and the ability of conventional science by itself to comprehend this complexity. More than 70 years ago, he thus called for a "reversal of specialization" to counteract science's tendency to learn "more and more about less and less." He also urged his colleagues to follow his lead by ignoring the "senseless barrier between science and art" and directly incorporating their personal experiences, intuitions, aesthetics, emotions and other unscientific aspects into their work.
As I illustrate throughout my forthcoming book, this perspective of and approach to conservation in particular and applied environmental problems in general is at least as important and relevant today as it was during Leopold's time.
The greatest challenge we face is overpopulation. Yet, religions continue to condemn their followers to hell for using contraceptives or sex education. Their followers are encouraged to drop babies like rabbits. More pregnancies results in more to feed. There is a limit to how much the earth can support. We've probably already exceeded that.
To blame science for the failings of humans is just silly. If the churches started telling folks that they should have a little family planning that would help. The poorest cannot afford all the different foods they should have. Why blame science? We've been hearing from 'science' for years about overpopulation. Yet folks continue to drop babies like rabbits. The invention of religion is the biggest mistake made by the human race.
Mis-application of scientific knowledge is not the fault of science. Just because something can be done does not mean it should be.
The invention of agriculture was not a scientific invention. Science didn't start until the 17th century. Before that is was all credited to god. The fact people didn't understand about rotating crops, giving the land a break, conservation of topsoil and limiting population growth is not a failure of science, it's a lack of it.
Quote: More than 70 years ago, ... Howard argued that ''the problem is that once science has reduced a complex phenomenon to a couple of variables, however important they may be, the natural tendency is to overlook everything else, to assume that what you can measure is all there is, or at least all that really matters.'' Unquote.
This is idiocy. Oh, we are all guilty as charged, but it isn't just science that does it. EVERYONE does it. EVERYONE tends to take a complicated situation, reduce it to a couple of ideas and ignore everything else.
Science, on the other hand, is doing tremendous work in lots and lots of research involving alternative methods. Scientists do understand the problems with using unbound chemical additives to soils. And good scientists recognize that there are multiple approaches to most problems. From the way the author talks, I wonder if he really understood his science courses.
Good scientists already explore solutions cultures have worked out to meet various problems. They provide rich insight into how things work. Good scientists understand that there are likely to be variables and interactions they haven't found -- which is why science keeps working.
Maybe the author is unaware of all the work being done by good scientists already?
When it comes to planning, all decisions have an ethical component. All. The denial of this verges on the insane. Neither science or technology determine human course of action. We choose.
Holistic science is one which is not merely interacting with ethical systems for tweaking. It is one in which ethical systems control science and technology completely.
(1) To be skeptical enough to at least ask for some basic evidence. You don't need to necessarily use the full force of the scientific method, but some evidence would be good.
(2) To know what questions are appropriate to try to answer using the scientific method. To have the questions be precise, unanswered, interesting, and something you can reasonably study. We don't need time wasted on bad questions.
(3) An appreciation that there is more to life than science. There is a practical side. There is a fun and emotional side. Science shouldn't distract you from this.
Anyone doing otherwise is not guilty of scientism, they are guilty of incompetence.
Science isn't just a bunch of lab equipment. The scientific method would specify that the means of determining whether apples are red is to look at apples. It also would specify that the means of determining whether a dog can talk is to hold a conversation with it. Science doesn't preclude common sense or obvious methods. It usually requires them. I know you probably didn't mean to imply otherwise, but that first paragraph could be read as saying that.
Mmmhmm....And when someone flies to a city to attend a convention to discuss this notion, they will fly there on a jetliner that stays in the air because scores of scientists and engineers got their sums right.
Regarding "Value experiential knowledge and intuition." Yea, if you come in new to studying a local agriculture problem and someone has been farming for years on mere experience, they know more about the local agriculture than you do. And the problem is probably complex and needs a quick and dirty answer. Hands on know-how is more practical, not the scientific method. But let's note that this experiential knowledge contains a lot of things science will validate, it also contains half-right rules of thumb and incorrect intuitions. Science can tell you what intuitions are correct or not and thereby inform you on the problem. If you want to understand thoroughly and accurately what is going on, science is far better than intuition. But you a quick and dirty answer that is mostly right. Just because science is excellent at providing knowledge does not mean it is always most practical to use.
"Indeed, some scholars believe the invention of agriculture in general and the modern industrialized agricultural sciences in particular have been the ''worst mistake in the history of the human race.''"
*Blank stare* Did you really just write that in your blog? I am sitting here, having had a hearty lunch with minimal effort in a nice house sitting in front of my computer, all which I wouldn't have if it weren't for agriculture or modern industry. I am sure there are scholars with intelligent, nuanced criticisms of agriculture and industry. There are certainly criticisms to be made against big corporations (none of which have anything to do with the scientific method). But to say that agriculture and modern industry was our humans' biggest mistake is assinine. Really, do you always hunt for your dinner Mr. Cabin?
Regardless, the point doesn't seem to be a case of either/or because it's the dialectic of progress--all new developments bring new problems, and agriculture and industry were both prime examples of this, much good, much bad. Both the positive and the negative must be taken into account, not a blind allegiance to either end of the spectrum.
I'm having a difficult time elucidating your central argument (and yes, I read your previous blog to put this one in context). What you seem to be arguing from your examples is against reductionism and the misuse of science by corporations and governments, not against the belief that science is the best method for discerning reality. As such, I don't think you've made your case against "scientism." Rather, you've made a case that corporations and other entities shouldn't be allowed to abuse science in the name of profits.
Your case against reductionism treads familiar ground, as it has been made many times in many different fields of science (i.e. Ball 1988; Sober 1999; Sawyer 2002). Your own argument seems grounded in your contention that research failed to resolve resource management conflicts or guide development of restoration projects. My question to you is this: Was that failure due to the application of the scientific method or was it more due to scientists asking the wrong questions due to being overly reliant on reductionism? If the former, then yes, scientism obviously fails. If the latter, then your argument becomes against reductionist approaches in science and for more holistic approaches to science.
Ball 1988: http://www.jstor.org/pss/20014241
Sober 1999: http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/mraar.pdf
Sawyer 2002: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~ksawyer/PDFs/emergence_in_psychology.pdf