My paradigm shift

Here’s a blog to jumpstart the old brain cells, or kick them into touch. A paradigm shift is a fundamental change in how we think about and understand life, the universe and everything. The replacement of Ptolemy’s earth-centred universe with Copernicus’ sun-centred system is one example; Newtonian mechanics given the heave-ho by Einstein’s relativity is another. If you prefer, it’s when the ultimate answer is no longer 42; it’s 51.

I’ve had a paradigm shift of my own this week. In truth, it’s been bubbling away for years, like my latest chutney on the hob; 4lbs of damsons dealt with, only 8 more to go. Every now and again, the surface tension breaks good and proper, and scalding hot syrupy stuff lands on my nose. Reducing the heat and a quick, brave stir soon calms things down. Likewise, I’ve managed to keep my personal heresy in check.

Until now.

My favourite subjects at school were maths and science, because there was only one answer to all questions asked. Everything was rule-driven and logical, a bit like the German language, and this satisfied my OCD outbreaks. Science would solve the world’s problems – hold that thought – which is morally right because science has caused many of them: pollution, WMD, poisons, etc. 

There was no room for opinion or subjectivity in science, unlike in English and history, say, where I often disagreed with the teachers, and they marked me down because of it. This infuriated me, because I wasn’t wrong; I just had a different opinion from them (and the rest of the class and the text books – that’s me all over i’n’t it). 

Naturally I studied natural science at Uni (physics and chemistry). Later in life, because I wanted to sharpen my political skills, I studied the social sciences. The Master’s course I chose included a bit of philosophy, politics, ethics and environmental economics. My brain hurt. I’d been used to a benzene ring being a benzene ring and then getting on with it. But I was now being asked to consider if the benzene ring was real or a figment of my imagination, or distorted through a filter of sense-perception, or whether I was interpreting it correctly, and whether it was the same for me as it was for the guy sitting next to me, and what does it symbolise in society. I mean, WTF?

In order to maintain my sanity, and pass the course, I eventually managed to yank Pandora out of the science box and put her back where she belongs, in a box marked Do Not Open. I convinced myself that there are two categories of things that can be investigated and understood: 1) the societal lives of humans, who think, rationalise, interpret, value-judge and discuss, which informs their actions, and 2) non-human objects like benzene rings, chairs, planets and chutneys, which don’t think and always behave in the same way under the same circumstances; they consistently obey scientific laws and can be reliably ‘observed’, measured and confidently predicted.

Because humans think and judge etc. and, let’s face it, act unpredictably if not irrationally, and because benzene rings etc. behave predictably every freaking time, the two categories have to be investigated differently. For the benzene rings, there’s the scientific method. In brief (because I can see some eyelids drooping) the scientific method involves observing a 'closed system' where the number of variables are limited (e.g. pressure or heat or other chemicals), and the impact that has on the object under investigation can be ‘measured’.

As for humans, they operate in an open system with an infinite number of variables, not all of which can be identified, and it’s impossible to properly isolate and measure what is impacting what. Sociologists have therefore come up with a whole host of other methods to try and help us understand the systemic actions and influences of humans and society, including surveys, interviews, participant observations, historical comparisons, and a baffling array of analytical tools such as coding and semiotics.

So there we have it. Reliable science in one corner of my brain, daft-as-brushes humans and society in the other, and Pandora nowhere to be seen.

Until now.

I’m finding myself questioning science increasingly often. At first I thought it was that others were ignoring science or had misunderstood it and were spouting nonsense, or that it was the politics and the policy ‘solutions’ I was disagreeing with. But not all the time it wasn't.

Firstly, with regard to Covid, the vaccine programme was great, but the lockdown strategy wasn’t. Science didn't take into account economics, domestic violence, education, and mental health. With respect to Covid, therefore, science at once saved us and ruined us, because it couldn’t cope with the human-induced law of unintended consequences.

Now take climate change. Most scientists are singing from the same hymn sheet, but there are dissenting voices. And there are too many humans in the general populace who ‘don’t get it’. Science is failing to be consistent and persuasive. That’s scary.

Next, nutrient neutrality. See a previous blog here for a more complete analysis but, as brief as I can make it, both sides were right: building 100,000 homes would increase pollution in some water courses, but building 100,000 homes would reduce pollution in some water courses. Science had identified the problem (new homes produce pollution) and had helped to devise a solution (prevent/remove pollution on a much bigger scale), but science can't anticipate or understand political manoeuvrings, like the solution being thrown out by bug-eyed Lords. 

More recently, Fishy Rishi has delayed some net-zero pledges. Climate scientists I've spoken to say he’s wrong; engineers I know (who are nothing if not pragmatic scientists) say he’s right. OMG! Would one scientist say the Earth is flat and another say it’s spherical? Inconsistency again, because different scientists prioritise different facts and evidence for different objects under investigation for different timescales and outcomes. Further, a table of raw data means nothing to anyone unless a scientist interprets it and works out what it all means. The key word here is 'interpret'. What I’m saying is: scientists think, rationalise, interpret and value-judge. Scientists are human. Humans complicate and mess up life, the universe and everything.

And that’s the problem. While science is ostensibly all about the facts and evidence and logic, science needs humans to actually do science. Because humans are unpredictable and irrational, science is also unpredictable and irrational.

Aaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Science is unpredictable and irrational. For me to say that is like a Christian turning away from God, a Tory voting Labour, or a once-fun person becoming a vegan.

It gets scarier. What is Schrödinger's Cat if not an illustration of a limit to human knowledge? What did Heisenberg teach us if not that the act of investigation changes the object under investigation and we can never be 100% certain of what we’ve just investigated? I’ve known about these quirks for decades, but I’ve only just joined the dots.

I guess Pandora found her way into Schrödinger's box and killed the cat. But I’m not certain of that.