Science and science systems: beyond semantics

There is an essential distinction that needs to be made between science and science systems. It may seem semantic, but it is not. When we conflate these words, we risk undermining the place of science.  We live in a world where trust in science appears less certain, where science denial has become an ideological badge, where science is undermined by disinformation. Its position relative to other knowledge systems can be questioned and debated.

But much discussion occurs in the absence of an appreciation of what science is and is not. In short, there can be confusion between science as the knowledge-building system and those organizational systems by which science operates. This distinction is critical: unless it is clear, we cannot easily advance trust in science so that it can play its key role in social, economic, and environmental futures.

UNESCO[1], the International Science Council[2], commentators and philosophers of science[3] now accept that science as we now know is defined by its principles rather than by its methods.  While falsification might describe some domains of natural science, it requires considerable contortion to apply a Popperian approach in an area such as evolutionary biology, psychology, and most human and social sciences. And disciplines have emerged that we only now consider as science: medicine and many social sciences only started taking on the form that we now see as science after the turn of the 20th century. Indeed, the boundary between science and non-science can only be defined by reference to its core principles.

Science is an organized system of knowledge - one based on observation and experimentation. Explanations can only be based on causal reality, logic, and past observations (‘shallow’ explanations). Explanations based on merely subjective and non-empirical considerations, be they from religion or belief (‘deep’ explanations), are excluded. Claims without quality assessment by expert peers and their publication, should not be considered part of science. This also allows for replication and further investigation as well as ensuring that science can be a global public good. The processes of science are defined, not methodologically, but by iterative review and progressive modification of knowledge as new observations are made and incorporated. Such a principles-based description encompasses the physical, natural, data, health, engineering, and social sciences and indeed some of the humanities.

It is these principles that make science universal and crucially they apply everywhere and across all cultures. In this sense using the term ’western science' is political. While science as we now know it has been heavily influenced by European endeavors over recent centuries, much was incorporated from other cultures. Indeed, there is much longer history for these principles, for example by the Arab scholar Ibn Al Haytham (956-1050)[4]. Elements in all knowledge systems including indigenous and local knowledge systems have their origin in deep observation and experimentation.

We must distinguish what is science from the scientific systems that evolved to produce or use science. The latter vary enormously and are influenced by context, culture, and motive. They include the institutions that fund, teach, publish science, higher education, and research institutions; they include the private sector and other components of civil society.  Here we must be honest and acknowledge that institutionalized science has contributed both good and bad and has its own power dynamics. Eugenics provides a sobering lesson.

In keeping with other aspects of material and intellectual culture such as religion, science was both an excuse for and a tool of colonization. Its echoes are everywhere: in the collections in museums of the colonizing powers, and in the cultural imperialism that persists in many countries. Therefore, when we talk about decolonizing science systems, there can be little argument. Gender bias, minority exclusion, biased and flawed examples in experimental design are persistent relics of that history. But it is illogical to talk about decolonizing science itself.

But science is not the only knowledge system people use. In their daily lives people apply and combine a variety of knowledge systems, including those that define their identity, values, and worldviews; these may be local, indigenous, religious, cultural, or occupational in origin.  Science will be of its greatest value when scientists acknowledge its limits and understand that to be trusted and best used, they must allow that other knowledge systems often play a role in how we live and make decisions. Science itself is not values free but the principles of science attempt to restrict the place of values. And while science must live alongside other knowledge systems, its principles create boundaries that must not be compromised or crossed over.

Science is distinctive in its principles. It’s explanatory and practical power allows science to provide the most reliable and inclusive way to understand the universe and the world around and within us. Making the distinction between science and science systems will be critical if the social contract between science and society is to progress in a trustworthy way. Afterall we are living in in a world and at a time when science is needed more than ever.

[1] https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000260889.page=116

 [2] https://council.science/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ScienceAsAPublicGood-FINAL.pdf

 [3] L McIntyre The scientific attitude MIT 2020;  H Collins & R Evans Why democracies need science Wiley 2017; M Strevens The Knowledge Machine  Penguin 2022;  J Rauch The constitution of knowledge: a defense of truth Brookings Institute press  2021

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham