Believe in it… or Not. The Power of Science in the Age of Misinformation

It is actually NOT difficult to separate #truth x #lie, #facts x #fantasy: you just let it play out! One will BUILD things, the other will do NOTHING (it may do harm, but truth can harm as well). It may take a long time and #independent #replication, though. #science #knowledge pic.twitter.com/qxzOb4zuvQ

— tagomago | Mauro Rebelo (@tagomago_me) July 25, 2023

“I know I won’t get COVID because those who are truly happy are immune.”

He genuinely believed this.

I found myself pondering how to counter his viewpoint without resorting to the classic argumentative fallacies like “don’t be naive” or “how can you be so stupid?!”.

With him, I could afford not to argue, but what about when the time would come when argumentation would be necessary and important? I saw this as an opportunity to practice, which prompted me to write this piece.

The first thing that came to mind was when I was confronted during the public reading of a chapter I wrote for the book ‘Building Bridges’ at a high-profile intellectual event, filled with people who were as open to hearing a different opinion as their confirmation bias would allow. “How can you doubt faith?” they asked me.

I turned to an argument I had read in a book whose title I unfortunately can’t remember, discovered during one of my rare visits to the UFRJ CCS library during college: Religion, philosophy, and science are knowledge systems. For the first, faith is sufficient; for the second, respect for logic is needed; for the third, evidence is required. This might not have been exactly what was written, but it is how I remember it (and it serves my argumentation).

So I sidestepped the question: I said I did not doubt faith, but I reasoned within a knowledge system where faith alone was not enough. I was very diplomatic, stating that everyone could choose their preferred system of knowledge.

However, that wasn’t a wholly honest response, because I don’t believe in it. That’s why I didn’t want to give the same answer this time.

I not only believe that science is superior as a knowledge system but also that it makes the others obsolete, as they simply can’t compete in terms of potential to explain the world around us and improve our quality of life. Science has given us more in the last 500 years than the other two systems combined over the last 5000 years. There might also be a better knowledge system waiting to be discovered. Until then, I’ll stick with science.

The problem with this argument is that historically, it doesn’t work. Only those whose beliefs have been challenged by evidence, and because they were trained to do so or had no other choice, have had to alter their convictions in the face of evidence. This represents a limited number of people.

For most people then, belief in evidence is not very different from any other belief. It just changes the target of faith. He was like this, and explaining how the scientific method works would not be effective.

I needed a simpler, yet more powerful argument. I felt a bit anxious, as I had searched for this simple and powerful argument before without success. But there was something new on my mind, a restlessness. It was more than the feeling that the answer was forming; it was the sensation that the answer was already there. “Trust, but verify.” The old Russian saying came to mind. That’s it: Verify!

The difference between science and the other knowledge systems is that evidence and conclusions can be independently verified and validated.

“People with alkaline blood do not get sick. Sadness turns the blood acidic.”

I don’t need to argue against this. I can simply measure his blood’s pH, or anyone’s, and show that the blood’s pH is always 7.2, which is neutral. And I can give him a device that allows him to measure his blood’s pH whenever he wants. And also the pH of the blood of anyone he wants. Whenever he wants. And he will notice that it is always 7.2, no matter how happy or sad he or the person may be.

With a bit of luck, he’ll want to know how this is possible and will learn about the bicarbonate buffer system that, in blood or in the ocean, keeps the pH stable. And if he encounters someone with a very acidic or alkaline pH, it is a result of illness, not a cause.

I wonder if we need another knowledge system, or if our current one isn’t serving us in some way. I believe what we need are tools to increase the transparency and verification capabilities of science. This would save valuable resources in scientific and technological development and reduce communication noise in society caused by scientists who, whether with good or bad intentions, pursue false conclusions.

Yes, I won’t argue with him. I’ll give him a pH meter as a gift. Because I don’t want him to believe in me. I want him to verify for himself.

The knowledge generated by religion and philosophy does not form the basis for building ‘things.’ It does not cure diseases; it does not send rockets to the moon. And I also don’t buy the argument that it brings us the peace of mind and happiness that science can’t provide.

But my belief in science in some ways mirrored the faith of the religious. How to prove that science is better than religion? How to argue this in a simple way that anyone can understand? Until recently, I didn’t have that answer.

It’s true that we still can’t explain everything by science, but this doesn’t mean that everything can’t be explained by it. It may be a deficiency of ours and not of the method. As Harari said in Sapiens: “Biochemistry is an algorithm. We are the exact product of the execution of a simple and known algorithm.” And it gave more to humanity in the last 500 years than the others combined in the last 5000 years.

A common misconception among scientists is the idea that truth lies in statistical significance, in our ability to differentiate signal from noise. A chance-related event from an event associated with something. In a perfect world, perhaps yes, but there are mistakes in planning, execution, and interpretation. Patterns that emerge from randomness due to small numbers and trends that disappear with large numbers. Confirmation bias creating bias in conclusions. Thus, it is the independent replication of the same result by the same group and by different groups that generate evidence capable of creating knowledge. This allows us a new understanding of the world, and the creation of new things based on this new knowledge. Innovation.

It is the ability to verify information that ultimately distinguishes science from other knowledge systems and makes it universal.

This idea is closely related to the scientific article, the method of communicating information and knowledge in the scientific community. In it, we present the hypothesis we want to test. We describe the methodology we used to generate the data in enough detail so that others can repeat the experiment. We present the data and the analyses we performed so that others can repeat them. And the conclusions we drew, either accepting or refuting the hypothesis, so that others can verify their validity. It’s a good system, albeit one that has been perverted by the publishing market with the complicity of scientists and funding agencies.

Science is transparent. If the Russian saying is “trust, but verify” then only in science can this be done.

Perhaps the scientific method is the origin of the logic behind the greatest technological innovation of the new millennium: the blockchain, a network of computers that allows transactions regardless of trust simply because all records can be verified by anyone at any time.

I often wonder if we need another system of knowledge. Perhaps the current one isn’t adequately serving us. I believe what we need are tools to increase the transparency and verification capacity of science. This would save invaluable resources in scientific and technological development and reduce the communication noise within society caused by scientists who, whether well or ill-intentioned, pursue false conclusions.

Science and the scientific method protect us from ourselves. This is because our intuitions are often incorrect. The world is a more complex and strange place than it seems, and our minds are limited in fully understanding it, let alone extrapolating patterns and trends based on a few observations.

Therefore, the idea that belief or logic alone is sufficient – ideas often propagated by religion and philosophy – are not only wrong: they are dangerous. They lead us to conclusions and actions that can harm ourselves and others. If there was scientific affirmation, we wouldn’t expose ourselves to the risks of the most damaging virus in recent history based on the fallacious belief that happiness alone provides protection. Neither would we expose others by exposing ourselves.

When properly conducted and applied, science protects us from the flaws of belief and logic.

Yes, science is the best tool for knowledge generation created by the human mind and it’s the only one we need to advance morally and intellectually as a society. And you don’t have to take my word for it, because you can verify for yourself.