Stop Deifying Science

In the late 1800s Friedrich Nietzsche declared 'God Is dead'. He did so at the height of the  enlightenment when the scientific process reached maturity as a means of empirically finding out about the world. This is at a time when Mendeleev had just transformed chemistry with the periodic table and the work of Thompson, Rutherford, Bohr, Einstein and others was just around the corner and about to shatter our understanding of what made up the universe. 

Nietzsche made this deceleration because he realised that as human beings we could no longer, in this new scientific age, reasonably call upon a higher power, such as that which resided in the gods of religion, to give us hope and direction in life. He determined that in this new era, we as human beings would have to find our own meaning, that we would have to forge our own paths and that we could not perpetually shirk the responsibilities and consequences of life by saying it is all the hands of a higher power and there is a better life awaiting us after this one. With one life to live, Nietzsche was, in effect, imploring us to make the most of it. 

Yet I worry that many have just substituted the god/s of religion for another and this new God's name is Science. 

Now don't get me wrong. To me the scientific method is one of the most critically important milestones we as a species has ever made. I identify as a scientist, I teach Science and am of the opinion that if anything is going to get use out of the mess we as a species have created on this planet Science is it. But this does NOT make me a disciple of Science. 

This tends to be where things start to messy because many would say the I have a 'belief' in Science. A 'faith' that Science will get us out of the mess we are in as a society and as a species, that I am putting my 'hope' in the 'higher powers' of Science, just as a person of religious faith would in the higher powers of a god/s, but, that is were they would be fundamentally wrong. I don't 'believe' in or have 'Faith' and 'Hope' in Science I am just of the opinion that as a species Science is the best damn tool we have in our arsenal to get us out of this mess we have created for ourselves. 

Science cannot be classified as a religion  Graham Robb: Cathedral Flickr

That is just it, Science is a tool, or more correctly a process, that helps us measly human beings find out about the world and universe we live in. It is a set of procedures and practices that is best described by understanding the Nature of Science which can simply outlined by the following points. 

1. Nothing comes under the purview of Science unless it can be reliably and accurately measured and/or observed, but as observational technology improves more and more things come under the purview of Science.  
2. Scientist use the Scientific method to gather data (evidence) on patterns, trends, relationships, structures, and order in the phenomena they are studying.
3. The gathered data (evidence) is analysed and collated to propose models, theories and laws that help scientists make predictions and explain phenomena. 
4. Scientist share, discuss and debate proposed models theories and laws in order to determine their predictive and explanatory power and will adapt, modify or reject models, theories and laws that do not fit with empirical evidence (in other words if someone finds something new that doesn't fit, it's back to the drawing board).
5. Currently accepted models theories and laws are are the best conceptual tools we have as a society and a species to make decisions that improve the lives of humans and protect the planet. 

Yet too many in society seem to conveniently forget that Science is done by humans for humans and instead subscribe to the 'Science as religion' mantra. By pushing this mantra they effectively deify Science and make Science either the all knowing and all powerful 'god' forgetting that there is no Science without scientist and last I looked they were all human very capable of making mistakes or being influenced by bias. Or they deify Science as a flawed and shallow god much like the Roman or Greek golds of old that were all about their own selfish interest, forgetting again that there is no Science without scientist and in the vast vast majority of cases these scientist are doing the best they can with what they tools and resources they have available to them. Tools and resources may I remind you that governments and corporation often hold the purse strings to. (It's hard to do good science on a shoe string budget and in today's era it is often only those things corporations and governments are interested in that get the money and I haven't even discussed the publish or perish phenomena that occurs as a result).  

The advances in medical Science has improved the lives of billions of people, but its not perfect, because the science is done by humans  
Photo by Trust "Tru" Katsande on Unsplash

So what is then end result of the deification of Science. Well we end up with two polar extremes, those that think Science will redeem us and solve all the worlds problems if we only throw more money at it and those that distrust anything that 'Science' says because 'it was wrong on such and such phenomena ' (an error that has often long been corrected within the scientific community). The biggest irony of all of this however, is that actual scientist know how the study of Science works, they understand the nature of Science, its strengths and its weaknesses. That is why they talk in probabilities and theories and hypothesis. They know they don't know is all, that they can make mistakes and that such mistakes can have drastic consequences, but that you cannot just sit on your hands and hope for the best because to do nothing means never making any progress. 

So I am asking......Please stop deifying Science. Take the time to learn how it is scientist do their work and recognise them for the often flawed, but heroic human beings that are trying to make the world a better place one study at a time (something that would be a lot easier if vested interests got out of the way). 

Anger as a Cry for Help

To many people anger is a destructive emotion. When in the grips of this powerful emotion people expressing anger say and do things that under normal circumstances they would never dream of. Relationships are damaged and feelings can be irreparably hurt. This is particularly so when the anger of one person is met with anger in return, in such circumstances an all out war is often declared and both parties lose. 

Anger by lazlohollfeld

The consequence of this is that people who rarely let anger take them in its grip are admired and celebrated as the epitome of self control. This can lead many people to believe we must deny this powerful emotion and squash it down, never to see the light of day. The result is that anger becomes an almost social taboo, whereby the expression of anger is seen as wrong and the people that do release their anger are seen to be inferior and even childlike because they have lost control. 

There is a fundamental problem with this perception of anger and this is because we are loosing sight of the role of anger in a social setting. Anger is universal human emotion that serves a purpose, if it didn't evolution would not have allowed it to persist, people who expressed anger would have been quickly eliminated from the gene pool. Yet anger persists in every human so it must serve some kind of purpose according to evolutionary theory. To find that purpose you need to look at what it does to people. In the grip of anger we find that it raises heart and breathing rates, the face flushes, our voices rise in volume, our faces tighten, brows furrow, lips purse, fist clench and our movements become jerky with large movements lack control. As such it is very easy for other people to see when someone is angry. In other words anger is a very very public emotion, it is not hidden or private.

So what does making an emotion like anger public serve in a human community? It says very clearly to all around them that the person experiencing the anger has lost the ability to cope, that they do not have the strategies or power to achieve what they want in more effective and socially acceptable ways. The most obvious example of someone in the grips of anger is a two year old throwing a temper tantrum. As anyone would know who has anything to do with raising a two year old they are very very public about their anger. Usually in a shopping mall when you have told them they cannot have that toy that the store, oh so conveniently placed at the eye level of children. In these circumstances a carer rolls their eyes, before very patiently stating they have enough toys and let's go and feed the ducks in the park, even as they wait patiently for the child to calm down. We do this because we know that getting angry at the child for throwing a tantrum will serve no purpose (even though it may very well push us to the limit of 'I don't need this right now, I have to much too do'). This is because we understand that a two year old cannot understand the nuance of household finances, is frustrated that they do not have the capability to express just how much having that toy would mean to them and really wants to know just how firm that 'No' actually is. Thus when all their attempts to understand and use their words fail them a two year old loses it in a classic temper tantrum because all their very limited socially acceptable strategies have been exhausted. They have no other way to express just how frustrating it is. In these circumstances it becomes the role of the carer to teach the child both limits and more effective ways of expressing themselves in the future. 

Photo by Ryan Franco on Unsplash

Fast forward to working with teens and adults who are expressing anger and it seems that society generally forgets the lessons that our two year olds have taught us about what anger means. Instead we run under the assumption that adults and teens in the grip of anger choose not to exercise self-control and behave irrationally as a deliberate tactic to get what they want from you. Yet we need to remember that our experiences are not other peoples experiences. We need to recognise that not everyone will have effectively learned the strategies needed to communicate and work through their frustrations and that the expression of anger may be the result of a very limited repertoire of strategies for dealing with frustration and may even have become a habitual way of getting what they want from others. 

Consequently anger needs to be recognised for what it is, a cry for help. As someone very publicly announcing they have a limited capacity to work through their frustrations because they either don't have the strategies or power to help themselves. Thus the most appropriate response to seeing someone in the grip of anger is extending understanding and assistance, to teach rather than rail back at them.

For this reason we need to look closer at anger. Recognise anger for what it is and see that those that have effective 'control' over their anger do so because they have learned a vast repertoire of strategies to effectively deal with their frustrations (something that comes with time and experience). While also seeing that building social conventions that frown on people expressing anger is doing more harm than good as it denies people the opportunity to learn effective means of dealing with their frustrations and will eventually lead to explosive, manipulative or maladaptive expression. 

Let me know what you think, and tell me what strategies you use to help manage your frustration before they reach the anger stage.  

Behaviour as Communication

Perhaps the one thing that drives most people crazy is other people's behaviour. Examples range from locking a bike to the most inconvenient place so that it obstructs other pedestrians, driving a car to work with no other passengers despite knowing full well it increases traffic congestion and CO2 emission and staff resisting a new policy implementation despite assurances that it will boost productivity and profits. 

Heather G, Defiance
Image source  

It is extremely tempting in these circumstances to imagine that the people in question are behaving in this manner deliberately. That they know full well that locking the bike to the railing will make it difficult to negotiate the stairs, that they don't care about their carbon footprint and that it is normal for staff to resist change in the workplace. But as tempting as it may be to assume deliberate defiance and recklessness it is also very likely to be wrong (unless the person/s in question has a personality disorder, but it is safe to assume these people are the exception and not the rule). 

The reason we are so tempted to assume others are being defiant, recklessness, and down right obnoxious in their behaviour is that as humans we have a tendency to project our own reasoning onto others. In other words we assume that other people think like us and that because we wouldn't do those things then other people must be doing them deliberately. 

When we fall into this assumption it has an unfortunate side effect, it tends to create a  self-reinforcing feedback that can rapidly spiral out of control. This is because the target of your frustration very quickly realises that you are angry at them, but they don't see any reason that their behaviour should make you angry so they react with anger in turn and pretty soon you have an all out war. 

So how do we prevent all out war between neighbours, community members and staff in organisations? The key is to recognise behaviour as a means of communication.  

Behaviour as communication is not a new concept, in fact in education, psychology and animal behaviour circles it is almost as old as the hills. The problem is that in most instances it has not escaped the silos of these circles to make any explicit headway into the broader community. For example psychologists tend to use it to diagnose and treat patients, teachers use it to help them understand their students and animal behaviorist use it to train animals. In these instances it becomes the responsibility of the psychologist, teacher and trainer to read behaviour as a primary means of communicating something that the patient, child or animal cannot, or is not, expressing effectively. 

For example 20+ years ago I worked as an impounding ranger - you know, a dog catcher. One of the first things I learned is that a dog that is barking, growling and charging at you is not actually aggressive despite the fact that many would assume this is the case. It certainly looks that way to most people. In fact, barking and growling is a behaviour that communicates that the dog is highly anxious, scared, doesn't trust that you will not hurt him and that he would like you to stay away from him at this time. In fact most dogs will do this if they cannot flee or they are defending a territory they feel safe in and don't want you to enter. The last thing you want to do in these circumstances is assume the dog is just being deliberately aggressive and come at a dog with a great big stick (or net). Its a sure way increase the dogs anxiety and get bitten. 

This is a sure fire way to get bitten by a dog.
By National Photo Company Collection - Library of CongressCatalog
Image source

As a high school teacher I have also often encountered students that will say the most disrespectful and horrible things to me with little provocation. It can be tempting to assume that these kids are doing it to deliberately to disrupt the learning. But you don't last long as a teacher if you take every word personally (the stress will kill you), instead you learn to read the outburst as a form of communication that is telling you that the student is not coping with something, i.e. they are frustrated, or anxious or even exhausted from a long day and are not capable of doing the learning you are asking them to do. Reading the behaviour as communication allows a teacher to see that in most instances the outburst is not directed at them, but is an expression of an underlying issue and may even be a cry for help. It doesn't excuse the outburst, but by reacting calmly to it, a teacher can help a student learn to regulate their emotions and it gives the teacher the opportunity to continue to work with the student to find better ways of expressing themselves next time. 

So next time you find yourself tempted to blow up at someone for a behaviour that you think is deliberately antagonistic it might just pay to bite your tongue long enough to ask why they did what they did and approach the situation with a more open mind.  Trust me, not getting into a confrontation is far less stressful to you in the long run than trying to put out the fire once it has started.  

More on the underlying reasons for behaviour another time.