Outdoor News Bulletin
The Scientific Method as an Approach to Life in the Information Age
We live in a truly amazing age. Anytime we have questions or debates, assuming we have a cell signal, we can promptly summon an answer. “Just Google it,” we so often say. We have the power of the internet right in our hands! It seems so inefficient and wasteful to spend time in rigorous debate when you can simply “just Google it.” Gestational period of bighorn sheep, distributional maps of timber rattlers, average clutch size of bobwhite quail, sunrise, sunset, navigation, weather, and so many infinitely more uses readily available at our fingertips. And with Siri and AI you don’t even have to type it—just say a few words and let the results roll in. Yes. Welcome to the age of information.
However, this seemingly endless compendium of facts and figures isn’t all roses. The power of the internet in the information age is both good and bad, which makes it more important than ever to critically think about the information that is so easily returned. Increasingly it seems we’re in the “conflicting information age” or at times the “mis-information age.” Virtually any belief or thought can be validated regardless of how conspiratorial it might be.
The validation, or confirmation, of preconceived notions or biases is known as confirmation bias. Any individual with a strongly held belief or bias is easily able to confirm that bias through even the most rudimentary search. The depth and breadth of the internet, the ability for anyone to add anything and everything—fact or fiction—increases the likelihood of one’s ability to confirm their bias.
Bertrand Russell captured this notion well before the term “confirmation bias” was coined by saying what I have previously quoted here, “If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance with his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.”
Test it Out
Divergent perspectives regarding any number of issues in the spotlight today can be confirmed with adequate searching. Here’s a test. Pick an issue, absent educating yourself on the issue, form an opinion, and seek to validate it. Once your position is adequately validated, assume a counter opinion and seek confirmation of that side of the issue as well. You’ll likely find just as adequate validation for the counter opinion. The problem is that humans love validation more than we love learning. When a viewpoint is readily and easily validated, it makes it really easy to just accept it as fact and move on, without questioning or confirming a deeper truth (or lack thereof).
Research has shown that humans prefer to have someone compliment them even if they know it’s a lie, rather than having truthful criticism provided. The sheer volume of unfiltered and unregulated words and ideas available on the internet means that we can always be validated even if we’re wrong in our positions. We’d rather have erroneous thoughts and ideas confirmed than change how we see ourselves or face the reality of being wrong.
The problem is that humans love validation more than we love learning.
The process by which our thoughts and opinions form is a critical factor in their malleability. Ironically, positions most quickly adopted and driven by instinct or intuition are those least likely to change. While thoughts and ideas formed through time via evidence-based learning processes are typically more malleable, especially as more evidence becomes available, even contrary evidence.
Scientists Born or Made?
The field of conservation is filled with life-long learners, observers, data geeks, and evidence collectors. Is that because they’re scientists or are they scientists because they were born as life-long learners, observers, data geeks, and evidence collectors? I’m sure I could “just Google it,” and get plenty of answers to that question but my instinct is they make good scientists because they were born with an inherent curiosity and desire to learn. They are more than likely analytical thinkers, who prefer to observe, analyze, and then form conclusions.
Scientists are innately curious with a strong desire to understand how the world works, to ask questions, and to seek answers. They are logical and critical thinkers with great ability to think deeply and analyze information to solve problems and interpret data. They are objective and open-minded, maintain an unbiased perspective, suspend judgment, and are willing to consider different hypotheses and accept evidence even if it contradicts a preferred idea.
They are typically creative and think outside the box. They are patient, attentive to detail, and honest with strong communication skills and are usually great collaborators working well in teams.
The Scientific Method
The scientific method is a systematic approach to gaining knowledge that involves observation, questioning, forming a hypothesis, experimentation, analysis, and drawing conclusions. It's a dynamic process used across various scientific fields to investigate phenomena, test ideas, and build a reliable body of knowledge.
Scientists as a profession are typically trusted by society. Today that trust is eroding and there is more willingness to accept things as fact without digging deeper, without questioning and curiosity, and without critically examining all the various options. Despite the relatively high level of trust for scientists as a profession, when findings are counter to individual values and instincts, people are less moved. Providing more data, more facts, more evidence doesn’t usually change minds, especially if the results are counter to one’s deeply held beliefs. And this is compounded with the ability to confirm anything by “just Googling it,” whether it be controversial issues like predator control, vaccines, or antler point restrictions, or something far more benign… good luck. Maybe this explains why so many appear threatened by evidence-based learning or endeavor to diminish the ranks of such.
What if society developed thoughts and opinions on more pressing matters like conservation via a rigorous weight of evidence approaches like the scientific method? Imagine if observation, analysis, and conclusion informed issues like public land disposal and conservation funding levels. I think approaching challenges with an open mind and scientific method type process could make a positive difference in some of the most conflictual and difficult conservation related topics with which we wrestle.
After all, we employ simple weight of evidence thinking to guide our decisions on more mundane things every day. For example, most of us making purchases on Amazon are using the products star ratings and number of reviews to guide our purchases. A 4.5 star rated product with 5,000 reviews is hard to beat. Choosing a place to dine out is much the same. Isn’t relying on the preponderance of evidence from a multitude of sources just another example of a decision based on the weight of evidence?
I can’t help but wonder what the world would look like if everyone engaged to understand compiled data to inform their perspectives and guide their decisions, employing a science-backed weight of evidence approach. I believe the rigors of the scientific method and the answers yielded, as compared to those answers rendered only via intuition and instinct, make it difficult to witness the dismissal of scientific findings and the disregard of scientists. I will always side with weight-based positions like those yielded by the scientific method and the professional scientists doing the work. Conservation will benefit as a result.
