Jevaria Onymous

I am currently working on a course titled “Statistics and Research Methods” on Coursera and as part of this course, I am learning some basic ideas about the scientific method from the basic logic components to its application in design and research. I feel it’s been really eye-opening to see how much structure has been given to the process of thinking. As per the course’s section on the history of the scientific method, it evolved from philosophy into systemic logic and principles that we now apply today. A series of thinkers and experimentalists compounded on the ideas of their predecessors regarding what defines true and objective observation. They seemed to have tried to answer the questions of what is considered reliable and how can we trust what others find out about the world?

This is best illustrated when learning about Aristotle’s and Plato’s views regarding the nature of reality and whether the physical and non-physical can be distinguished. They aimed to define the worlds in which the self and our perceivable surroundings exist within. In this sense, the skepticism regarding the objectivity of our senses arose. Questions such as “How do we know we truly perceive the world objectively?” and “Can we trust ourselves?” seemed to define the direction of thinking that eventually manifested in scientific methods.

I have observed from this that in attempting to define the world “outside” of us, we also looked within to determine if we are reliable observers of the world. We also applied this to other people where we questioned whether we could truly trust them with their definitions of the world around us. It seems that the scientific method developed as a guideline, so that we can trust the answers we find.

From an evolutionary perspective, humans evolved social systems based on, and not limited to, the advantage that reciprocity of resources and knowledge provided. An individual would be more likely to survive or at least prolong living if someone, perhaps a tribe member, who encountered a saber-tooth tiger on a certain path told the individual that that path was dangerous. This knowledge sharing aspect of groups could also prove detrimental where a discovery of a seemingly harmless berry or water source can infect an entire group with a disease/sickness. With this in mind, a guideline for information would develop when the risk of it being incorrect outweighs the time or energy it takes to develop it. What do the principles of the scientific method reveal about the risk of error in information and its potential impact on people?

To first define the scientific method, it relies on replicability, repeatability, transparency, and falsifiability. Firstly, replicability relies on the idea that a method can be recreated by someone and produce the same results. Secondly, on the same line of thought, repeatability is the idea that a method can be conducted more than once and produce the same result every time. Thirdly, transparency means that those who execute experiments should be open and honest about all of their methods and procedures for the purpose of understanding the context behind the product (idea/object/observation/statistics). Finally, falsifiability is the idea that it is possible that a claim we make can be proven false. For example, if I say “Elmo is red”, my statement has the potential to be considered false even if people have seen Elmo’s color. If I were to state “Faith is what makes us human,” there is no real way to falsify or state that this statement is incorrect because it’s a subjective interpretation of the world.

Let’s say there is a berry in the region where a tribe is located that when eaten makes having a plumbing system worth it. This berry, however, is one of the few nutrient dense foods in this region during the winter season and improves energy and physical health immensely. A tribe member (we can call her Sapi short for Homo Sapien), discovers that if she prepares the berry over a fire and crushes a fern into it slowly, it cancels out the laxative properties of the berry while preserving the nutrients/energy. She shares this information with the tribe, but when the tribe tries her method exactly as she stated, they are unable to successfully replicate the result and have a diabolical night. Sapi is the only one in the tribe able to create this concoction and therefore, the tribe is reliant on her. From a social perspective, the lack of accessibility gives Sapi social power which she can withhold as a bargaining chip for more resources for herself. However, Sapi is altruistic and is willing to share the concoction with the tribe. The tribe is now able to mask their scent much better from animals that would’ve been able to identify or track their presence due to fecal matter while enjoying the improved physical health. But, let’s say Sapi gets eaten by a saber-tooth tiger. The tribe now no longer has access to the concoction and no longer has access to the nutrient dense berry.

Because the tribe was unable to replicate the experiment with the berry, fire, and fern, they lost an advantage with Sapi when she was unfortunately eaten. Let’s say we travel back in time to see Sapi creating the berry concoction and see that she missed relaying an important aspect of the experiment which is cooking the concoction with a small flame. You see, the fern burns up when cooking at a high temperature, negating the effect of adding it to the berries. Keeping the concoction at a low temperature preserves the properties of the fern added. When Sapi was experimenting on her own, she would have had no need for a big flame to try this concoction. But when she shared it with the group, they started using bigger flames and bigger cooking pots, burning the fern.

Sapi violates 2 of the principles of the scientific method. She violates replicability and she violates transparency. To elaborate on replicability, if you can produce an idea/product in the same manner as someone else has done, then it does not rely on the unique circumstance or individual to execute it. Anyone can execute it and therefore, the method/outcome can be considered accessible. When her tribe could not replicate the experiment, the method/outcome became inaccessible to anyone but Sapi. In the case of transparency, while Sapi’s intentions may be benign, when she failed to inform the group of all variables and conditions under which the concoction was formed and the group was unable to subsequently replicate her methods and results, the group’s survival advantage became dependent on a unique individual, making the advantage inaccessible. In this sense, the errors in replicability and transparency affected access to a survival advantage. Without the berry, the tribe would’ve lacked a resource/access to a certain type of food that could prove to be immensely useful during the winter in supplying nutrients and energy. With the berry, they suffer a disadvantage that makes it easier for animals to track and hunt them. With Sapi’s concoction, the tribe would’ve gained the advantages of the berry without the disadvantage, improving their survival.

From an evolutionary perspective, the risk of error in this case is survival. While the tribe can forgo the berry if the risk of scent tracking outweighs the benefits of nutrients, the concoction was an advantage for the tribe that would’ve allowed them to survive. From a social perspective, dependency on a unique individual for a valuable advantage pertaining to physical survival puts one at risk for being taken advantage of. Sapi could’ve easily bargained for precious furs and hunting materials that would’ve depleted the tribe of valuable assets that aided them in defense in exchange for an aid in physical health.

If Sapi could only have made the conception once, she would’ve also violated repeatability. In that case, things would not have changed. The best case scenario is that circumstances become favorable. In this sense, error in information seems to risk the potential for advantage that propels survival socially and evolutionarily.

This is only one aspect of many different aspects of the error in information. In the cases of deception with information or polarizing information, the impact and advantages are different. What do you believe the principles of the scientific method suggest about the dangers of error in information?