Scientific Method

I came across a fascinating article, titled “How the Average Triumphed Over the Median”, about why we now tend to use the arithmetic mean compared to the median (or even the midrange – have you heard about that before?).

This is a great example of why we should be teaching science history along with science. Science, no matter how “unbiased”, does not exist in a vacuum. It’s full of fights lost and won, skewed cultural perceptions, and a strong insistence on being the one and only truth.

I remember one time trying to make a point that there is a reason our science PhDs are still a Doctorate of Philosophy to a classmate (and was promptly shut down by her with a “science isn’t like that nowadays”). I didn’t have the words then, but I do now.

How we measure, test, and conclude about the world around us has huge implications on how we treat each other, the environment, and other living things. Shouldn’t we put more time into understanding our own biases within the scientific method before blindly believing it to be as good as it gets? Hence, the importance of remembering that even the scientific method is still one type of philosophical thought.

Some times, the arrogance of those who believe the scientific method without questioning really baffles me (it’s borderline cultish). Don’t get me wrong, I believe the scientific method is extremely important. Our understanding of the world has been able to grow with leaps and bounds because of it. At the same time, we don’t acknowledge that the method also narrows our vision and perceptions. What we can’t see with a particular pair of glasses doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.