This is a column I wrote for the AAG Biogeography Specialty
Group newsletter while serving as chair 2017-2019.
Day and Night Science
1. There is no such thing as the Scientific Method.
2. New knowledge is not science until it is made social.
3. Scientists do not find order in nature, they put it
there.
4. Science does not deserve the reputation it has so widely
gained of being wholly objective.
5. What pass as acceptable scientific explanations have both
social determinants and social functions.
Despite your initial reactions, these are quotes from
scientists. The authors are listed at the end of this column. They are presented in the book Never
Pure, by the philosopher of science Steven Shapin. The broad thread through
this book is that there is no one kind of science. Feyerabend (2015) similarly
criticizes the perception of a productive science as one that is singular in
its form of practice. Scholars in the field of science studies have articulated
analogous descriptions of how science works. They have done so in ways that
also negate extreme social constructivist accounts of science in which the
disunity of scientific method becomes an argument to support the acceptance of
creationism and the denial of anthropogenic climate change. This may be no
surprise, as many of us now recognize that science is not value free.
Biogeographer Tom Vale (1988) acknowledged this critical perspective in his
call for wisdom in light of how scalar extent and grain can be used to justify
or refute our interpretations of forest change. Still, do geographical
biogeographers recognize and encourage the diversity of modes of scientific
inquiry? Geographical biogeography doesn’t idolize controlled experimental
science like biology and ecology, for the most part. We test and falsify hypotheses,
but we also are descriptive and rely on context to orient any generalizing
qualities of our research findings. But do we have good philosophical health?
Two recent essays, one from biology and the other from ecology, highlight ways
of thinking that we might reflect upon as biogeographers. Biologists Desai and
Jun (2018) refer to day science, the science that is mechanical, logical, and
seeks to appeal to a universal template of best practice. Night science, by
contrast, wanders, guesses, and considers hunches and patterns. Instinct and
intuition are part of problem solving. Similarly, Schroeter et al (2018)
discuss the difference between divergent and convergent thinking in ecology.
Divergent thinking is the ‘ability to generate multiple unique solutions to a
problem and to connect disparate concepts in unique ways’. It is considered the
foundation of creative ability and complex problem solving. Convergent thinking
differs from divergent thinking in that it results in a correct or best answer,
idea, or solution from a selective number of concepts. When we do research, we
likely use day and night science. Our research will inevitably involve
convergent as well as divergent thinking. But do we tend to value day over
night science? Is convergent thinking worth more than divergent thinking? What
are the implications of our preferences? If we are to encourage and train
creative thinkers and preserve some of the excitement that brought us into
science and geography, we may need to put more value on night science and
divergent thinking. This will ask us to appreciate scholarly work less for the
way in which it adheres to our norms and offers up the slow, safe, conservative
accumulation of knowledge, and more for how it departs from this model and
takes risks.
References
Collins, H. 2009. We cannot live by scepticism alone.
Nature 458(7234)
Desai, A., & Jun, S. 2018. Promoting an “Auteur Theory” for Young Scientists: Preserving Excitement and Creativity. BioEssays,
1800147.
Schroeter, I. M., et al. 2019. Diverging from the Dogma: A Call toTrain Creative Thinkers in Science. Bull Ecol Soc Am 100(1):e01463
Shapin, S. (2010). Never pure: Historical studies of science
as if it was produced by people with bodies, situated in time, space, culture,
and society, and struggling for credibility and authority. Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Feyerabend, Paul, and Eric Oberheim. 2015. Tyranny of
science. Polity Press.
Vale, T. R. (1988). Clearcut Logging, Vegetation Dynamics,
and Human Wisdom. Geographical Review, 375-386. https://doi.org/10.2307/215089
Sources of the quotes. See Chapter 3, pages 32-46 in
Shapin’s book Never Pure for full details.
1. Peter B.
Medawar, Richard Lewontin (biologists)
2. Edward O.
Wilson (biogeographer)
3. Jacob
Bronowski (mathematician)
4. Warren Weaver
(mathematician)
5. Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose (biologists)
5. Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose (biologists)
