Chicago Columnist Illinois Leader Political Analyst Entrepreneur Business Advisor Chicago Illinois Review

SEIFFE:  The Science Of Social Thought

Thursday, March 9, 2006

By Ralf Seiffe

Of those filler courses we all took in college, a surprisingly valuable one offered at The University of Wisconsin was “The History of Science”.   Unlike required courses such as trigonometry or sociology, this obscure three-credit has proven its enduring value in the half-lifetime that’s passed since I took it.  By applying its main doctrines, today’s controversies are better understood and their outcomes can be better predicted.  

The History of Science was not what I anticipated.  Rather than a shallow survey of scientific breakthroughs I expected to ace, it was a rigorous look at how scientific thought develops.  The course encouraged the idea that science is an eternal debate between various scientists’ points-of-view and that commonalities occur during all scientific advances.  For poets, the wider lesson is that the path of science can serve as a model for the evolution of social thought.  

My old professor’s model of scientific thought included the notion that successive bodies of knowledge, known as paradigms, serve as the “conventional wisdom” at some period of time.  A paradigm would survive as long as it was the best explanation for observed physical phenomena.  Eventually, scientists’ constant experimentation would reveal new facts that contradict the dominant paradigm’s holdings.   Debate would then begin between the paradigm’s supporters and its heretics.  

What I found fascinating was that three behaviors are nearly always present in these scientific debates.  One is that adherents of the existing paradigm become so invested in their viewpoint that they are less-than-objective when looking at the evidence their colleagues develop.  Another predictable activity is that supporters of the losing paradigm--usually the conventional wisdom--are forced to invent ever-more complex theories to explain the contradictions to their viewpoint.  Finally, once the new paradigm proves best, its predecessor quickly fades to obscurity.  

While my professor would have preferred to use the word “paradigm” only to explain vast ideas like heliocentricity or General Relativity, the concept works for almost any intellectual dispute.  It applies to theoretical wisdom just as it does to applications of theory.  The lowly automobile engine proves this concept; at one time the paradigm was that car engines were designed to produce power.  As evidence accumulated that combustion byproducts were toxic and needed to be reduced, supporters of internal combustion invented incredibly complex controls to accomplish that task.  The competing paradigm, a developing “green” propulsion technology such as batteries or fuel cells becomes a rather conceptually simple competitor.   As soon as the “winning” green paradigm proves itself, internal combustion will be replaced quickly.  

One reason this model of scientific evolution works well is that the scientific method values predictability and reproducibility.  When new knowledge is discovered and disseminated, anyone interested can reproduce the experiment and thereby prove the truth to themselves.  When they do, the strength of the new paradigm is reinforced.  

Heroes in the History of Science are those who first describe a new paradigm and start the challenge to the status quo.   When these heroes surface, defenders of the conventional wisdom often question the sanity, faith or motives of the challengers.  The treatment of Copernicus, Columbus, Galileo and DaVinci are good examples of what happens when one contradicts the establishment, regardless of the objective truth of the position.  

Battles between an inflexible status quo and an emerging, better idea aren’t limited to the Renaissance.  We are in the midst of several such battles just now and, in the public policy arena, they are collectively known as the “culture wars”.  The most important of these might be the developing challenge to the Horace Mann paradigm of public education.  

Consider this: the existing government school paradigm is beginning to fail to perform as expected.  When once the system provided a predictably educated flow of entrants into the nation’s work force, the current version of the model is evidently failing.  It’s becoming clear that the doctrine supporting the public school model is showing the symptoms that phrenology once exhibited.  

Nevertheless, those invested in the system refuse to face these accumulating facts.  The nation’s children’s performance plummets yet the academy insists it’s a lack of resources not a failure of dogma.  Indeed, just as the History of Science predicts, theses educational conformists are forced to invent new and ever more complex applications of their theories to explain the mis-match of theory and results.  Special Education, mandatory pre-school for four-year olds, full-year school and mandatory mental health testing are simply the manifestations of the forecasted behavior.  

The status quo’s challengers also suffer predictably; defenders of the existing paradigm meet the new ideas with ridicule and derision. Despite sincere interest in improving our children’s prospects, new thinkers endure fantastic accusations ranging from sabotage of the system, racism and child hate.  Putting up with these charges is how they become heroes.  

What’s most interesting are the History of Science’s teachings regarding the denouement of existing paradigms.   They come undone faster than anyone expects.  As scientists learn of new thinking and reproduce the results through experimentation, they organically prove the idea to themselves.  When they do, the intellectual tide changes quickly.  The minions of the educational status quo understand how this happens and they do all they can to discourage such experiments.  For proof, just look at the money the teachers’ unions spend to defeat any attempt to try new ideas.  They understand that experimentation will happen and when it does, like disappointed alchemists, we will be forced to face the truth.  

© 2006 Ralf Seiffe

Ralf Seiffe advises business start-ups and product launches from Chicago, Illinois and is a political analyst and columnist for the Illinois Leader and Illinois Review.